International Journal


The Future Energy for the Thousand Islands Country

Written by Supriadi Legino on Thursday April 16, 2020
Journal: Journal - Comments
Supriadi Legino

Abstract


The Indonesian government has been embarking massive 35 GW fast track program to electrify the country. However, no matter how large the project, it is hard to reach the customers living at several thousands island over the country. Conventionally, such remote areas applied diesel power plants that consumed expensive fuel, yet still many areas that have not been reached or experiencing power interrauption. Such dilemmatic situation may be solved by involving local people to apply the idea of “Listrik Kerakyatan,” which is utilizing simple and small scale renewable energy. The source of energy should be those are available surounding people, such as sun, biomass including waste, and wind. The math expression for this so called Listrik Kerakyatan (LK) is 1000x1 = 1x1000; means that building one unit of 1000 kW is similar to the simultaniously building scattered 1000 units of 1 kW plant. This option may also increase local people prospherity because the plants can be owned and managed fully by local people using simple technology and small amount of capital cost. This paper shares our experience to convert municipal waste to bricket that can generate thermal and electric energy. By applying LK all over the country, the people scattered in Indonesian Archipellago may increase their living quality with enough energy. Last but not least, LK will also reduce the global warming.

Introduction


The level of energy consumption per capita in Indonesia is still behind compare to other ASEAN country, therefore the government plans to build additional 80 GW power plants by 2026 [1]. In order to achieve the target, the government recently embarks a massive electricity infrastructure construction, namely 35 GW project.

Problem to be addressed

The typical problem with such giant crash program is the fact that the project is mostly failed to reach the target. Consequently, only the kind of interim plants that could be completed, such as Gas and Mobile Power plants and few of IPP project extension.

  |   NEXT

Introduction


Proposed alternative solution

According to the previous study and the concept of distributed generation, there is another alternative to achieve the total capacity of 35,000 MW, if the government considers small scale and distributed generation. By this model, the government can give a chance to empower local people to involve in electricity development through Small and Medium Enterprise, namely UMKM [2]. Another benefit of distributed small scale power plant is the flexibility to utilize renewable energy such as solar, wind and waste, which are available surounding people. The math expression for this so called “Listrik Kerakyatan” (People Electricity) is 1000x1 = 1x1000; means that building one unit of 1000 MW power plant is similar to the simultaniously building scattered 1000 units of 1 MW plant [3]. This option is hypothetically sufficient for Indonesia, which people are geographically scattered in more than 3000 islands. By applying Listrik Kerakyatan (LK) principle, the electricity energy can reach any place in the country in a shorter time without necesseraly having the expensive transmission lines. Therefore, the government can consider to apply this model as complementary solution to reach the target of serving the whole rural electrification as well as 100% electrification ratio. LK may also create opportunity for local people to own and manage electricity theirselves, by conducting a massive capability building simultaniously all over the country.

  |   NEXT

Introduction


The objective of the study

The result of this study can be used to propose alternative model of electricity development as an option for the future of electricity development in Archipelago country of Indonesia that consists of around 17 thousand islands. The study will be conducted using simulation to compare the techno-economic aspect between the model of Listrik Kerakyatan (LK) and the conventional system (CS). The type of LK that will be used in this study is a municipal waste power plant, while CS is a distribution lines consisting of Medium Voltage (MV) lines, Low Voltage (LV) lines, and Distribution Transformer (DT). Conceptually, this model may provide alternative to reach the target of 23 persen renewable energy portion of the national energy mix earlier than 2025, as stated in the National Energy Policy, ‘Kebijakan Energi Nasional’ (KEN)

  |   NEXT

Literature Review


The problem of conventional power system

Almost all electrical system in the world applies conventional system with large centralized power plant interconnected one into others and delivers to the customers using transmission and distribution lines. Until recently, we are still relying on conventional system, which aimed at optimizing eficiency and reliability. However, more and more problems emerged to hinder the construction of big power plant as well as its associated transmission lines, including land acquisition, righ of way permit, environmental and social obligation, as well as the need of huge amount of fund. Many big power plants and transmission lines projects are delayed because facing the above mentioned challenges and its cost may offset the benefit of the economies of scale and interconnection system [3]. Some previous studies propose the concept of distributed generation that may be beneficial for voltage improvement and stability and could reduce power losses [4]. For example, Arunachalam et.al. reported the implementation of Decentralization Distributed Generation in India [5] and [6] reported that distributed generation may increase energy security and reduce carbon pollution.

