Quake-Prone Indonesia Pursues Nuclear Power

Rising alarm at the spread of radiation throughout Japan’s watersupply has not deterred one of its major trading partners from goingahead with its nuclear ambitions. Indonesia’s National Nuclear EnergyAgency, also known as Batan, announced on Monday that it had narroweddown the list of bidders for a feasibility study it plans to conductfor two nuclear reactors. The winner of the tender, either PT SurveyorIndonesia or PT Wiratman Associates, will be decided by the end ofApril, says Batan spokesman Ferhat Aziz. “It should take around threeyears for the study to be completed,” he added. “After that, if theplan gets approved, another tender process to build it will takeplace.”

More than two weeks into Japan’s nuclear crisis, Indonesia’s decisionto press ahead with its nuclear power plans has rattled many here. A2006 regulation stipulates that 5% of the country’s electricity shouldcome from nuclear and other renewable sources but energy experts andpoliticians say there are far safer alternatives than nuclear. “Weshould think twice in light of the catastrophe in Japan. If it canhappen there imagine what would happen here where standards are lowerand corruption is still rampant,” says Bara Hasibuan, the NationalMandate Party’s head of foreign relations. “On top of it all thiscountry is very prone to earthquakes.”

(After Japan, will China scale back its nuclear ambitions?)

Indeed, more than 170,000 Indonesians lost their lives in the 2004tsunami caused by an earthquake smaller than the 9.0 quake that joltedthe northeast of Japan. On average, the country experiences 90 naturaldisasters per year and, in 2010, recorded 110 disasters, according toSujana Royat, deputy to the Coordinating Minister for People’sWelfare.

There are questions, too, about whether the country can bear the costof expensive reactors. Developing an Indonesian nuclear program isexpected to cost up to $4 billion. “Indonesia has enough energysources that could not only take care of domestic consumption butcould eventually be exported as well,” said Al Hilal Hamdi, the formerhead of the government’s task force on biofuel development, who is nowdeveloping a number of mini-hydro plants around the country. He addedthat it made little sense to build the plants in Bangka-Belitung, offthe coast of Sumatra, when 80% of the country’s electricity isconsumed on Java, the country’s most-populous island. “Indonesia isnot like Japan which has very little in the way of renewable energysources,” he said. “Indonesia has billions of tons of coals still left inthe ground along with tremendous geothermal and hydro potential.”Batan’s spokesman says the location off Sumatra was chosen for safetyreasons and that underwater cables would eventually transmit theelectricity, depending on the study’s conclusions.

The prospect of dealing with radioactive waste is another cause forconcern in a country that is already struggling to cope with mountainsof garbage, much of which clogs major city streets and waterways.”Indonesia is considering the use of fissile materials in its powerplants and dealing with hazardous waste is going to be a problem,”adds Hilal. “Everybody is in favor of more electricity but when itcomes to building a nuclear power plant, nobody wants one in theirbackyard.”

(See pictures inside Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant.)

Batan officials say the amount of waste would be “minimal” andcontained safely in the reactor. They also see the disaster in Japanas an anomaly and one unlikely to be repeated here. “We believe thearea would be safe as our data shows that the proposed area is notprone to natural disasters like the one in Japan,” says Surip Widodo,the agency’s head of reactor safety and analysis. “But the decision tobuild is still not final so if there are protests and it turns outthat the majority are against the idea, the government should listento the people.”

But Sujana Royat, who was involved in budgetary planning forreconstruction after the 2004 tsunami, cautions that Indonesia needsto think carefully before going nuclear. “There is no standardoperating procedure for a nuclear disaster and no clear policy,” hewarns. “After what happened in Japan I think we need to re-evaluatethe idea because we have to be ready and at the moment we are not.”

See TIME’s complete coverage of the crises in Japan.

See TIME’s Pictures of the Week.