Uranium di kita itu statusnya apa ya , apakah baru Kelas Sumberdaya atau sudah
Cadangan ( cadangan mungkin , cadangan terbukti ) , biasanya untuk menhitung /
membuat detail desain suatu pembangkit itu diperlukan cadangan terbukti dari
suatu sumber energi primernya.
Sebetulnya banyak lho geologist geologist yang ada di Batan ( terutama dimasa
lalu / thn 70 an / 80 an ) yng ikut aktif survey survey uranium waktu itu ,
bahkan beberapa sekarang sudah pada pensiun, mestinya laporannya sudah komplit
, mungkin karena waktu itu Nuklir belum ramai jadinya tidak diperhatikan, sama
waktu laporan ttg lokasi PLTN di jepara itu di publish tahun 90 an Tidak ada
yang mengompentari padahal sudah ada juga studi ttg geologinya ( kegempaan ).
Kalau tidak salah studi tapak untuk menetukan Lokasi PLTN di Jepara ini (
terutama dari segi geologi/kegempaan ) dilakukan oleh konsultan Jepang bekerja
sama dg pakar /konsultan Indonesia pada tahun 1990 an . Kalau seandanya
pembangunan PLTN ini "mulus" mungkin saat ini listriknya sudah nyala., cuma
tidak tahu dampak dampak lainnya yang akan timbul , apalagi dg gempa Jogya dulu
.apakah mempengaruhi PLTN kalau seandainya sudah dibangun. ( atau jangan
jangan kalau PLTN nya sudah dibangun , Ndilalahe pas ada kebocoran pada waktu
hampir bersaman dg gempa Jogya , akan terjadi debat panjang seperti halnya
peristiwa Lusi untuk cari sebab musebabnya )
Mungkin dimasa datang permasalahan pergeologian ( non Oil & gas ) yang akan
banyak mendapatkan perhatian publik banyak perlu ditampilkan/diberi porsi labih
banyak lagi ( misalnya di arena PIT atau yang lain )
ISM
ISM
----- Original Message -----
From: Rovicky Dwi Putrohari
To: iagi-net@iagi.or.id
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: [iagi-net-l] Asia is increasingly going nuclear
Razi,
Saya rasa Indonesia HARUS memulai menginventarisasi cadangan uraniumnya,
secepatnya. Angka 10 tahun yng anda sitir barangkali dari perkataan Pak Menteri
beberapa waktu lalu. Angka durasi 10 tahun ini harus lebih spesifik lagi yang
seharusnya cadangan uraniumnya 24 ribu ton, cukup untuk mengenerate 10 tahun
seandainya digunakan untuk PLTN sebesar 3GW. Sedangkan PLTN yang direncanakan
di Muria hanya 1 GW, ya jadinya bisa 30 tahun kalau, seandainya utk 1GW saja.
(sumber KEN-Kebijakan Energi Nasional).
Catatan tambahan dalam KEN adalah hanya utk KALBAR saja. Kita harus memulai
eksplorasi (inventarisasi) berapa jumlah uranium di seluruh Indonesia.
Bagaimana dengan Indonesia Timur ? Mungkin kawan2 dari pertambangan bisa
memberikan masukan dimana dan berapa kira-kira estimasi (cadangan spekulatif)
yang bisa kita peroleh di Indonesia Timur dll ?.
Walaupun sekarang hanya 24Ribu Ton uranium saja, tap saya yakin dalam 50
tahun kedepan cadangannya akan meningkat seperti cadangan migas yang tahun 70
an dulu sudah diperkirakan habis tahun 90-an. Namun kenyataannya kita masih
memiliki cadangan migas perolehan baru..
rdp
On 7/8/07, M Fakhrur Razi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
australia katanya sudah siap untuk bantu pasok uranium untuk
indonesia dan agreement sudah dibuat tahun 2006. Jadi masalah dengan cadangan
uranium kita yang hanya 10 tahun sudah terjawab dong ya, tapi industri
strategis seperti ini kalo sangat tergantung dengan negara lain bisa gawat juga
ya?
