5 ms·

Indonesia has brought electricity to millions of people in recent years, going from 85% to nearly 97% coverage between 2005 and 2020, according to World Bank da

Indonesia has brought electricity to millions of people in recent years, going from 85% to nearly 97% coverage between 2005 and 2020, according to World Bank data. But there are still more than half a million people in Indonesia living in places the grid doesn’t reach. While barriers still remain, experts say off-grid solar programs on the island could be replicated across the vast archipelago nation, bringing renewable energy to remote communities. Helping kids study, parents make money, people get together to watch shows on cell phones. It's a big deal and helps them connect to the larger world.

photochemsyn 3y ago
The unstated statistic in this article is that Indonesia's reliance on coal has grown from 20% of national energy production to 40% of energy production over the 2005-2020 period, which accounts for most of that 85% to 97% growth factor. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/indonesia-clings-coal-despite-green-vision-economy-2021-09-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/indonesia-clings-coa... The slow growth of renewables particularly in remote locations is certainly a good thing, but the actual nation-wide picture is just business-as-usual: > "The government has pledged to increase the renewable share to 23% by 2025. Still, data from energy think-tank IEEFA shows that about 16 GW of new coal power capacity is expected to come online between 2021 and 2030."
- rippercushions 3y ago
  This is particularly sad since Indonesia is volcanically very active and has tons of potential for geothermal power. Many of its islands are also quite dry, which couples with the equatorial location makes them great for year-round solar.
  - twelvechairs 3y ago
    Nearly 60% of indonesias population and most of its industry are on Java, the most densely populated island in the world. 150m+ people on a place the size of Pennsylvania or Mississippi. Its absolutely not easy to find space for solar at scale in such a space constrained environment it would really require some massive infrastructure to a solar farm in the sea or another island. Singapore is a good comparison - a much richer country also space constrained they are only starting to develop renewables seriously now (solar farms in the sea etc.) Less populous islands sure but its a small proportion and they tend to have less money to tackle these issues also
    - euroderf 3y ago
      It sounds like there's going to be an ideal density where there is room for solar (not blocked by neighbors) and for trees, yet still with walk-to-able neighborhood services.
      - nasmorn 3y ago
        The solar does not need to be interspersed in the neighborhood apart from what fits on the roofs
        euroderf 3y ago
        That is true. I guess I was thinking of agrovoltaics, which also would not be a bad idea for a medium-density mixed-use area. Oh and chickens.
    - nonethewiser 3y ago
      Natural gas is much better than coal in terms of emissions. Doesnt have to be solar. Obviously it would be more expensive for them, perhaps too expensive, but lets take the opportunity to at least acknowledge that natural gas is a great step away from coal.
  - aaron695 3y ago
    [dead]
  - cfn 3y ago
    I live in an archipelago of volcanic islands and asked the same from an enginner working in the power company. According to him, geothermal is only viable above a certain amount of power which restricts it to the largest islands. For the smaller islands (up to 15 thousand inhabitants) a combination of solar, wind and diesel is used instead.
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    With 2,356 MW of installed capacity as of year-end 2022, this puts Indonesia in second place in the world after the United States in utilizing geothermal power, By 2025, Indonesia aims to produce more than 9,000 MW of geothermal power, becoming the world's leading geothermal energy producer. This would account for 5% of Indonesia's total energy needs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Indonesia#:~:text=Geothermal%20power%20in%20Indonesia%20is%20an%20increasingly%20significant,geothermal%20resources%2C%20estimated%20at%2028%2C000%20megawatts%20%28MW%29.%20 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Indonesi...
- thrdbndndn 3y ago
