Indonesia’s commitment remains the same as mentioned in its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) submitted to the UN last July: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 29 percent independently or up to 41 percent with international support by 2030. We are also exploring scenarios that could lead to net zero by 2060 or sooner.

Although critics say that our commitment is not ambitious enough, meeting this goal requires a bold move: ending our reliance on fossil fuels and transitioning to green energy options.

What are those green options? The most popular green sources are solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass and, last but not least, nuclear energy. However, many environmentalists oppose nuclear power. Why?

They often cite the risks caused by geographical factors and the underutilization of existing renewable energy sources to defy nuclear power. Indonesia is prone to earthquakes and volcanic activities as it sits within the Ring of Fire. Such a geographical disadvantage would make a nuclear power plant vulnerable to an accident.

However, Indonesia actually has several regions that are less prone to natural disasters and are therefore safe for building nuclear power plants, such as Borneo, Bangka Belitung and the Riau Islands.

Many environmentalists are also obsessed with “safer” alternative energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and biomass. Empirically, these alternative sources are not entirely environmentally friendly. For example: 1) at the end of their operation, solar panels produce tons of toxic waste; 2) wind power needs much land usage and degrades habitats for wildlife; 3) the operation of hydroelectric generators harms surrounding wildlife and produces emissions from reservoirs; 4) geothermal power may cause surface instability and uses a lot of water in its processes; and 5) biomass power generation releases methane and CO₂ into the atmosphere.

How about nuclear? Nuclear power is clean and sustainable, and its waste has never been a real problem. Nuclear power does not produce direct CO₂ emissions. In a nuclear power plant, the generated heat is used to create steam, which drives turbines to produce electricity without emitting harmful substances.

Nuclear power is also the most land efficient and energy-dense source of energy. It uses fewer resources to generate a high amount of energy. This fact makes nuclear power a practical solution to support decarbonization.

Nuclear power is also reliable. Nuclear reactors can produce constant power because they can operate on longer stretches. They are also known for their flexibility because their energy output is adjustable by limiting steam and slowing down reactions inside the reactors.

Due to its excellent efficiency and reliability, 33 countries are enjoying the benefit of nuclear energy through 443 nuclear power plants currently in operation. According to the World Nuclear Association, around 50 more nuclear power plants are under construction, and about 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power programs.

Even after the Fukushima accident in Japan more than 10 years ago, nuclear power capacity worldwide is rising steadily.

The thought of nuclear accidents is certainly scary. However, there have only been three serious nuclear accidents worldwide. First, the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in the United States was caused by a malfunction of the cooling system, which caused the core and fuel to melt. No one was killed or injured during the accident.

Second, the 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine happened because of a flawed reactor design and inexperienced operators. Two operators were killed in the explosion and a few weeks later, 28 operators and firemen died of severe radiation.

Third, the 2011 Fukushima accident in Japan was caused by a 15 meter tall tsunami that disabled the electricity and cooling system and caused the cores to melt. No one was killed during the accident. However, there is one operator who died seven years later due to cancer, which the Japanese government believes to be related to the accident.

Granted, these accidents are terrible, but they are “nothing” compared to the death rates in other energy fields, as shown in the table.       

Since the Sukarno era, Indonesia has considered developing nuclear power. Unfortunately, the ambition and commitment has faded away over time. Back in 2013, the National Nuclear Energy Agency (Batan) announced its plan to develop a mini nuclear power reactor in Serpong. Two years later, Indonesia signed a contract with the Russian Nuclear power company ROSATOM for the design of the reactor.

However, we have still not witnessed a single nuclear power plant operating in Indonesia. What we have had for decades are three research reactors: a 30 megawatt (MW) reactor in Banten; a 2 MW reactor in Bandung; and an 100 kilowatt reactor in Yogyakarta, all under Batan’s auspices.

Despite the lack of progress in nuclear advancement, Indonesia has more experience and better infrastructure in nuclear technology than any other Southeast Asian country.

Many activists fear that having nuclear power means turning to nuclear proliferation, which is baseless. Nuclear technology has, yes, a dual use, meaning that countries with nuclear power plants can use their nuclear materials and equipment to develop nuclear weapons. But just because they can, does not mean that they will.

Developing nuclear weapons does not only require advanced technical capabilities, it requires a strong and long-term financial, military and political commitment. Even if a country meets all of the requirements, there are 10 international treaties on nuclear non-proliferation and export control that make the economic and political costs of developing nuclear weapons extremely high, not to mention the severe consequences coming from great powers and the international community in general.

Since 1945 only nine countries have possessed nuclear weapons. This number surely says something.

To sum it up, if we want to fight climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions significantly, we have to make nuclear power part of our solution.

Just like in any other projects, there are risks in developing nuclear power plants. Rejecting the idea solely because of fear is unacceptable. What we should do instead is to ask these three basic questions: What could go wrong? How likely is it that it will happen? And if it happens, what are the consequences?

As human beings who do not have a pseudo moralistic stance on climate change, we should have an open mind, evaluate our fears and carefully weigh the pros and cons of nuclear power.

 ***

The writers are analysts on political security at Laboratorium Indonesia 2045 (LAB 45).