Statusnya ?
Berhubung uranium ini sifatnya adalah radioaktif, apalagi kalu sudah
dilakukan pengayaan menjadi plutonium, ini bahan yang amat strategis, ultra
vital dan "super bahaya", tentunya temuan tambang baik masih dugaan, maupun
terbukti akan bersifat sangat rahasia. Dimana tempatnya di Indonesia kita
juga belum ada litelatur yang buka-buka-an tentang ini. Aneka Tambang pun
belum memplubikasikannya secara terbuka kepada umum, walau ada berita bahwa
potensi - disebut sebagai prospek - uranium Indonesia cukup besar yang bisa
berasosiasi dengan bauxite, aluminium, atau emas ( ? ). Inco di Sorowako,
Newmont atau Freeport hanya menyebut prospek. Aneka Tambang yang di Sumut,
demikian juga bahwa pernah ada berita temuan "potensi" uranium di Sintang
oleh Batan, tapi kelanjutan penilaian kandungannya belum ada berita lebih
lanjut. Jikapun bernilai, tentunya juga agak bersifat rahasia agar
keamanannya terjaga. Prospek yang pernah disebut-sebut di Timor ( juga
Timor Leste ) hingga sekarang tak ada kabar beritanya.( atau Batan belum
perlu publikasi ?? ).
Kalau di Australia ( 35% Uranium dunia dihasilkan dari negara benua ini )
memang sudah terbukti di Ranger, yang katanya mau dijual ke Indonesia jika
PLTN Muria jadi dibangun, juga dari Africa, Rusia maupun di Amerika sendiri
sisanya.
Saya pernah diklat di Batan Pasar Jum'at dan Serpong, saya pikir nuklir
kita aman dan ke depan energy nuklir gak bisa terlelakkan lagi di saat si
emas hitam ini berangsur habis. Ini energy luar biasa bila digunakan untuk
tujuan damai. Listrik, dll ! Toh saat ini kita sudah sehari-hari memakai
sumber radiokatif, enggak terasa khan ?
Masalahnya emang pendidikan rakyat kita yang ketinggalan, sehingga
sosialisasi energi alternatif ini agak tersendat dan mendapat tentangan.
Wong busway dan banjir kanal timur aja ditentang rakyat......apalagi PLTN.
Emang kita masih jaauuuuuuuuuhhhhh...setengah primitif ngkali ?? Setengah
penduduk Papua masih berkoteka...hehehhe ( eh kok jadi nglantur ke
koteka.....hahaha )
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Ismail Zaini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* iagi-net@iagi.or.id
*Sent:* Monday, July 09, 2007 10:53 AM
*Subject:* Re: [iagi-net-l] ASIA is increasingly going NUKLIR
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*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<http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/world/10137620.html>
> 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/