  |   NEXT

Literature Review


Listrik Kerakyatan as distributed generation

The concept of ‘Listrik Kerakyatan’ (LK) is defined as a model of electricity development by using simple small scale plants using clean energy mix available surround the communities that should be built together and simultaniously by as many local people as possible [3]. Legino depicted that the main advantage of LK is the short completion time and it reduces any risks associated with transmission lines including land and right of way problems. In addition, LK provides opportunity for many local small and medium enterprise to become small IPP investor .

  |   NEXT

Literature Review


Listrik Kerakyatan vs. Conventional power system

The schematic diagram of the LK as distributed generation and the existing conventional is illustrated in Figure 1 [3].

As shown on the figure, the conventional system is a pooling resources with large centralized power plant that deliver power through the interconnected one into network in order to get better efficiency and reliability [3]. Therefore, compare to LK as distributed generation system, the conventional system (CS) has the following advantages. First, The unit size of CS is commonly large that makes cheaper in price per unit capacity [8]. Second, CS has much better reliability than LK because the interconnection system is capable to carry variety of loads and it may open access to a variety of power resources. However, there are some drawbacks associated with CS. First, many construction of CS is currently facing serious delay in addition to the longer construction time of CS plant (around 5 years) compare to those of LK plants (around 6 months) . Delay means high cost due to the loss of opportunity to get income from energy services. Second, CS needs huge capital for transmission lines, which cost around USD 114/kW to USD227 /kW [8]. Third, to build associated transmission lines of CS is mostly experiencing problem to get right of way that could make more delay. Four, CS is dominated by fossil fuel such as coal, gas, and diesel fuel which harm the environment, while LK is mainly utilizes renewble energy.

LK may answers problems of CS system as it does not facing land acquisition problem. LK power plants does not need substation since it can be easily connected to the low voltage or medium voltage distribution lines. However, the LK cost per unit capacity is higher than that of CS. Another drawback of LK is that it needs more expenses for control and monitoring huge numbers and scattered small power plants [3]

  |   NEXT

Literature Review


Social and Environmental comparison

There are some social benefit of LK. First, LC creates huge business opportunity for local small and medium enterprise (SME) or UMKM in Indonesian term. Secondly, LK creates more job opportunities for local people as more workforces needed to run a new business of UMKM including small scale IPP business [4]. This intangible benefit can be capitalized in term of additional tax revenue, both from company and individual taxes. The environmental benefit is derived from the high potentioan reduction of Carbon, Sulfur, and other polluted emission that commonly produce by fossil power plant. The carbon reduction can be capitalized using equivalent carbon reduction (CDM) formula [3].

  |   NEXT

Literature Review


The objective of the study

The goal of this study is to compare the way to attain 100% national Electrification Ratio (ER) between Listrik Kerakyatan and the conventional way by using Distribution lines, specifically for those that located in remote and scattered area.

  |   NEXT

Methodology


This study can be categorized as case study analysis, based on the experiment and pilot project of ‘waste to energy’ program, conducted School of Technology STT PLN Jakarta. The first pilot project was carried out at Pondok Kopi East Jakarta and the second pilot project was conducted at STT PLN Campuss in Duri Kosambi West Jalarta. The third and the latest pilot project has been conducted in collaboration with the largest generationg company, PT Indonesia Power, at Klungkung, Bali, the data of which will be used in the simulation of this study [3]. The data for Conventional System is taken from the latest version of Indonesia National Electricity Business Plan (RUPTL in bahasa Indonesian term).

Based on those data, the simulation is carried out with the flow process as shwon in Figure 2.

  |   NEXT

Methodology


The Simulation steps

The main goal of this study is to provide the best way to achieve 100% electrification ratio between conventional system and Listrik Kerakyatan, as shown on Figure 2.

The first step of simulation is excerised by using various length combination of Medium and Low voltage lines and its associated number of distribution transformer for two different LK capacities (40 kVA and 100 kVA). The second step is to compare the total capital cost of CS and LK for both 40 kVA and 100 kVA capacity.

