Indonesia 207
improve the policy, such as by planning for electricity production using renewable energy and strengthening the feed- in tariff implementation.
Currently, biogas plants are utilised in some areas of Indonesia that are
claimed to have performed successfully both as waste management reactors and
energy generators. Based on these experiences, the government representatives
acknowledged that an approach to increase the number of larger communal
biogas plants to produce electricity would be beneficial. They indicated that
large biogas plants could potentially support electricity accessibility, apart from
its main goal of reducing the emissions from the power generation sector.
Risks and uncertainties associated with biogas development
in Indonesia
It is important to first note the subjective nature of risk perception. How risk is
experienced and understood encompasses personal arguments of possible events
and their consequences (Aven, 2012). What may pose a risk for one group of
stakeholders may be totally satisfactory and unproblematic to another. For
example, government researchers identified unfiltered H 2 S (hydrogen sulphide) in
biogas installations as a potential danger, while farmers did not recognise it as a
risk due to their different concerns and the lack of knowledge about such facts.
To mitigate some subjectivity, this narrative utilises a widely understood and
shared category- based risk assessment to summarise and convey risks. Fourteen
risks were identified and formulated into six risk categories (Table 12.2). From
this, it is clear that the highest number of risks are associated with technological
Table 12.2 Classified risk perceptions
Social
Technological
Economic
1 Collective management
issues in the case of larger
biogas systems
2 Imbalance time spent
between men and women
3 Accessibility and
sustainability of feedstock
4 Poor maintenance and
infrastructure
5 Unfitting technology
choice for local
conditions
6 Leakage of methane gas
emissions
7 Lack of long-term
incentives to aim for
value-added activities
8 Subsidy on fossil fuels
Environmental
Political
Regulatory
9 Unfiltered hydrogen
sulphide in biogas
installations
10 Different goals on
biogas installations
11 Varied monitoring
practices in different
programmes
12 Initial investment needs
13 Lengthy and
bureaucratic process to
apply for support form
biogas programmes
improve the policy, such as by planning for electricity production using renewable energy and strengthening the feed- in tariff implementation.
Currently, biogas plants are utilised in some areas of Indonesia that are
claimed to have performed successfully both as waste management reactors and
energy generators. Based on these experiences, the government representatives
acknowledged that an approach to increase the number of larger communal
biogas plants to produce electricity would be beneficial. They indicated that
large biogas plants could potentially support electricity accessibility, apart from
its main goal of reducing the emissions from the power generation sector.
Risks and uncertainties associated with biogas development
in Indonesia
It is important to first note the subjective nature of risk perception. How risk is
experienced and understood encompasses personal arguments of possible events
and their consequences (Aven, 2012). What may pose a risk for one group of
stakeholders may be totally satisfactory and unproblematic to another. For
example, government researchers identified unfiltered H 2 S (hydrogen sulphide) in
biogas installations as a potential danger, while farmers did not recognise it as a
risk due to their different concerns and the lack of knowledge about such facts.
To mitigate some subjectivity, this narrative utilises a widely understood and
shared category- based risk assessment to summarise and convey risks. Fourteen
risks were identified and formulated into six risk categories (Table 12.2). From
this, it is clear that the highest number of risks are associated with technological
Table 12.2 Classified risk perceptions
Social
Technological
Economic
1 Collective management
issues in the case of larger
biogas systems
2 Imbalance time spent
between men and women
3 Accessibility and
sustainability of feedstock
4 Poor maintenance and
infrastructure
5 Unfitting technology
choice for local
conditions
6 Leakage of methane gas
emissions
7 Lack of long-term
incentives to aim for
value-added activities
8 Subsidy on fossil fuels
Environmental
Political
Regulatory
9 Unfiltered hydrogen
sulphide in biogas
installations
10 Different goals on
biogas installations
11 Varied monitoring
practices in different
programmes
12 Initial investment needs
13 Lengthy and
bureaucratic process to
apply for support form
biogas programmes