A Comparision of the Merits of Nuclear and Geothermal Energy in Indonesia

A Comparision of the Merits of Nuclear and
Geothermal Energy in Indonesia
Phil Smith
Managing Director
Hoshin, Data Hoshin, Studio Hoshin
Manchester, UK

Consultant Director
PT Multi-Interdana
Jakarta, Indonesia

would appear to be an ideal option for Indonesia’s
diversification. 265 geothermal fields have been surveyed;
although some are not close enough to electricity grids to be
economical (nearly half of the capacity is located in remote
areas of Sumatra). There is a plan to develop 19% of the
country’s most suitable capacity, so that nearly 6GW will be
available; and then to increase this to 9.5GW by 2025.

Abstract—This paper considers the relative merits of
nuclear to geothermal power, largely from an economic
perspective, but also with references to environmental,
social and political issues. Both nuclear and geothermal
have the potential to produce large amounts of base
electricity, necessitating well-developed grids. Both have
very low operation and maintenance costs. But both have
very high capital costs, and therefore interest rates have a
major impact on their financial viability.

Pertamina, PLN and private sector investors have been
identified for large scale development in Bali, Java, Sulawesi

and Sumatra (Bali, and Java share a grid, which connects to the
Sumatra grid). The Government and PLN will take a lead in
other regions, where small scale development is planned [3].
However, even these plans look unambitious when compared
with the Philippines where 27% of total energy is derived from
geothermal [4].

The current feed-in tariffs appear to suggest that
investing in either is now attractive, but that the tariffs are
so high they are likely to increase the cost of electricity (as
they are significantly higher than domestic supply and most
industrial tariffs). Although over the long term Indonesia
may need to invest in both nuclear and geothermal, to meet
its increasing demand for electricity, the model suggests
that Indonesia should first focus on its geothermal
resources.

$12bn of investment is required to achieve the initial 6GW
of geothermal generation, or $30bn for the full 9.5GW, of
which it is anticipated that 70%-80% will come from the
private sector. The World Bank has pledged a $300mn loan,
with the potential for more from its Clean Technology Fund.

Nevertheless, local opposition to nuclear probably
means that geothermal will take precedence, for political
rather than, economic reasons. Long-term international
investment in nuclear and geothermal will require the
generous published feed-in tariffs to remain in force, as
Indonesian public finances would be stretched to internally
fund all of the necessary development.

For private investors, the tender process is currently that the
Government, or Local Government (as it is now their
responsibility), conduct a preliminary survey and initial
exploration activities to define the field. Private companies
then conduct advanced exploration, a feasibility study,
followed by exploitation and steam production activities. The
private company that conducts the advanced exploration is
expected to then supply the electricity. In the past, the
company producing the steam and the company producing the
electricity were different, creating commercial conflict and
production co-ordination issues [5].
However, recent
legislation makes it mandatory for them to be the same
company.
Nevertheless, the commercial reality is that
exploration companies may not develop a field that others
would wish to exploit, meaning that the exploration company
and producer are not necessarily the same.

The remoteness and limited electricity network
development in much of eastern Indonesia means that
despite generous feed-in tariffs, development of large scale
generation schemes will be limited to those initiated by
Government, curtailing the community and economic
development of some of Indonesia’s most deprived
communities.
Keywords—Nuclear Energy, Geothermal Power; Indonesia;
International Investors; Market Regulation

I.

INTRODUCTION

In 2012 the feed-in tariff for geothermal was increased to
between $0.10 and $0.185 [6], depending on the voltage and
location. These both reflect the difficulty in developing large
scale infrastructure in eastern Indonesia and its shortages of
electricity, especially low cost non-diesel generated electricity.

The National Electricity Development Plan [1] forecasts
that by 2027 electricity demand will be 813,000GWh, with
increases of 7-9% per annum. It also outlines plans for an
additional 217GW of capacity; meaning that Indonesia needs to
invest $4-$5bn per annum in generation plant and transmission
infrastructure. Indonesia must diversify its energy sources [2]
to avoid the ecological impact of investment in coal fired
power stations and to avoid a trade debt crisis from imported
oil and gas.

