Persepsi Risiko Teknologi PLTN
Fabby Tumiwa
Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR) Webinar Menimbang Risiko PLTN di Indonesia Jakarta 21 Juli 2020
PERSEPSI RISIKO
TEKNOLOGI PLTN
We nuclear people have made a Faustian bargain with society. On the one hand, we offer...an
inexhaustible source of
energy...But the price that we
demand of society for this magical energy source is both a vigilance and a longevity of our social
institutions that we are quite unaccustomed to .
Alvin M. Weinberg in Social Institutions and Nuclear Energy. Science 177 (4043), 27-34
Faustian Bargain
”
”
Risiko kecelakaan reaktor tidak nol
Even if the chance of a severe accident were, say, one in a million per reactor year, a future nuclear capacity of 1,000 reactors worldwide would be faced with a 1 percent chance of such an accident each 10-year period – low perhaps, but not negligible considering the consequences
Prof. Harold Feiveson (Princeton University) dalam Skeptic’s Views on Nuclear Energy, dalam Daedalus 138 (4): 60–70
Tiga sumber risiko pada operasi PLTN
Pengelolaan dan pengawasan Kinerja manusia
(human performance):
human errors and behavior of nuclear
personnel
Kegagalan perangkat atau peralatan:
kerusakan instrumen
dan alat
Faktor manusia menjadi penyebab utama dari
kejadian-kejadian
yang berkaitan dengan ancaman keamanan di PLTN
Source: Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience 2015-2017 (IAEA-NEA, 2020)
Risiko PLTN juga disebabkan oleh regulatory failures
Greenpeace mendokumentasikan 166 near misses (atau kejadian yang mengarah pada kecelakaan) PLTN di
Amerika Serikat sepanjang periode 2004-2014. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
mendokumentasikan 61 events dan 102 kondisi di PLTN AS yang mengarah pada kecelakaan nuklir (meltdown).
NRC dan pemilik PLTN punya kecenderungan
mengabaikan atau mentolerir persoalan keselamatan reaktor (UCS, 2011).
Regulatory failures juga berkontribusi pada kecelakaan
PLTN Fukushima tahun 2011 (Synolakis and Kanoglu,
2015).
• Because of the uniqueness of each nuclear reactor, some nuclear experts say that assigning risk to particular nuclear plant is impossible (Wheatley, Sovacool, Sornett, 2017)
• International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) is inconsistent in term of cost and radiation released. INES is not sufficient tool.
• Nuclear power accidents are decreasing in frequency but increasing in severity.
• Fukushima-scale (Dragon-King) accident with 50% probability every 50-160 years, accidents with $20 million is about every year.
Wheatley, Sovacool, Sornett. Reassessing the Safety of Nuclear Power, Energy Research and Social Science 15 (2016) 96-100
”
For 50 years, nuclear power stations have produced three products which only a lunatic could want:
bomb-explosive plutonium, lethal radioactive waste and electricity so dear it has to be heavily subsidised.
They leave to future generations the task, and most of the cost, of making safe sites that have been polluted half-way to eternity.
James Buchan, a Scottish author (A Complete Waste of Energy, Guardian, 13 Sept 2002)
Risiko kecelakaan PLTN tetap ada
The lesson from the Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island accidents is simply that
nuclear power comes with the
inevitability of catastrophic accidents . While these may not be frequent in an absolute sense, there are good reasons to believe that they will be far more frequent than quantitative tools such as probabilistic risk assessments predict. Any discussion about the future of nuclear power ought to start with that realization.
M.V. Ramana (Princeton University/UBC), Beyond Our Imagination: Fukushima and the Problem of Assessing
Risk, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 20 April 2011