The flow of action in figure 2 shows that after comparing the capex, then calculates the associated operational expenditure for both system. If the capex of LK is less than that of CS and the opex of LK is equal or less than that of CS, select LK as the model. On the contrary, if the capex of CS is less than that of LK and the opex of CS is less or equal than that of LK, select CS as the model. The excercise is conducted for the three selected areas, West Java, NTT, and Papua.

Since the goal of this study is to apply clean energy, there is a final step to consider cost and benefit of the environmental and social impact before make the final decision.

  |   NEXT

Data


Selected region

Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources claimed that the national electrification ratio (ER) at the end of 2017 has reached 94,91% [8] as shown in Figure 2. However, there are some regions which ER is still below 70% including Papua and Eastern Nusa Tenggara (NTT).

Even in West Java region, which ER is almost 100% there are quite a few areas, which ER is below 70% including Pangandaran, Garut, and Indramayu. In term of rural electrification, there are more than 2,000 village have not get electricity [1], mostly in Papua (2300 villages). It is reported also that 6,9 million household in this country have not been electrified [9] and surprisingly, more than one million of those are living in West Java that belongs to the top 3 provence in Indonesia [10]. Therefore, West Java is selected for this simulation to represent the developed area which is claimed already 100% RE . The second area selected is NTT to represent the scattered island provence and Papua is selected as the third provence to represent the big island located in the eastern part of the country.

Data for CS is taken from eclectricity national business plan 2017-2026 and 2018-2027, as summarized in Table 1.

Data for LK is taken from the pilot project result as reported in Legino [3][4]. Table 2 shows initial capital expenditure and operational expenditure for the project with 3 ton of waste per day that can run 30 kW genset and produce 648 kWh per day.

  |   NEXT

Data


Cost comparison: conventional vs. LK

The conventional way of rural and remote electrification is taken from National Electricity Business Plan (RUPTL) 2017-2026, which mainly developed by extending the Medium and Low Voltage lines or putting diesel power plants. Different from the conventional way, LK offers the people friendly small scale biomass waste power plant which can be put close to the customers.

For cost comparison simulation, as shown in Figure 3, it is assumed that one unit LK is 40 kW capacity consists of 2 genset unit @ 20 kW that can serve up to 40 customers. This size is the same level of 40 kVA distribution transformer connected by certain kms of medium voltage line to the existing line, under the conventional system. Similarly, for 100 kVA transformer is equal to 2 unit of 50 kW of LK, which can serve 100 customers

  |   NEXT

Result


Investment comparison

For simplification of simmulation, the average consumers capacity is 1 kVA/customer. Therefore, a smallest number of distribution transformer of 40 kVA can serve 40 customers. For example, if the length of MV lines is 3 km and the the average length of LV lines is 1 km, the capital cast cost of distribution lines for this case is USD 121,901. This number is much higher than the capital cost of similar capacity of LK of USD 59,212. Since, the more concentrated customers, the lower the capital cost per customer, the excersises can be continued by putting 80 and 120 customers associated with 3 units and 4 units consequtively.

As shown in Table 3, the investment cost for adding new distribution lines is remain higher than that of LK, except the length of MV lines is only 2 km, which is less likely to happen.

Table 3 shows that for West Java, CS is selected only if the number of customers at least 120 with MV lines is less than 2 km and LV lines is less than 3 kms. Otherwise, LK is still better choice for West Java that representing the developed area of Indonesia.

Table 4 shows that for NTT, CS is selected only if the number of customers at least 240 with MV lines is less than 3 km and LV lines is less than 6 kms. Otherwise, LK is a better choice for NTT that representing the area with many small islands in the eastern part of Indonesia.

Table 5 shows that for Papua, CS is selected only if the number of customers at least 240 with MV lines is less than 2 km and LV lines is less than 5 kms. Otherwise, LK is still better choice for Papua representing the area with least electrification ratio in Indonesia.

  |   NEXT

Result


Annual Opex comparison

The annual operational expenditure for LK is 6 cents/kWH for 2x20 kW module and 4,7 cents/kWH for 2x50 module, as shown on Table 6.