A possible alternative to geothermal would be to develop
nuclear energy. Like geothermal it supplies base power,
produces large quantities of electricity (far greater than the
average geothermal field) and therefore requires high levels of
capital investment. Both really require well-developed grid
systems and are ill-suited to small scale development, meaning

Indonesia has the largest geothermal energy capacity in the
world (around 38% of the global resource), and therefore, this

978-1-4673-5785-2/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

Visiting Scholar, VEPR
Vietnam National University
Hanoi, Vietnam


160

Quality in Research 2013


For geothermal the cost data is less contested (although the
learning curve and economies of scale are still important);
sources include:

that Java, Sumatra and Bali are the most obvious areas for their
development.
Indonesia began its nuclear activities in 1954 and had its
first test reactor in 1965. It now has test reactors in Bandung,
Pasar Jumat and Serpong south of Jakarta, and Yogyakarta [7]
Indonesia also has a cadré of nuclear professionals and
technicians and well developed programmes for training
nuclear professionals [8]. Although Permana [9] argues that
these professionals may be poached by neighbouring countries
such as Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Potential
sites for civilian reactors to generate electricity include:

 Engineering and Consulting Firms Association, [14];
 Geotherm Ex Inc., [15];

 PT Castlerock Consulting, [16] [17];
 Sanyal, [18];
 Sanyal, et al. [19];
 SKM, [20];

 Muria in Jawa Tengah;

 Smith, [21].

 Kramatwatu-Bojonegara in Banten;

The main assumptions are analyzed in a spreadsheet model,
these are:

 Bangka in Bangka-Beitung;
 Banjarmasin in Kalimantan Barat (largely in response to
a proposal to develop a reactor in neighboring Sarawak,
Malaysia).

TABLE I.
Nuclear

At this stage two 1,000MWe reactors are proposed for each
site. Of these, the least contentious and therefore, the most
likely to be built, is Bangka, although the entire program has
been thrown into some doubt following the disaster in
Fukushima, Japan. Feasibility studies will need to be finished
on all sites, which are between 3 and 7 years before
completion.
II.

COST ASSUMPTIONS USED IN SPREADSHEET MODEL ($MN.)

MW

Capital Costs
Annual Operating
Costs
Decommissioning
Costs

Costs Low
1400e

2000e

1000e

1400e

2000e

1,000

1,400

2,000

4,000

5,600

8,000

29

40

57

40

56

80

52

73

104

400

560

800

Geothermal

METHODOLOGY

Costs Low

MW

In order to compare the relative economic merits I have
constructed a discounted internal rate of return model, similar
to those that international investors would use when
considering investing in large capital projects. For the model,
cost and revenue data has been taken from a variety of sources.
For nuclear these include:

Capital Costs
Annual Operating
Costs
Decommissioning
Costs

 Energy Fair, [10];

Costs High

1000e

20

Costs High

50

100

20

50

100

43

61

111

74

102

146

0.4

1.0

2.0

0.6

1.5

3.0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Nuclear overnight costs (or capital costs) are generally
expressed in $/kWh (which is another source of cost variability
as plants rarely run at full capacity), meaning that there is no
apparent reduction for larger reactors. This is because the
effects of the learning curve are more important than
economies of scale. Although economies of scale do exist;
lacking evidence of what this discount should be, I have had to
apply a standard rate.

 International Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency
and Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development, [11];
 World Nuclear Association, [12].
These have been used because they seem to be a little more
independent than some sources.

The costs of nuclear
production is a highly contentious area, vendors claim
exceptionally low costs and the vociferous anti-lobby claim
much higher lifetime costs, when all issues are considered.
The great variability in the costs identified in the various
studies, is a part of the reason for this; with importance of the
learning curve and economies of scale in nuclear energy
developments.

Geothermal fields and plant have a lifespan of around 25 to
30 years that I have applied to the high cost (25 years) and low
cost model (30 years) respectively. Third plus generation
nuclear plants are double these at 50 to 60 years. As this is a
discounted internal rate of return model I have included
discount rates of 12.5%. However, nuclear reactors often come
with cheap or interest free loans from the vendor countries (as
is the case for the Russia reactors proposed in Vietnam [22]).
For income I have used the $0.10 and $0.185 per kWh, the
current tariffs for geothermal, for both geothermal and nuclear
development.

The First of Kind (FOAKE) costs of developing and
building a reactor are always high and know for substantive
cost overruns [13]. In addition, early nuclear programs never
run at anything like capacity with scheduling and transmission
being constant problems for these programs. Nevertheless,
China and Korea are showing that, the large scale development
of a single reactor technology can dramatically reduce the
levelized cost of electricity (LCOE).