Asia is increasingly going nuclear
Gulf News - Dubai,United Arab Emirates
Asia is increasingly going nuclear
By Abdullah Al Madani, Special to Gulf News
Published: July 08, 2007, 00:23
In his recent survey, Professor Purnendra Jain, head of Asian Studies
at Australia's Adelaide University, holds that many Asian countries are
currently competing for nuclear status in a way not seen since the 1970s. He
supports his conclusion by reports suggesting that 17 of the 28 nuclear power
plants under construction around the world are in Asia.
This is true. In addition to Asia's two giants, India and China,
which are enhancing their nuclear-power generation capabilities, almost all
other Asian states are either on the way to going nuclear or expressing their
intention to have civilian nuclear programmes.
Vietnam, for example, has already decided to install two nuclear
reactors in the coming decade. Thailand is said to be conducting research for
nuclear power with the apparent aim of having a plant operational by 2020.
Malaysia has hinted that it might consider the nuclear-energy option in the
near future. The South Korean government has already announced its decision to
increase the number of nuclear power plants in the country. And Japan, the
world's third largest home to such plants after the United States and France,
seems to be ready to increase its dependency on power generation from nuclear
sources from the current 30 per cent to 40 per cent in the next 10 years.
The Japanese, however, are very careful in this regard, something
that can be attributed to their fear of nuclear accidents similar to the one in
their Tokaimura plant in 1999.
On the other hand, the Hong Kong authorities are under immense
pressure to go nuclear by establishing their own nuclear power plants or
benefiting from those across the border in mainland China.
This is aimed at improving the island's rapidly deteriorating air
quality, caused by its long reliance on fossil fuel for electricity on the one
hand and industrial pollution from mainland China on the other. As Professor
Jain correctly puts it, Hong Kong may lose its business to other Asian
countries if this environmental problem is not quickly dealt with.
Enough uranium available
Focusing on the reasons behind this new nuclear race in the Far East,
one can list numerous driving factors, including the rapidly growing demand for
power due to economic and industrial expansion and the improvement of living
standards; high oil prices in recent years; rising competition for natural
resources; the danger of over-reliance on imported oil and gas for energy needs
from the troubled Middle East; and pressure to use more
environmentally-friendly energy.
Moreover, there is now enough uranium available to commence nuclear
programmes and, unlike fossil fuel, it is cheap. According to a report
published in 2005 by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development,
production of uranium recorded significant increases between 2003 and 2005 with
19 countries mining it, particularly Australia, Kazakhstan and Namibia.
The aforementioned justifications for going nuclear, however, have
been met with severe criticism and opposition from various local organisations
and political forces, despite the increasing support for cleaner and greener
power-generation options. Their argument often concentrates on the high costs
and risks associated with nuclear power, citing the disastrous consequences of
the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in the US and the 1986 Chernobyl
explosion in the former Soviet Union. It also concentrates on the difficulty of
ensuring that nuclear technology once obtained will not be used for purposes
other than civilian.
Perhaps the case of Indonesia is the best example of the ongoing
debate between pro and anti-nuclear option forces in Asia.
Having received a nod from the International Atomic Energy Agency for
its civilian nuclear programmes, Indonesia is planning to start building its
first nuclear power plant by 2010 and four other such plants by 2017 with the
aim of producing at least 17 per cent of the country's power demand from
untraditional sources. It is reported that South Korea has already agreed to
help Indonesia build these plants and provide fissile material and technology.
It is also reported that Australia, the holder of 40 per cent of world uranium
deposits and the second-largest supplier of this commodity after Canada, has
expressed its readiness to cooperate with Indonesia in this field under the
2006 bilateral security agreement.
While Jakarta maintains that its going nuclear policy is
significantly important to ensure a steady supply power for more than 220
million people, overcome power-generation crises in the country's most populous
island of Java, meet the potential threat of inadequate supplies of coal and
natural gas, and protect the environment from harmful pollution caused by the
massive use of fossil fuels, many individuals and groups including legislators
hold a different opinion.
They argue that nuclear power plants are expensive and that they will
be funded at the expense of money allocated for promoting education, health and
housing. They also argue that Indonesia's knowledge base in the nuclear field
is extremely low. Their main concern, however, is about the risks associated
with nuclear power such as radioactive waste, leak or accident, especially with
fundamental Muslim groups targeting vital civilian installations and the
country being prone to natural disasters including earthquakes and floods.
--
http://rovicky.wordpress.com/
