• International Journal of Technology (IJTech)
  • Vol 8, No 7 (2017)

Analysis of The Effects of CO2 Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants on the Gross Domestic Regional Product in Jakarta

Analysis of The Effects of CO2 Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants on the Gross Domestic Regional Product in Jakarta

Title: Analysis of The Effects of CO2 Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants on the Gross Domestic Regional Product in Jakarta
Arry Rahmawan Destyanto, Akhmad Hidayatno, Adinda Amalia

Corresponding email:

Published at : 27 Dec 2017
Volume : IJtech Vol 8, No 7 (2017)
DOI : https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v8i7.783

Cite this article as:
Destyanto, A.R., Hidayatno, A.Amalia, A., 2017. Analysis of The Effects of CO2 Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants on the Gross Domestic Regional Product in Jakarta . International Journal of Technology. Volume 8(7), pp.1345-1355

Arry Rahmawan Destyanto - Industrial Engineering Department, Universitas Indonesia
Akhmad Hidayatno Industrial Engineering Department, Universitas Indonesia
Adinda Amalia Industrial Engineering Department, Universitas Indonesia
Email to Corresponding Author

Analysis of The Effects of CO2 Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants on the Gross Domestic Regional Product in Jakarta

The phenomenon of rapid economic growth has caused a rise in energy consumption in Jakarta, including a rise in the need for electricity. To supply the population’s needs, Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN), Indonesia’s state-owned electricity company has a plan to build an additional power plant; the energy industry in Indonesia is currently dominated by coal-based power plants. However, this mega project will have an impact on Jakarta’s economy (gross domestic regional product, GDRP) and the CO2 emissions will have an effect as a result of the social cost of carbon because the coal-fired power plant has the highest emission rate compared with other power-plant types. Through the system-dynamics (SD) approach, this study aimed to examine several alternative policy scenarios and determine the best options that can be applied by the Jakarta government to ensure the success of electricity production, which can help to grow Jakarta’s economy and minimize the effects of CO2 emissions simultaneously. Three policies were simulated in the model: business as usual (BAU), a green policy, and a good economic policy. The results of simulation show that each scenario has its own advantages and disadvantages to achieve government target. This study reveals that using combination of green and economic policy is highly recommended to help Jakarta’s growth sustainably.

Electricity; Gross domestic regional product; Social cost of carbon; System dynamics


In this study, three major points can be concluded. The first conclusion is that, in the electricity module, Jakarta will not experience an electricity shortage within the period from 2016 to 2025 because the volume of production still showed a higher value than electricity demand. However, the results of the simulation also revealed an electricity demand growth that is higher than production, which indicates that an electricity shortage may happen after 2025. Furthermore, Jakarta’s economy will see average CAGR growth that is 7.49% higher than Indonesia’s economic growth. The emissions rate in Jakarta also will grow continuously with a CAGR of 1.61%, so that this, along with the increase in emissions, will create harmful effects that are measured in the SCOC. The second conclusion is that these three scenarios have different points of strength and weakness. For the GDRP indicator, the good-economic-policy scenario indicated the highest value for it, but the green-policy scenario revealed the maximum growth of GDRP. However, for the SCOC indicator, the green-policy scenario will create the lowest cost, which demonstrated the scenario that gives the lowest total emissions in Jakarta. The last indicator, electricity production, had no change in the production value because power-plant productivity in Jakarta still showed positive values for the period from 2016 to 2025. Even though a good economic policy will create the highest value of GDRP, the green-policy scenario will give the highest economic growth compared to the others, which is 0.01% higher than the good-economic-policy scenario and 0.03% higher than the BAU scenario. Based on the results of this research, we suggest that the Jakarta government should apply and combine two of the scenarios, using the good-economic-policy scenario for the first couple of years to boost GDRP, then continue by implementing the green-policy scenario to reduce Jakarta’s CO2 emissions.


Adamantiades, A., Kessides, I., 2009. Nuclear Power for Sustainable Development: Current Status and Future Prospects. Energy Policy, Volume 37(12), pp. 5149–66

Alam, M., Murad, W., Hanifa, A., Ozturk, I., 2016. Relationships among Carbon Emissions, Economic Growth, Energy Consumption and Population Growth?: Testing Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis for Brazil, China, India, and Indonesia. Ecological Indicators, Volume 70, pp. 466–479

Bhattacharyya, S., 2011. Energy Economics: Concepts, Issues, Markets and Governance. 1st ed. Springer-Verlag London

Bankes, S.C., 1992. Exploratory Modeling and the Use of Simulation for Policy Analysis. A RAND Note

Barlas, Y., 2002. System Dynamics: Systemic Feedback Modeling for Policy Analysis. Knowledge for Sustainable Development: An Insight into the Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, pp. 1131–1175