The low and high costs form the parameters for the model,
along with low and high revenues. I then look at average costs,
which of course over-simplifies the myriad of permutations
which exist in the real world. The actual costs of developments

161


The model shows that for all sizes of power plant
geothermal produce a greater return than nuclear (see line
labeled Discounted IRR in Table III). In other words Indonesia
should focus first on developing its geothermal resource before
it’s nuclear. Although over the long term it may need to invest
in both (certainly in Java and Bali achieving a balance of
sources is important in offsetting fluctuations in the relative
costs of different generation technologies), but as much as
possible, geothermal should be developed prior to nuclear.

will depend on many things, including the network availability
and capacity, current energy mix and availability, the
geography and geology of the site and the profile of the
demand. A detailed feasibility study is required to assess
individual investments in either nuclear, or geothermal. This
paper only attempts to provide a comparison of these two
technologies for the purpose of supporting Indonesia’s energy
policy and decision making within the context of the policy.
III.

RESULTS

The average cost model (in Table III) also makes clearer
the likely attitude of international investors. It would appear to
suggest that investors may be interested in building nuclear and
geothermal plants in return for future revenues; although this
may not really help to solve the electricity shortages in eastern
Indonesia, where geothermal fields tend to be much smaller
[23], offering lower returns (see line labeled Discounted IRR in
Table III), populations are dispersed and grids are less
developed.

Given the $/kWh standard costs for nuclear; it is difficult to
directly compare costs and returns to geothermal plants of
differing capacity. However, all permutations make a profit
and therefore have a positive rate of internal return (see line
labeled Discounted IRR in Table II). As this is a discounted
model, the cost of capital has already been factored in, so any
positive return represents a real profit. Nevertheless, my model
suggests that geothermal appears to produce a higher rate of
internal return than nuclear. Although of course, in some
actual situations, a detailed feasibility may contradict this
finding.
TABLE II.

Costs Low/Revenue High
1000e

2000e

20

50

100

5,000

58

81

128

Interest

22,400

31,360

44,800

229

319

503

Operations
and
Maintenance
Decommissio

-ning
Total Costs

1,860

2,604

3,720

14

34

68

226

316

452

0

0

0

24,486

34,280

48,972

243

353

571

Revenue

56,655

79,317

113,311

571

1,428

2,955

Discounted
IRR

2.27

2.27

2.27

4.84

10.88

14.91

1000e

1400e

2000e

4,000

5,600

8,000

Interest

8,250

11,550

16,500

28,000

39,200

56,000

Operations
and
Maintenance
Decommissio
-ning
Total Costs

1,720

2,408

3,440

2,000

2,800

4,000

52

73

104

400

560

800

10,022

14,031

20,044

30,400

42,560

60,800

Revenue

82,651

115,711

165,301

30,660

42,924

61,320

Discounted
IRR

12.08

12.08

12.08

0.02

0.02

0.02

50

2000e

3,500

2,000

20

1400e

2,500

1,400

MW

1000e

Geothermal

Capital

1,000

Costs Low/Revenue High

MW

Nuclear

Costs High/Revenue Low

Capital

Geothermal

1400e

MODEL COSTS, REVENUE AND INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN
($MN.)

Average Costs

and Revenue

MODEL COSTS, REVENUE AND INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN
($MN.)

Nuclear
MW

TABLE III.

IV.

The model results show that both nuclear and geothermal
have the potential to produce large amounts of base electricity.
Both have very low operation and maintenance costs, largely
because neither consumes large quantities of fuel (unlike for
example coal, oil and gas fired power stations). Nevertheless,
both have very high capital costs, and therefore the cost of
capital, or appropriate discount rate, has a major impact on
their financial viability.

Costs High/Revenue Low

100

20

50

100

Capital

43

61

111

74

102

146

Interest

188

266

485

278

383

548

Operations

and
Maintenance
Decommissio
-ning
Total Costs

12

30

60

15

38

75

0

0

0

0

0

0

200

296

545

293

420

623

Revenue

788

1,969

3,938

355

887

1,971

Discounted
IRR

9.82

18.82

20.75

0.85

4.45

8.67

DISCUSSION

Prices for uranium are forecast to increase due to limited
supply and increasing demand, however, Indonesia’s own
resources are sufficient to supply all of its needs [24]. Even if
it does need to import uranium and costs rise drastically,
nuclear plants use so little that this would hardly place an
impact on overall costs. The issue of energy security is
probably more significant, which includes which countries’
technology Indonesia will use and therefore which country it
will be dependent on. This is true to a lesser extent for
geothermal, with drilling and exploration being quite
specialized and normally conducted by international oil and gas
companies.

