By James Balowski
Indonesia's intention to go nuclear was made public as far back as 1992. But domestic and international concerns over issues such as safety, waste disposal and economic viability seemed at the time to have persuaded the government to put the project on hold. Since then, there has been little discussion of the issue.
On January 24, Djali Ahimsa, the director general of Indonesia's National Atomic Energy Agency, BATAN, announced that construction of Indonesia's first nuclear reactor would begin in 1998 or 1999. It was envisaged that the plant would become operational some time between 2004 and 2007.
This reactor would be the first in a series of 12 to be built, at a cost of more than US$17 billion, along the north coast of Java and possibly on the island of Bali as well.
Ever since the 1992 announcement, secrecy has surrounded Australian Labor government plans to sell uranium to Indonesia. But evidence gathered by Greenpeace and the Movement Against Uranium Mining showed that even then, it was eager to be a big player in Indonesia's decision to go nuclear. Lured by the prospect of sales in a world uranium glut, the government had been discussing a deal with the Suharto regime.
In 1991, a delegation of Indonesian officials visited the Ranger uranium mine. Shortly after, Ahimsa announced that Indonesia would be happy to import Australian uranium, but that if that were not possible, it could go elsewhere.
On March 18, the Sydney Morning Herald quoted the minister for resources and energy, Senator Parer, as saying he would be "delighted" if new uranium mines were opened and that Indonesia was considered a potential buyer. The chief executive officer of ERA, Phillip Shrivington, said that, subject to the proper safeguards, his company would welcome an opportunity to sell uranium to Indonesia.
Because Labor's three mine policy was policed simply through the minister's excise of uranium export licences, there are no laws or regulations to be repealed in order for the new government's policy to become reality.
Safety fears
Right from the start, the Indonesian government has been plagued by questions of safety. Ahimsa has even admitted, for example, that no-one could give a 100% guarantee that the reactors would not be affected by earthquakes.
Java is located on the "Ring of Fire", so-called because of its frequent violent geological activity. It has more than 100 volcanoes, 15 of which are active. The Seismographic Institute of Jakarta registers two to three earthquakes a day. Java is among the half-dozen places in the world with the highest risk of volcanic and earthquake activity. Over the last century, the epicentres of two major earthquakes were only 50-70 kilometres from the proposed reactor site.
In its 1992 submission to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Greenpeace pointed out that even a relatively small-scale accident would have a phenomenal impact on Java and neighbouring countries. Radiation from the Chernobyl accident spread as far as Scotland, the Atlantic coast of Ireland, Spain and Portugal. Darwin is closer to the Muria Peninsula than Scotland is to Chernobyl.
Java, home to 100 million people, has one of the highest population densities in the world (818 people per square kilometre). As Greenpeace pointed out in its submission, even a small-scale contamination from the plant would have a major impact on the Indonesian economy.
The full impact of a serious nuclear accident in Indonesia is "almost unthinkable". Substantial areas of Java would be severely contaminated and require immediate evacuation. Neighbouring Indonesian islands would also be affected, as would large areas of Malaysia, Singapore, Papua New Guinea and Australia, depending on the season and the wind direction.
Very little attention has been paid to the problem of nuclear waste. BATAN has said it is considering using an uninhabited island to dump the waste. But even state-of-the-art disposal sites are not immune to water encroachment from high rainfall. Water intrusion leads to off-site contamination, and the region's unstable geology also makes this option highly unsuitable. Australia could eventually become the dumping ground for Indonesia's nuclear waste.
According to Dr Clive Hamilton, a research director for the Resource Assessment Commission, who spent the past two years as a senior adviser to the Indonesian government on natural resources and economic policy, there is a widespread belief in the Indonesian government that it "'cannot afford' to adhere to strict environmental standards because growth and development are more important".
Safer alternatives
Apart from the safety aspects, environmentalists have pointed out that, for a country rich in oil, coal and gas and with the potential to generate water power and wind power, the decision to go nuclear makes little economic sense.
Indonesia has geothermal reserves sufficient to provide 16,000 MW of electricity and such plants would be cheaper than either coal or nuclear energy. The reactors are expected to provide only about 12,000 MW.
The World Bank ranked nuclear power last among the options for meeting Indonesia's rising electricity demand. Its 1988 report conceded that "for the short to medium term a nuclear power program can't be justified for Indonesia". It said that Indonesia has "economically developable hydro-electric resources five times its present electricity usage".
Economic costs
The impact on the Indonesian economy will also be considerable. According to independent studies, the initial three reactors will increase the government's 1993 debt level of US$52 billion by US$6 billion, or 12%. If 12 reactors are built in total, the annual debt service will amount to 12.5% of the state's budget for 1993.
Corruption — which is almost endemic in the Indonesian government — may well lead to further blow-outs in the cost of the reactors.
The Bataan reactor built in the Philippines in 1986 has earned the dubious title of "showpiece of corruption" in the nuclear energy business. Before construction even began, the projected costs escalated by 400%, amounting to almost one-fifth of the country's foreign debt. This was largely due to enormous bribes paid to President Marcos by Westinghouse to cut out its competitor, General Electric. The reactor is still inoperative.
Although on a smaller scale, South Korea has experienced similar problems.
In August 1981, a German company, Interatom, was awarded a US$92 million contract to construct Indonesia's 30 MW research reactor in Serpong, despite the fact that it was twice as expensive as the one offered by its US competitor, General Atomic. Interatom won the contract after President Suharto ordered BATAN and BPPT (the Technology Assessment and Development Agency) to "re-evaluate" earlier recommendations. It was generally believed that this was due to intense lobbying by minister for research and technology B.J. Habibie.
Opening new markets
Why are countries such as Canada so keen for Indonesia to develop a nuclear program? Put simply, the problem facing the industry is that nuclear power is bad for your health. So like cigarette manufacturers, it is also turning to Third World countries to find new markets.
Nuclear power supplies less than 5% of the world's energy, less than that contributed by the burning of firewood. But it takes the largest percentage of energy research and development budgets.
In France, the state electricity utility EDF has accumulated debts of over US$39 billion and now has to find the money for the previously overlooked costs of nuclear waste disposal and plant decommissioning.
In the mid-1970s, West Germany put its nuclear program on hold, and plans to reprocess spent fuel have been cancelled. In the former East Germany, the nuclear power industry is being rapidly phased out because of safety fears.
From 1976 to 1989, plans for no fewer than 108 nuclear plants were cancelled in the US. In Canada, plans to build 12 reactors have been shelved. Environmental groups in Indonesia have pointed out the irony that "Canada has found nuclear plants are not economical, because of the public's high demand for safety standards ... [but] now they are dumping nuclear plants on us".