216 Mariana Silaen et al.
This might create difficulties in raising finances and it may also necessitate a
higher tariff that could be damaging for consumer demand.
Overall, there were higher proportions of discussions on the risks related to
household biogas than large- scale electrification, as household biogas was the
starting point of the Indonesia narrative. For Bappenas, PLN, and MEMR, being
the most familiar with the pathway of large- scale biogas for electricity, there was
a knowledge discrepancy during the stakeholder dialogues, leading to a tendency to discuss this pathway less. This situation led stakeholders to focus more
on the household biogas pathway. If the risks of the electrification pathway are
less well understood, they may also have been underestimated here. In addition,
differences in ‘worldviews’ as a part of the uncertainties centred on issues related
to biogas installations at household and communal levels. There did not appear
to be a lack of consensus around biogas for electrification that resulted in ambiguity and contributed to uncertainty. Stakeholders all thought that producing
electricity from animal waste will increase electricity access in remote Indonesian islands, but all disagreed that upscaling biogas for village- wide power generation or commercial scale generation is realistic.
Conclusions
This research identified two pathways of biogas development to reduce emissions and to supply energy needs that could be potentially relevant in Indonesia,
namely household biogas and large- scale biogas- for-electricity development
pathways. Four sources of uncertainty were salient: (i) the unclear role of public
and private sectors; (ii) the changing focus on each political term; (iii) lack of a
national biogas target; and (iv) differences of perceptions among the stakeholders. These uncertainties give context to the risks perceived by stakeholders.
Of the risks identified, a higher number were classified as technological risks.
The stakeholders tended to focus on the implementation risks (i.e. barriers)
rather than the consequential risks (negative outcomes). Moreover, most agree
that biogas development has not yet become a government priority. As a result,
biogas is not being developed evenly across the country. This situation created a
tendency to highlight and criticise current efforts in terms of the barriers
experienced.
A comparison of pathways was conducted to increase awareness about what
kind of risks to expect, and what kind of uncertainties might interact with
and exacerbate these risks. Interestingly, both pathways include some
common or similar risks, among them the suitability of technological choices,
the possible technological constraints, and the cost of initial investment.
Other risks exclusively pertained to one pathway or another. However,
further studies on the electricity pathway are needed to identify a wider range
of risk perceptions. The severity (potential impact) of each risk is not studied
in this narrative.
The risks of the household biogas pathway may lead to difficulties for rural
residents to continue using biogas, thus may result in unattainable renewable
This might create difficulties in raising finances and it may also necessitate a
higher tariff that could be damaging for consumer demand.
Overall, there were higher proportions of discussions on the risks related to
household biogas than large- scale electrification, as household biogas was the
starting point of the Indonesia narrative. For Bappenas, PLN, and MEMR, being
the most familiar with the pathway of large- scale biogas for electricity, there was
a knowledge discrepancy during the stakeholder dialogues, leading to a tendency to discuss this pathway less. This situation led stakeholders to focus more
on the household biogas pathway. If the risks of the electrification pathway are
less well understood, they may also have been underestimated here. In addition,
differences in ‘worldviews’ as a part of the uncertainties centred on issues related
to biogas installations at household and communal levels. There did not appear
to be a lack of consensus around biogas for electrification that resulted in ambiguity and contributed to uncertainty. Stakeholders all thought that producing
electricity from animal waste will increase electricity access in remote Indonesian islands, but all disagreed that upscaling biogas for village- wide power generation or commercial scale generation is realistic.
Conclusions
This research identified two pathways of biogas development to reduce emissions and to supply energy needs that could be potentially relevant in Indonesia,
namely household biogas and large- scale biogas- for-electricity development
pathways. Four sources of uncertainty were salient: (i) the unclear role of public
and private sectors; (ii) the changing focus on each political term; (iii) lack of a
national biogas target; and (iv) differences of perceptions among the stakeholders. These uncertainties give context to the risks perceived by stakeholders.
Of the risks identified, a higher number were classified as technological risks.
The stakeholders tended to focus on the implementation risks (i.e. barriers)
rather than the consequential risks (negative outcomes). Moreover, most agree
that biogas development has not yet become a government priority. As a result,
biogas is not being developed evenly across the country. This situation created a
tendency to highlight and criticise current efforts in terms of the barriers
experienced.
A comparison of pathways was conducted to increase awareness about what
kind of risks to expect, and what kind of uncertainties might interact with
and exacerbate these risks. Interestingly, both pathways include some
common or similar risks, among them the suitability of technological choices,
the possible technological constraints, and the cost of initial investment.
Other risks exclusively pertained to one pathway or another. However,
further studies on the electricity pathway are needed to identify a wider range
of risk perceptions. The severity (potential impact) of each risk is not studied
in this narrative.
The risks of the household biogas pathway may lead to difficulties for rural
residents to continue using biogas, thus may result in unattainable renewable