Table II shows great variability in potential costs and
revenues; therefore, we cannot be clear about much, in such a
broad and simplified model. What is perhaps more important
is the average costs and average revenue model in Table III.

162


Within Indonesia there is a very vocal anti-nuclear lobby;
which has not only protested against nuclear power, but also
called for a resistance movement. For example, Nahdlatul
Ulama declared a fatwa on nuclear power which they have
found to be haram (Hindu groups in Bali have a similar
objection to geothermal)! Undoubtedly, the powerful coal
industry will support and possibly promote such dissent.
Whilst this opposition may not derail Indonesia’s nuclear
program, it will certainly lead to further delays and favor
geothermal development.

It could be argued that the most important economic
consideration is that of the financial risk and who mitigates
them? The massive variations in the internal rates of return
between the low cost/high return and high costs/low return
models point to the high level of risk of any endeavor for either
the Indonesian Government, or international investors, in
developing either nuclear, or geothermal, in Indonesia. There
are a number of geological and technical factors which feed
into this, but the model shows that discount rate (or capital
cost) is the most important element of this (see line labeled
interest in Tables II and III).

It could be argued that, there are too many uncertainties to
reliably construct a comparison of nuclear to geothermal.
Nevertheless, a simple comparison of the issues that I have

identified (see Table IV) would appear to suggest that
geothermal should be developed prior to the nuclear program.
So whilst both are relatively cheap, my model suggests that
geothermal is cheaper than nuclear, hence I have rated
geothermal ‘++’ and nuclear slightly less positively is rated at
‘+’. It is a similar position for energy security, with nuclear
relying on overseas vendor technology and comes with greater
financial risk, reflecting the greater uncertainties that come
with it. In part, these uncertainties are due to the unknown
decommissioning technologies and costs for nuclear (proving
an assessment of ‘-’). Neither nuclear, nor geothermal have a
major environmental impact, although by their nature do
occupy a lot of land, often in environmentally sensitive areas.
Perhaps, the most significant obstacle to nuclear is the antinuclear lobby in Indonesia, meaning that further geothermal
development will occur long before any nuclear development.

Chevron already has a program of geothermal development
in Indonesia and Tata have expressed interest; this proves that
international investors are prepared to invest in geothermal
exploration and production. For nuclear, it is normal for the
host country to bear a much higher proportion of the risk
involved. Indeed, Indonesia, in common with many countries,
wants to retain some control over its nuclear program. The
escalating costs of nuclear mean that, even with access to cheap
capital, Indonesia would be taking on a major financial risk,
potentially impacting on future economic stability. Indeed a
consortium of the German companies (E.ON and RWE) have
recently pulled out of building three reactors in the UK [25],
following escalating costs [26].
A major uncertainty for nuclear, is the cost of

decommissioning [27]. In my model I have assumed fairly
high costs for decommissioning (see line labeled
decommissioning in Tables I, II and III), notwithstanding the
fact that there still is no adequate technical solution for disposal
of high level radioactive waste. It is likely that the countries
supplying the technology will bear some of this risk, but it
remains a major area of uncertainty [28]. For geothermal
whilst there are some decommissioning costs, these are
normally less than the scrap value of the plant.

TABLE IV.

COMPARISON OF NUCLEAR TO GEOTHERMAL
Nuclear

Cost per kWh
Energy Security
Reduced Financial Risk to Indonesia
Decommissioning and Safety
Environmental Impact
Internal Opposition

There is the contested issue of safety, particularly in area
with high seismic activity, which the recent disaster at
Fukushima, in Japan, highlights. However, nuclear power has
a strong safety record compared with many industries [29]. In
addition, the third plus generation reactors, that are likely to be
built in Indonesia, incorporate a number of safety features.
Nevertheless, Alan Marshall [30], possibly xenophobically,
casts doubt on Indonesia’s ability to manage and maintain such

potentially dangerous technology (contrary to the opinion of
the International Atomic Energy Agency).

V.

