Sustainable Energy in Indonesia: Contradictory Ideology
Framing: Everything can be seen as contradiction (Value vs Risk, Buyer vs Seller)
Currently, I am learning about sustainable energy in Indonesia (with a focus on developing future energy scenarios that might help abate air pollution, pweh…). Basically, I am studying which decision that should be made for Indonesia. Simple right. I have been doing this for several years, it is as simple as making ranking of the option, making scoring, making simulation and model, and give final recommendation.
Does the decision made always smooth? nope, if I can remember its only like 40% smooth, 60% rejected by the client. With the limited time and resources, the consultant advise in making decision is very small in impact. I start to realize that the client use consultant service to get like 10% more assurance from external party. Am I happy with this? Well, since its paid by them, I am still happy regardless the acceptance, and I believe, the client, as long as we are using the proper effort eventhough the method is incorrect is still happy.
Let me give you the latest two ideological war in Indonesia on sustainable energy. The first ideology is pro FLNG (Floating Liquefied Natural Gas) and the second is pro OLNG (Onshore LNG). But before that let me state the theory that “the ideology is set of belief, which has assumption that for whatever reason exists, the opponent is unfair and untested.” In short, any opinion has a contradictory from their opponent. Here is some example
- Pro Buyer (Development): Aprilian, Dec2015, Witular, Jan2015
- Pro Seller (Sustainability): (Setiawan, Jan2016), Rahman & Putra, Jan2016
The results? impossible to find the result. All the argument is in contradiction. For example, in second debate. A transactional argument can be made, but a transaction can not be made without handshaking of two party, the buyer and the seller. If the debate is pro buyer or pro seller in other side, the decision could not be made. Remind me about prisoner dilemma.
In the first debate for example. A value of one argument might be the risk of the other argument. An argument of inexpensive price of FLNG can be attacked by inexpensive price of OLNG. The debate is never end. It also can be scaled into the new level such as in the third debate, between top down approach or bottom up approach. Which basically doing the same thing.
So my question, why we spend so much energy doing this. My opinion (which of course representing a contradictory ideology) is:
- It has demand, (see customer never wrong), there is a certain customer that expecting this, media like it.
- It is worthed to fight, the winner will get fame, money, power
- Anyone that has vested interest, will be involved. Me for example (see the reason of study)
So finally, how to solve this puzzle:
- A problem can scientifically be solve, using controlled environment. For example the above problem can be measured only from five aspect e.g risk, technical, investor, social aspect. It can be ranked as choose as the best solution e.g choose FLNG.
- However, making decision based on the scientific calculation, in practical is will not be worked. (I have learned about this)
Solving a problem is different than making decision, and in any decision there is always a speculation, an uncertainty, a Schrodinger cat.