  Sounds like a non-issue to me. If the line is about having electricity or not, I would choose coal every time. One can argue they can grow the coverage the same but with renewables, but I don't think for a (relatively speaking) poorer country that's as easy.
- pyrale 3y ago
  It's not stated because it's not related to offgrid power, which is the article's topic. It's a good reminder that not everyone has access to very high-quality, high volumes of electricity. For the people lacking either quality or quantity, solar makes a big difference.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    At least from the quoted text, it does sort of imply that the solar programmes on the mainland are responsible for the increase. Saying two things next to each other doesn't explicitly mean that one causes or is related to the other, but it does seem at best unnecessarily obfuscatory.
- pif 3y ago
  So what? Ecology is secondary to life quality.
  - nine_k 3y ago
    For some short time, yes. Eventually pollution makes the price well-felt; look at the color of the sky over China's largest cities, or read about vendors of canned oxygen on the streets of Tokyo in 1970s.
    - pif 3y ago
      > look at the color of the sky over China's largest cities But they are still the largest cities in China: people are flowing towards the smog, not escaping from it. Eating under a grim sky has always been incredibly better than starving in a pristine environment.
      - nine_k 3y ago
        Certainly coal-fired power stations are better than no electric power at all. They just have pretty visible cost in quality of life: they improve some aspects, but worsen others. As basically everything in life, it's a balancing act.
        pif 3y ago
        I agree with you: it's a balancing act.
      - otherme123 3y ago
        You are making a dicotomy falacy with more than two options: it's either "quality of life + smog" or "being poor + clean air". There are two more options: "being poor + smog" and "quality of life + clean air". Some 50 years ago there was no option to coal as the first source of (cheap) energy. Today you can go straight to solar and wind as a cheap energy source, unless you live on a massive oil/gas/coal field, and that's the choice of "quality of life + clean air" you dismissed.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  Which makes this a great time to observe that electricity != clean. That’s a non-sensical conclusion because electricity doesnt have the capacity to be clean nor dirty. Its a storage format. Stored energy in gas just sitting in your gas tank doesnt really emit either. It’s ridiculous to conclude energy is clean by simply ignoring its emissions. Replacing an ICE vehicle with electricity isn’t necessarily lowering emissions. Its entirely dependent on how the electricity is generated. There is nothing inherently clean about switching from gas to electric. But many people only care about squeezing the balloon intil they cant see or know about the emissions.
  - danhor 3y ago
    But most things have to be electric to be able to be clean. If we want lower emissions, most stuff needs to be electrified and supplied with cleaner electricity. The latter is increasing all around the world, the former is the more worrrying bit. But there are only few countries around the world where it's cleaner to run an ICE vehicle than an electric vehicle, due to the large inefficiencies of engines. (There are other approaches that don't involve electricity, but most very likely won't work or won't make sense on a large scale)
  - neuronic 3y ago
    But CO2 emissions are not the only criteria for moving to electric cars. Ease of production, ease of repair, simpler technology than ICE, reduction of distributed emissions and pollution (air in the cities), just to count a few more... Even if CO2 emissions were the sole factor, it is very much possible to evolve the mode of electricity production to something more sustainable over the years. Electric cars may be running on coal-generated electricity today you can just change the source at any time immediately changing the overall equation.
  - arrrg 3y ago
    Gas from the ground can never be clean. Electricity can. That’s why electrification is key to getting where we want to get. We need to both electrify and get electricity generation carbon emissions to zero. Also: electrification additionally offers efficiency gains in many places. Heat pumps and EVs, for example, are both (in general) more efficient than gas stoves and ICE cars.