+
+
+
+
-

Geothermal

++
++
++
++
+
+

CASE STUDIES

Neighboring France and Germany provide an interesting
comparison in terms of their overall energy policies and
commitments to nuclear power.
Concerned about energy security France has a longstanding commitment to nuclear power, indeed, France
generates over three-quarters of its electricity from 58 nuclear
reactors [31]. In addition, France is the world's largest net
exporter of electricity due to the very low cost of generation
(arising from the economies of scale and effects of the learning

curve from investing in so many nuclear power plants).
Whilst electricity is not as deregulated as in other EU countries,
French consumers and industry do enjoy comparatively low
prices. France also exports nuclear technology and fuel
products. Geothermal heating systems and heat pumps are
widely used in France and there are three geothermal fields in
operation in France’s overseas territories.
However,
geothermal development for electricity production has really
not been exploited in France; given the strong policy steer

Both nuclear and geothermal energy are believed to have a
small environmental impact (ignoring the issues of high grade
radioactive waste), with their main environmental impact being
in their construction and decommissioning. For large nuclear
reactors the environmental impact of their construction and the
transport of materials for their construction are huge. But then
this is offset by the fact that nuclear reactors produce a large
amount of clean electricity! Both nuclear and geothermal
plants tend to be located in remote and often environmentally
sensitive locations, requiring full AMDALs as a part of their
feasibility stage.
Again their construction and
decommissioning is the main issue here, particularly in terms
of disturbing the habitat of endangered plants and animals.

163


argued [33] that providing electricity to the remote areas of

eastern Indonesia would provide a significant boost to
community and economic development.

towards nuclear and only recently have exploration licenses
been granted to exploit its significant potential.
Germany is home to a significant green lobby including a
number of Alliance 90/Green Party politicians.
Public
sentiment was severely tested by the Fukushima disaster,
resulting in a commitment to close all of Germany’s nuclear
power plants by 2020. Currently four-fifths of Germany’s
electricity comes from fossil fuels and nuclear, the Federal
Government plans that within 40 years four-fifths will come
from renewables [32]. Geothermal is being actively promoted
within these renewables, but is currently very under-developed.
Electricity prices are rising sharply to underpin this investment
in new generation and transmission systems (smart grids) and
consumption per capita is forecast to decline. The Federal
Government believes that this will put Germany at the
forefront of renewable technology, opening opportunities in
major export markets and offsetting the decline of high energy
consuming industries, such as chemicals. In addition, by
reducing the reliance on imported fossil fuels, Germany will
achieve greater energy security.

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]
[3]

[4]

[5]

Despite very different strategies, both France and Germany
show a high level of concern for energy security and are using
energy policy to support industrial policy. As Indonesia
matures, it will also need to consider energy much more
strategically; with decisions over nuclear and geothermal taken
on more than just cost.
VI.

[6]

[7]
[8]
[9]

CONCLUSION

International investment in nuclear and geothermal will
require the generous published feed-in tariffs to remain in
place, which almost certainly means increasing the price of
electricity.

[10]
[11]

The main vendors that are likely to be considered for

nuclear include those from Russia, Japan and Korea. Other
potential vendor countries include the US and France, both of
which are likely to charge far more for their technology than
Russia, or Korea; although India may also enter the market
with highly competitive reactors. Over the long term the
learning curve and economies of scale would suggest that
Indonesia should choose a particular reactor technology and
stick with it, but which should it be?

[12]
[13]
[14]

[15]
[16]

The major vendors of geothermal drilling and production
facilities are in the US, Australia and Germany; although Tata,
of India, is also actively exploring opportunities in Indonesia.
Whilst strong economies of scale exist, these are not really tied
to the technology so it would be possible to use a number of
vendors. Nevertheless, the issue on choice of vendor country
for both nuclear and geothermal is as much an issue of
international politics as it is economic! But perhaps the
greatest issue Indonesia faces is internal opposition to nuclear;
therefore, it is more likely that internal politics will dominate
investment decisions, more so than the relative merits of the
various technologies available for base electricity generation.

