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-Int

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

Visiting Scholar, VEPR Vietnam National University Hanoi, Vietnam phil@hoshin.co.uk

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

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

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

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

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

Indonesia has the largest geothermal energy capacity in the

world (around 38% of the global resource), and therefore, this

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

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]

$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 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

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

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

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:

 Muria in Jawa Tengah;

 Kramatwatu-Bojonegara in Banten;

 Bangka in Bangka-Beitung;

 Banjarmasin in Kalimantan Barat (largely in response to

a proposal to develop a reactor in neighboring Sarawak,

Malaysia)

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 METHODOLOGY

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:

 Energy Fair, [10];

 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

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)

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

 Engineering and Consulting Firms Association, [14];

 Geotherm Ex Inc., [15];

 PT Castlerock Consulting, [16] [17];

 Sanyal, [18];

 Sanyal, et al [19];

 SKM, [20];

 Smith, [21]

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

TABLE I C OST A SSUMPTIONS U SED IN S PREADSHEET M ODEL ($ MN )

MW 1000e 1400e 2000e 1000e 1400e 2000e

Capital Costs 1,000 1,400 2,000 4,000 5,600 8,000 Annual Operating

Decommissioning

Capital Costs 43 61 111 74 102 146 Annual Operating

Decommissioning

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

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 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

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 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 M ODEL C OSTS , R EVENUE AND I NTERNAL R ATE OF R ETURN

($ MN )

Nuclear Costs Low/Revenue High Costs High/Revenue Low

MW 1000e 1400e 2000e 1000e 1400e 2000e

Capital 1,000 1,400 2,000 4,000 5,600 8,000

Interest 8,250 11,550 16,500 28,000 39,200 56,000

Operations

and

Maintenance

1,720 2,408 3,440 2,000 2,800 4,000

Decommissio

-ning

Total Costs 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

Geothermal Costs Low/Revenue High Costs High/Revenue Low

Operations

and

Maintenance

Decommissio

-ning

Total Costs 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

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

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 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

TABLE III M ODEL C OSTS , R EVENUE AND I NTERNAL R ATE OF R ETURN

($ MN )

Average Costs

Capital 2,500 3,500 5,000 58 81 128 Interest 22,400 31,360 44,800 229 319 503 Operations

and Maintenance

1,860 2,604 3,720 14 34 68

Decommissio -ning

Total Costs 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

IV DISCUSSION 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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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, 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 anti-nuclear lobby in Indonesia, meaning that further geothermal development will occur long before any nuclear development

TABLE IV C OMPARISON OF N UCLEAR TO G EOTHERMAL

Nuclear Geothermal

Reduced Financial Risk to Indonesia + ++

Decommissioning and Safety - ++

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 long-standing 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

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

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 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

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?

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

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

argued [33] that providing electricity to the remote areas of eastern Indonesia would provide a significant boost to community and economic development

REFERENCES [1] Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, The national electricity general plan (RUKN) 2008 ––2027 Jakarta, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, 2008

[2] International Energy Agency, Energy policy review of Indonesia Paris,International Energy Agency, 2008

[3] Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, Master plan development of electricity 2010 -2014 Jakarta, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, 2009

[4] de Wilde, A Accelerating geothermal development in Indonesia 2009 (http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/N/X/E/

NXEWSM4DTZVUQ6I91OC3058JP2KBLF/Enclosure%203.pdf? t=bEZ8bHg4YWU2fDBEAx4pApO6FmeANLHG44qX (accessed 3/1/12)

[5] de Wilde, A Accelerating geothermal development in Indonesia 2009 (http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/N/X/E/

NXEWSM4DTZVUQ6I91OC3058JP2KBLF/Enclosure%203.pdf? t=bEZ8bHg4YWU2fDBEAx4pApO6FmeANLHG44qX (accessed 3/1/12)

[6] Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resource, Regulation of the No 22 of

2012 (Reg 22/2012), Jakarta, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resource,

2112

[7] International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), Country report: Indonesia Vienna, IAEA, 2011

[8] International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), Country report: Indonesia Vienna, IAEA, 2011

[9] 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

[10] Energy Fair, The financial risks of investing in new nuclear power plants, Anglesey, UK, Energy Fair, 2012

[11] International Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, projected costs of generating electricity Paris, OECD, 2010

[12] World Nuclear Association, The new economics of nuclear power, London, World Nuclear Association, 2005

[13] Energy Fair, The financial risks of investing in new nuclear power plants, Anglesey, UK, Energy Fair, 2012

[14] 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 [15] GeothermEx, Inc An assessment of geothermal resource risks in Indonesia Richmond, CA, GeothermEx, Inc., 2010

[16] 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 [17] PT Castlerock Consulting, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources Phase 2 Report: The new geothermal policy framework (draft) Jakarta,

PT Castlerock Consulting, 2011

[18] Sanyal, S Cost of geothermal power and factors that affect it Stanford University, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, 2004

[19] 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

[20] SKM, Assessment of the current costs of geothermal power generation

in New Zealand (2007 basis) Auckland, Sinclair Knight Merz, 2009 [21] Smith, P The Potential for investment in Indonesia's geothermal resource, International Journal of Engineering and Technology April 3,

2012

[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] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17546420 (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

[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