Berawi, M.A., 2016. Accelerating Sustainable Infrastructure Development: Assuring Well-being and Ensuring Environmental Sustainability. International Journal of Technology, Volume 7(4), pp. 527–529

Chae, Y., Park, J., 2011. Quantifying Costs and Benefits of Integrated Environmental Strategies of Air Quality Management and Greenhouse Gas Reduction in the Seoul Metropolitan Area. Energy Policy, Volume 39(9), pp. 5296–5308

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014. Integrated Risk and Uncertainty Assessment of Climate Change Response Policies. Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change, pp. 151–206

Chen, S., Kuo, H., Chen, C.C., 2007. The Relationship between GDP and Electricity Consumption in 10 Asian Countries, Volume 35(4), pp. 2611–2621

DeCanio, S.J., 2009. The Political Economy of Global Carbon Emissions Reductions. Ecological Economics, Volume 68(3), pp. 915–924

ESDM, 2016. Handbook of Energy and Economic Statistics of Indonesia

ESDM, PLN, 2016. PLN's Electricity Business Plan 2016-2025 (Rancangan Usaha Penyediaan Tenaga Listrik PLN 2016-2025). (in Bahasa)

Erahman, Q.F., Q., Purwanto, W.W., Sudibandriyo, M., Hidayatno, A., 2016. An Assessment of Indonesia’s Energy Security Index and Comparison with Seventy Countries. Energy, Volume 111, pp. 364–376

Feng, Y.Y., Chen, S.Q., Zhang, L.X., 2013. System Dynamics Modeling for Urban Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions: A Case Study of Beijing, China. Ecological Modelling, Volume 252, pp. 44–52

Forrester, J.W., 1994. Systems Dynamics, Systems Thinking, and Soft OR. System Dynamics Review, Volume 10(2-3), pp. 245–256

Grossman, G.M., Krueger, A.B., 1995. Economic Growth and the Environment. JSOTR, Volume 110(2), pp. 353–377

Hidayatno, A., Rahman, I., Muliadi, R., 2015. Policy Analysis of the Jakarta Carbon Mitigation Plan using System Dynamics to Support Decision Making in Urban Development - Options for Policymakers. International Journal of Technology, Volume 5(8), pp. 886–893

Hidayatno, A., Sutrisno, A., Zagloel, Y.M., Purwanto, W.W., 2011. System Dynamics Sustainability Model of Palm-oil Based Biodiesel Production Chain in Indonesia. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, Volume 1(3), pp. 1–6

Hu, Z., Yuan, J., Hu, Z., 2011. Study on China’s Low Carbon Development in an Economy – Energy – Electricity – Environment Framework. Energy Policy, Volume 39(5), pp. 2596–2605

Ho, E., 2014. Deloitte Consumer Insight Intercepting consumer behaviour shifts in Indonesia (rep.), Deloitte Consumer Insight Intercepting consumer behaviour shifts in Indonesia. Deloitte South East Asia Ltd.

Kuznets, S., 1955. Economic Growth and Income Inequality. The American Economic Review, Volume 45(1), pp. 1–28

Lean, H.H., Smyth, R., 2010. CO2 Emissions, Electricity Consumption and Output in ASEAN. Applied Energy, Volume 87(6), pp. 1858–1864

Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., Behrens III. W.W., 1972. The Limits to Growth a Report for the Club of Romes Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books

Millennium Institute, 2000. Threshold 21 (T21) Overview. USA: Millennium Institute

Oberman, R., Dobbs, R., Budiman, A., Thompson, F., Rosse, M., 2012. The Archipelago Economy: Unleashing Indonesia’s potential. McKinsey Global Institute. Jakarta: McKinsey & Company

Reddy, B.S., Assenza, G.B., Assenza, D., Hasselmann, F., 2009. Energy Effeciency and Climate Change: Conserving Power for a Sustainable Future. SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd

Rochadiyat, Y., Pudyaswati., Apsari, R., Gunawan, W. (Ed.)., 2016. Jakarta Dalam Angka 2016. Jakarta, Indonesia: BPS Provinsi DKI Jakarta

Rodríguez-Ulloa, R.A, Paucar-Caceres, A., Kennedy, M., Winch, G.W., Langer, R.S., Rowe, J.I., Yanni, J.M., 2004. Soft System Dynamics Methodology (SSDM)?: A Combination of Soft Systems  Methodology and System Dynamics. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, pp. 1–36 

Sterman, J., 2000. Business Dynamics: System Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Boston: The McGraw Hill Companies, Inc

Suresh, M.V.J.J., Reddy, K.S., Kolar, A.K., 2010. Energy for Sustainable Development 4-E (Energy , Exergy , Environment , and Economic) Analysis of Solar Thermal Aided Coal-fired Power Plants. Energy for Sustainable Development, Volume 14(4), pp. 267–279 

United Nations General Assembly, 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oslo, Norway: United Nations General Assembly, Development and International Co-operation: Environment