Kelayakan Finansial PLTP Atadei Berbasis Risiko Investasi

Authors

  • Eri Prabowo Institut Teknologi Perusahaan Listrik Negara (ITPLN)
  • Trassanda Scudetto Widestomo Putra Institut Teknologi Perusahaan Listrik Negara (ITPLN)
  • Maria Anjelina Peni Institut Teknologi Perusahaan Listrik Negara (ITPLN)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58466/vs168j10

Keywords:

geothermal power plant; financial feasibility; NPV; IRR; payback period; risk

Abstract

This study evaluates the financial feasibility and risk profile of the planned Atadei Geothermal Power Plant in Lembata, East Nusa Tenggara, with an installed capacity of 2 x 5 MW. The analysis applies a quantitative pre-feasibility approach using Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Payback Period (PBP), Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR), and Profitability Index (PI). Two operating assumptions are compared: a constant case with a 90% capacity factor and constant OPEX, and a realistic case with capacity factor declining from 90% to 75% and OPEX escalating by 2.3% per year. The constant assumption shows that the project is feasible in the moderate scenario with NPV of USD 1,942,068 and in the optimistic scenario with NPV of USD 11,369,779, while the pessimistic scenario remains infeasible. Under realistic assumptions, feasibility decreases sharply; only the optimistic scenario remains marginally feasible with NPV of USD 81,098, BCR of 1.00, PI of 1.00, and a payback period of 30.45 years. These findings indicate that discount rate, OPEX escalation, and reservoir-related production decline are the dominant risks. The project can support regional energy security, but it requires low-cost financing, stable reservoir performance, and strict operational cost control

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] IRENA. Renewable Energy Statistics 2022. Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency; 2022.

[2] PLN. Rencana Usaha Penyediaan Tenaga Listrik (RUPTL) PT PLN (Persero) 2021-2030. Jakarta: PT PLN (Persero); 2021.

[3] Presiden Republik Indonesia. Peraturan Presiden Nomor 112 Tahun 2022 tentang Percepatan Pengembangan Energi Terbarukan untuk Penyediaan Tenaga Listrik. Jakarta; 2022.

[4] Amalia I, Suryantini S. Study of reservoir characteristics: pH, dissolved and precipitate minerals in Atadei geothermal field, Lembata. 2023:1-15.

[5] Ayu S, Hendrasto F, Benyamin, Hariyadi N. Analisis kelayakan proyek PLTP berdasarkan potensi dan perhitungan keekonomian lapangan AC. Petro J Ilm Tek Perminyakan. 2022;11(2):105-117.

[6] Timpal GBJ, et al. Analisis kelayakan keekonomian PLTP kapasitas 2x20 MW. Petro J Ilm Tek Perminyakan. 2024.

[7] Sugiyono A. Keekonomian pengembangan PLTP skala kecil. Jakarta: BPPT; 2012.

[8] Dipayana GF, Ramadhan RA. Geothermal energy in Indonesia. 2022:159-180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55981/brin.562.c9

[9] Bank Indonesia. Data inflasi Indonesia. Jakarta: Bank Indonesia; 2025.

[10] Kasmir, Jakfar. Studi Kelayakan Bisnis. Jakarta: Kencana; 2013.

[11] Wardiningsih SS. Analisis risiko dalam keputusan investasi. 2012.

[12] Laia K. Warga Atakore Lembata tolak proyek geotermal di tanah ulayat. Betahita. 2025.

[13] Saptadji NM. Teknik panas bumi. Bandung: Institut Teknologi Bandung; 2009.

[14] Hardianto F, Sidqi A. Analisis kelayakan proyek pembangunan PLTM Walesi Cascade. 2026;14(1):44-50.

[15] Afril Z, Batih H, Carlo MM. Analisis risiko finansial dalam proyek photovoltaic rooftop segmen industri di Jawa Timur. 2024;8(10):2914-2932. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46799/arl.v8i10.1160

[16] Kementerian Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral. Rencana Umum Ketenagalistrikan Nasional 2019-2038. Jakarta: KESDM; 2025.

[17] Kuswardono PT. Transisi energi berkelanjutan di Nusa Tenggara. Jakarta: Institute for Essential Services Reform; 2023.

[18] Geothermal Modeling Team. Indonesia power sector scenarios to 2060: modeling geothermal, solar, and wind expansion under energy transition policies. 2025:1-8.

[19] Luigi C, Hyginus V, Eze U, Eze EC, Alaneme GU, Bubu PE. Recent progress and emerging technologies in geothermal energy utilization for sustainable building heating and cooling. Front Built Environ. 2025:1-22.

[20] Obradovic D, Ali MB. The issue of estimating the maintenance and operation costs of buildings: a case study of a school. 2024:1209-1231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/eng5030066

[21] Laporan Penyelidikan. Analisis bisnis dan kebijakan untuk mendorong investasi pembangkit listrik tenaga panas bumi di Indonesia. 2023.

[22] Hidayah N. Benefit Cost Ratio. Jakarta: Mekari; 2025.

[23] Danish Energy Agency. Prefeasibility studies of renewable projects in Riau. Copenhagen: Danish Energy Agency; 2021.

[24] Abelson P, Dalton T. Declining discount rates in cost benefit analysis. 2023.

[25] Anwar A, et al. Financial feasibility of Aren sugar agroindustry. 2025.

[26] United States Department of Energy. GETEM geothermal electricity technology evaluation model. Washington, DC: DOE Geothermal Technologies Office.

[27] Gurturk M. Performance evaluation of geothermal power plants under long-term operation. Energy Convers Manag. 2025.

[28] Wahdianto, Wardana. Identifikasi dan evaluasi risiko pada proyek energi terbarukan. 2025.

[29] Putra TS, Prabowo E, Ramadani F. Pengaruh Overhaul Terhadap Kinerja High Pressure Heater Unit 3 PLTU Banten Lontar. JTM: JURNAL TEKNIK MESIN. 2026 Feb 1;2(1):10-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58466/drv17368

Published

2026-08-01

Issue

Section

Artikel

How to Cite

Kelayakan Finansial PLTP Atadei Berbasis Risiko Investasi. (2026). JTM : JURNAL TEKNIK MESIN, 2(2), 155-163. https://doi.org/10.58466/vs168j10

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>