As reported by the Ministry of Energy and Mining Resources, The 2017 electricity production cost of West Jawa, NTT, and Papua are USD cent 6,81, USD cent 20, and USD cent 15,53, respectively. The average fuel cost portion for West Java, NTT, and Papua is around 60%, or 5, 14, and 11 USD cents respectively.

  |   NEXT

Result


Intangible aspects

The future energy development should concern about social and environmental impacts. In this case, the model of LK provides social benefit in term of people opportunity to get income and wellbeing improvement under the zero waste milieu. At the same time LK, as renewable energy, renders environmental benefit as it reduces the air pollution caused by municipal waste and it may reduce carbon emission and save the fossil fuel [11]–[12].

Legino [3] assisted that for the package of 5 ton of waste per day plant, it employs around 12 workers that may deliver the potential income tax around USD 29,312 and individual tax potential around USD36,000 per year. He also asserted further that this LK plant may derive environmental benefit from fossil fuel saving, since any single kWh used of LK will save: 0.00012 x USD40 = USD 0.0048. Therefore, it may produces 720 kWh/day equivalent to annual value of USD 1,261. Other social benefit of LK including more comfortable neighborhood, increasing buying power, reducing unemployment rate, and energy security improvement.

  |   NEXT

Discussion


Ther result of simulation shows that LK is most likely more economical compare to that of CS. For instance, the result for Papua shows that CS can only be competed with LK if the length of MV lines is less than 2 km, which is less likely to happen because the fact shows that most communities that have not gotten electricity are located in remote area, which distance more than 5 km. Similarly for NTT, the result shows that the cost of CS will be less than that of LK if the MV lines is less than 3 kms, which is factually nearly impossible because this area consist of many small islands. Last but not least, even in West Java area that represents the most developed communities in the country, CS will be cheaper than that of LK if MV lines is less than 2 km and the number of customers more than 120.

Although diesel can be one of the alternative for remote area electrification, the operational expenditure is much higher than both CS and LK. Therefore, diesel is not included in this study.

  |   NEXT

Conclusion


This study shows that the initiatif of Listrik Kerakyatan (LK) that adopt the concept of distributed generation can answer the stated problem as written in the beginning of this paper. The result of simulation is also shows that LK is most likely cheaper than the conventional electricity development using MV and LV lines as well as distribution transformer. LK is not only beneficial for the remote area such as Papua and NTT, but the result of the simulation shows that even for West Java area that represents the developed area in Indonesia, Listrik Kerakyatan can be a good alternative for attaining 100% electrification ratio compare to that of Conventional System.

In adition to the above benefit, LK contributes a lot to social development and halting the use of fossil fuel that harm the environment. The future study is required to improve the quality of LK and the quantity of energy output by adding other renewable energy plants such as Solar PV, Wind turbine, or battery .

  |   NEXT

References


1) Rencana Usaha Penyediaan Tenaga Listrik Tahun 2017-2026, Kementerian Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral
2) Legino, S; Wirantina, I; Hidayawanti, R; Sangadji,I.. Simulation of economic effect on electricity democracy based on clean energy at UMKM’S IPP in Indonesia. CCESG Conference, Bangkok 2017
3) Legino,S and Arianto R. Solving large scale unit dilemma in electricity system by applying commutative law, Icompac, 2017
4) Yadav,A and Srivastava, L. “Optimal placement of distributed generation: An overview and key issues,” in Power Signals Control and Computations (EPSCICON), 2014
5) Arunachalan, K; Pedinti, V.S., and Goel, S. “Decentralized distributed generation in India: A review,” J. Renew. Sustain. Energy, vol. 8, no. 2, 2016.
6) Abdmouleh, Z; Alammari,R.A.M; and A. Gastli, A. “Recommendations on renewable energy policies for the GCC countries,” in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015, vol. 50, pp. 1181–1191.
7) Patacconi.G and Russo, F. “Rethinking Economies of Scale Towards Network Economies,” Development, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 521–527, 2015.
8) cnnindonesia.com. January, 10 . 2018
9) Kompas.com. December, 4, 2016
10) Beritasatu.com. February, 9, 2017
11) Pathak, P and Dattani, P. “Social return on investment: three technical challenges,” Soc. Enterp. J., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 91–104, 2014.
12) Gatto M and De Leo, G.A. “Pricing biodiversity and ecosystem services: the never-ending story,” Bioscience, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 347–355, 2000.
13) Andrade, J and Baldick, R. “Estimation of transmission costs for new generation, “. University of Texas, 2016

comments powered by Disqus

— Copyright © 2020 PT. Comestoarra Bentarra Noesantarra —