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

Finally, despite the generous feed-in tariffs, especially for
eastern Indonesia, it is unlikely the much development will
occur for domestic consumption, other than those initiated by
Government, as a result of the difficulties and uncertainties
identified. This is an opportunity missed as I have previously

[21]

164

Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, The national electricity
general plan (RUKN) 2008 ––2027. Jakarta, Ministry of Energy and
Mineral Resources, 2008.
International Energy Agency, Energy policy review of Indonesia.
Paris,International Energy Agency, 2008.
Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, Master plan development of
electricity 2010 -2014. Jakarta, Ministry of Energy and Mineral
Resources, 2009.
de Wilde, A. Accelerating geothermal development in Indonesia 2009.
( />NXEWSM4DTZVUQ6I91OC3058JP2KBLF/Enclosure%203.pdf?
t=bEZ8bHg4YWU2fDBEAx4pApO6FmeANLHG44qX
(accessed
3/1/12).

de Wilde, A. Accelerating geothermal development in Indonesia 2009.
( />NXEWSM4DTZVUQ6I91OC3058JP2KBLF/Enclosure%203.pdf?
t=bEZ8bHg4YWU2fDBEAx4pApO6FmeANLHG44qX
(accessed
3/1/12).
Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resource, Regulation of the No. 22 of
2012 (Reg. 22/2012), Jakarta, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resource,
2112.
International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), Country report:
Indonesia. Vienna, IAEA, 2011.
International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), Country report:
Indonesia. Vienna, IAEA, 2011.
Permana, S. Research and development of nuclear science and
technology in preparing the nuclear industry in Indonesia. Journal of
Sustainable Energy and Environment, vol. 3, 2012, pp. 67-72.
Energy Fair, The financial risks of investing in new nuclear power
plants, Anglesey, UK, Energy Fair, 2012.
International Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development, projected costs of
generating electricity. Paris, OECD, 2010.
World Nuclear Association, The new economics of nuclear power,
London, World Nuclear Association, 2005.
Energy Fair, The financial risks of investing in new nuclear power
plants, Anglesey, UK, Energy Fair, 2012.
Engineering and Consulting Firms Association, Pre-feasibility study for
geothermal power development projects in scattered islands of east
Indonesia. Tokyo, Engineering and Consulting Firms Association, 2008.
GeothermEx, Inc. An assessment of geothermal resource risks in
Indonesia. Richmond, CA, GeothermEx, Inc., 2010.
PT Castlerock Consulting, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources

Phase 1 report: review and analysis of prevailing geothermal policies,
regulations and costs. Jakarta, PT Castlerock Consulting, 2010.
PT Castlerock Consulting, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources
Phase 2 Report: The new geothermal policy framework (draft). Jakarta,
PT Castlerock Consulting, 2011.
Sanyal, S. Cost of geothermal power and factors that affect it. Stanford
University, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering, 2004.
Sanyal, S., Morrow, J., Butler, J. and Robertson-Tait, A. Cost of
electricity from enhanced geothermal systems, Stanford University,
Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir,
2007.
SKM, Assessment of the current costs of geothermal power generation
in New Zealand (2007 basis). Auckland, Sinclair Knight Merz, 2009.
Smith, P. The Potential for investment in Indonesia's geothermal
resource, International Journal of Engineering and Technology. April 3,
2012.


[28] Marshall, A. The case against nuclear power development in Indonesia.
Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, vol. 5, issue. 1, 2012, pp.
1-5.
[29] Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre, Nuclear power generation in the
APEC region. Tokyo, Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre, 2004.
[30] Marshall, A. The case against nuclear power development in Indonesia,
Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, vol. 5, issue. 1, 2012, pp.
1-5.
[31] International Energy Agency, Energy policy of IEA countries: France.
Paris, International Energy Agency, 2009.
[32] Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, Germany’s new energy

policy: heading towards 2050 with secure, affordable and
environmentally sound energy, Berlin, Federal Ministry of Economics
and Technology, 2012.
[33] Smith, P. Sustainable development options for Papua? International
Journal of Technology, vol. 2, issue. 2, 2011, pp. 171-178.

[22] Smith, P. Renewable energy options for Vietnam: an economic and
social appraisal, Proceedings of the Forth International Conference on
Vietnamese Studies, 26-28, November. Hanoi, Vietnam Academy of
Social Science, 2012.
[23] Engineering and Consulting Firms Association, Pre-feasibility study for
geothermal power development projects in scattered islands of east
Indonesia. Tokyo, Engineering and Consulting Firms Association, 2008.
[24] Permana, S. Research and development of nuclear science and
technology in preparing the nuclear industry in Indonesia. Journal of
Sustainable Energy and Environment, vol. 3, 2012, pp. 67-72.
[25] (accessed 29/3/12).
[26] Energy Fair, The financial risks of investing in new nuclear power
plants, Anglesey, UK, Energy Fair, 2012.
[27] Nuttall, W. and Roques, F. Certain aspects of the sustainability of
nuclear power. CESSA Working Paper. University of Cambridge, 2008.

165