photochemsyn 3y ago

The unstated statistic in this article is that Indonesia's reliance on coal has grown from 20% of national energy production to 40% of energy production over the 2005-2020 period, which accounts for most of that 85% to 97% growth factor. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/indonesia-clings-coal-despite-green-vision-economy-2021-09-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/indonesia-clings-coa... The slow growth of renewables particularly in remote locations is certainly a good thing, but the actual nation-wide picture is just business-as-usual: > "The government has pledged to increase the renewable share to 23% by 2025. Still, data from energy think-tank IEEFA shows that about 16 GW of new coal power capacity is expected to come online between 2021 and 2030."

rippercushions 3y ago
This is particularly sad since Indonesia is volcanically very active and has tons of potential for geothermal power. Many of its islands are also quite dry, which couples with the equatorial location makes them great for year-round solar.
- twelvechairs 3y ago
  Nearly 60% of indonesias population and most of its industry are on Java, the most densely populated island in the world. 150m+ people on a place the size of Pennsylvania or Mississippi. Its absolutely not easy to find space for solar at scale in such a space constrained environment it would really require some massive infrastructure to a solar farm in the sea or another island. Singapore is a good comparison - a much richer country also space constrained they are only starting to develop renewables seriously now (solar farms in the sea etc.) Less populous islands sure but its a small proportion and they tend to have less money to tackle these issues also
  - euroderf 3y ago
    It sounds like there's going to be an ideal density where there is room for solar (not blocked by neighbors) and for trees, yet still with walk-to-able neighborhood services.
    - nasmorn 3y ago
      The solar does not need to be interspersed in the neighborhood apart from what fits on the roofs
      - euroderf 3y ago
        That is true. I guess I was thinking of agrovoltaics, which also would not be a bad idea for a medium-density mixed-use area. Oh and chickens.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    Natural gas is much better than coal in terms of emissions. Doesnt have to be solar. Obviously it would be more expensive for them, perhaps too expensive, but lets take the opportunity to at least acknowledge that natural gas is a great step away from coal.
- aaron695 3y ago
  [dead]
- cfn 3y ago
  I live in an archipelago of volcanic islands and asked the same from an enginner working in the power company. According to him, geothermal is only viable above a certain amount of power which restricts it to the largest islands. For the smaller islands (up to 15 thousand inhabitants) a combination of solar, wind and diesel is used instead.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  With 2,356 MW of installed capacity as of year-end 2022, this puts Indonesia in second place in the world after the United States in utilizing geothermal power, By 2025, Indonesia aims to produce more than 9,000 MW of geothermal power, becoming the world's leading geothermal energy producer. This would account for 5% of Indonesia's total energy needs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Indonesia#:~:text=Geothermal%20power%20in%20Indonesia%20is%20an%20increasingly%20significant,geothermal%20resources%2C%20estimated%20at%2028%2C000%20megawatts%20%28MW%29.%20 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Indonesi...
thrdbndndn 3y ago
Sounds like a non-issue to me. If the line is about having electricity or not, I would choose coal every time. One can argue they can grow the coverage the same but with renewables, but I don't think for a (relatively speaking) poorer country that's as easy.
pyrale 3y ago
It's not stated because it's not related to offgrid power, which is the article's topic. It's a good reminder that not everyone has access to very high-quality, high volumes of electricity. For the people lacking either quality or quantity, solar makes a big difference.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  At least from the quoted text, it does sort of imply that the solar programmes on the mainland are responsible for the increase. Saying two things next to each other doesn't explicitly mean that one causes or is related to the other, but it does seem at best unnecessarily obfuscatory.
pif 3y ago
So what? Ecology is secondary to life quality.
- nine_k 3y ago
  For some short time, yes. Eventually pollution makes the price well-felt; look at the color of the sky over China's largest cities, or read about vendors of canned oxygen on the streets of Tokyo in 1970s.
  - pif 3y ago
    > look at the color of the sky over China's largest cities But they are still the largest cities in China: people are flowing towards the smog, not escaping from it. Eating under a grim sky has always been incredibly better than starving in a pristine environment.
    - nine_k 3y ago
      Certainly coal-fired power stations are better than no electric power at all. They just have pretty visible cost in quality of life: they improve some aspects, but worsen others. As basically everything in life, it's a balancing act.
      - pif 3y ago
        I agree with you: it's a balancing act.
    - otherme123 3y ago
      You are making a dicotomy falacy with more than two options: it's either "quality of life + smog" or "being poor + clean air". There are two more options: "being poor + smog" and "quality of life + clean air". Some 50 years ago there was no option to coal as the first source of (cheap) energy. Today you can go straight to solar and wind as a cheap energy source, unless you live on a massive oil/gas/coal field, and that's the choice of "quality of life + clean air" you dismissed.
nonethewiser 3y ago
Which makes this a great time to observe that electricity != clean. That’s a non-sensical conclusion because electricity doesnt have the capacity to be clean nor dirty. Its a storage format. Stored energy in gas just sitting in your gas tank doesnt really emit either. It’s ridiculous to conclude energy is clean by simply ignoring its emissions. Replacing an ICE vehicle with electricity isn’t necessarily lowering emissions. Its entirely dependent on how the electricity is generated. There is nothing inherently clean about switching from gas to electric. But many people only care about squeezing the balloon intil they cant see or know about the emissions.
- danhor 3y ago
  But most things have to be electric to be able to be clean. If we want lower emissions, most stuff needs to be electrified and supplied with cleaner electricity. The latter is increasing all around the world, the former is the more worrrying bit. But there are only few countries around the world where it's cleaner to run an ICE vehicle than an electric vehicle, due to the large inefficiencies of engines. (There are other approaches that don't involve electricity, but most very likely won't work or won't make sense on a large scale)
- neuronic 3y ago
  But CO2 emissions are not the only criteria for moving to electric cars. Ease of production, ease of repair, simpler technology than ICE, reduction of distributed emissions and pollution (air in the cities), just to count a few more... Even if CO2 emissions were the sole factor, it is very much possible to evolve the mode of electricity production to something more sustainable over the years. Electric cars may be running on coal-generated electricity today you can just change the source at any time immediately changing the overall equation.
- arrrg 3y ago
  Gas from the ground can never be clean. Electricity can. That’s why electrification is key to getting where we want to get. We need to both electrify and get electricity generation carbon emissions to zero. Also: electrification additionally offers efficiency gains in many places. Heat pumps and EVs, for example, are both (in general) more efficient than gas stoves and ICE cars.