Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

已審核 字幕已審核
  • Chris Anderson: We're having a debate.

    我們有一場辯論

  • The debate is over the proposition

    這場辯論的主題是

  • What the world needs now

    「這個世界需要核能-- "

  • is nuclear energy" -- true or false?

    是對還是錯?」

  • And before we have the debate,

    在辯論開始之前

  • I'd like to actually take a show of hands --

    我想讓現場各位簡單表決一下

  • on balance, right now, are you for or against this?

    總體來說,目前你是站在那一方?

  • So those who are "yes," raise your hand. "For."

    贊成核能的人,請舉手

  • Okay, hands down.

    好的,請把手放下

  • Those who are "against," raise your hands.

    反對核能的人,請舉手

  • Okay, I'm reading that at about

    嗯,從舉手的數量來看

  • 75-25 in favor at the start.

    目前贊成與反對的比例大約是75:25

  • Which means we're going to take a vote at the end

    辯論完後,我們會再作一次統計

  • and see how that shifts, if at all.

    看是不是有所改變

  • So here's the format: They're going to have six minutes each,

    現在說明規則:雙方各有6分鐘

  • and then after one little, quick exchange between them,

    一方說完馬上換另一方

  • I want two people on each side of this debate in the audience

    我會從現場觀眾挑出2位支持者跟反對者

  • to have 30 seconds

    這4位有30秒

  • to make one short, crisp, pungent, powerful point.

    表達支持論點的理由

  • So, in favor of the proposition, possibly shockingly,

    有點不可思議,今天的辯論正方

  • is one of, truly, the founders of the

    他是環保運動的

  • environmental movement,

    創始者之一

  • a long-standing TEDster, the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog,

    他多次出現在 TED 演講,同時也是雜誌《Whole Earth Catalog》的創辦人

  • someone we all know and love, Stewart Brand.

    我們熟悉且敬愛的,史都華特-布蘭德

  • Stewart Brand: Whoa.

    哇嗚

  • (Applause)

    (掌聲)

  • The saying is that with climate, those who know the most

    說到氣候,瞭解氣候的專家

  • are the most worried.

    一定都非常擔心氣候問題

  • With nuclear, those who know the most

    但是講到核能,最瞭解它的專家

  • are the least worried.

    卻一點都不擔心它

  • A classic example is James Hansen,

    一個典型的例子就是,詹姆斯-漢森

  • a NASA climatologist

    他是NASA的氣候學家

  • pushing for 350 parts per million

    並極力呼籲將大氣中的二氧化碳

  • carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    降到 350PPM 以下(註:可抵抗暖化的濃度)

  • He came out with a wonderful book recently

    他最近推出了一本書

  • Storms of My Grandchildrencalled "Storms of My Grandchildren."

    書名《子孫的風暴》

  • And Hansen is hard over for nuclear power,

    漢森致力研究核能

  • as are most climatologists

    就像許多氣候學家

  • who are engaging this issue seriously.

    正專注這個問題

  • This is the design situation:

    現在的情況是

  • a planet that is facing climate change

    地球正在面對氣候改變

  • and is now half urban.

    都市面積幾乎佔了陸地的一半

  • Look at the client base for this.

    在這種情況下

  • Five out of six of us

    有6分之5的人(83%)

  • live in the developing world.

    居住在開發中國家

  • We are moving to cities. We are moving up in the world.

    我們會往城市集中,尋找更適合生活的地方

  • And we are educating our kids,

    我們會給予下一代教育

  • having fewer kids,

    生育率下降

  • basically good news all around.

    這些,基本上都是不錯的消息

  • But we move to cities, toward the bright lights,

    我們會往城市光亮的地方聚集

  • and one of the things that is there that we want, besides jobs,

    在城市裡,除了工作,另一個我們要的東西

  • is electricity.

    就是電力

  • And if it isn't easily gotten, we'll go ahead and steal it.

    如果電力不易取得,我們會用偷的

  • This is one of the most desired things

    對於全世界

  • by poor people all over the world,

    住在城市和鄉間的窮人

  • in the cities and in the countryside.

    電力是他們迫切需求的必需品之一

  • Electricity for cities, at its best,

    一個城市所需的電力

  • is what's called baseload electricity.

    我們稱之為基本負載電力

  • That's where it is on

    基本負載電力是指

  • all the time.

    能維繫生活所需的基本電力

  • And so far there are only three major sources of that --

    至今我們主要用 3 種發電方式

  • coal and gas, hydro-electric,

    煤氣發電、水力發電

  • which in most places is maxed-out --

    這二者佔了大部分

  • and nuclear.

    還有一項是核能發電

  • I would love to have something in the fourth place here,

    我希望這張圖表還能加上第4項

  • but in terms of constant, clean,

    這一項是穩定、乾淨、

  • scalable energy,

    可擴展的能源

  • solar and wind and the other renewables

    太陽能、風力、以及其他再生能源

  • aren't there yet because they're inconstant.

    都還不算是這種能源,因為他們都不夠穩定

  • Nuclear is and has been for 40 years.

    迄今,核能的發展已 40 年了

  • Now, from an environmental standpoint,

    目前,站在環境保護的立場來看

  • the main thing you want to look at

    你會特別注意

  • is what happens to the waste from nuclear and from coal,

    我們在核能發電和煤炭發電上

  • the two major sources of electricity.

    消耗了哪些東西,產生了哪些東西

  • If all of your electricity in your lifetime came from nuclear,

    如果你一輩子所用的電力都來自核能

  • the waste from that lifetime of electricity

    為了產生這些發電量所造成的廢棄物

  • would go in a Coke can --

    大概只有一個可樂罐大小

  • a pretty heavy Coke can, about two pounds.

    有點重的可樂罐,大約 2 磅

  • But one day of coal

    不過在一個

  • adds up to one hell of a lot

    發電量十億瓦特的煤炭發電廠

  • of carbon dioxide

    發電一天所產生的二氧化碳

  • in a normal one-gigawatt coal-fired plant.

    會多到嚇死人

  • Then what happens to the waste?

    這些廢棄物會到哪裡去?

  • The nuclear waste typically goes into

    從反應爐取出來的核廢料

  • a dry cask storage

    一般會儲存在一個乾燥桶裡

  • out back of the parking lot at the reactor site

    然後放在反應爐附近的空地

  • because most places don't have underground storage yet.

    目前還沒有太多的地下儲存廠

  • It's just as well, because it can stay where it is.

    但也無傷大雅,至少這些廢料不會亂跑

  • While the carbon dioxide,

    當超多的二氧化碳

  • vast quantities of it, gigatons,

    達到數10億噸的份量

  • goes into the atmosphere

    跑到我們的大氣層

  • where we can't get it back, yet,

    我們就沒辦法再將它們回收

  • and where it is causing the problems that we're most concerned about.

    這將引起許多我們迫切關心的問題

  • So when you add up the greenhouse gases

    當用不同發電方式產生你一生的用電

  • in the lifetime of these various energy sources,

    然後計算這過程所排放的溫室氣體

  • nuclear is down there with wind and hydro,

    核能產生的溫室氣體,低於風力和水力

  • below solar and way below, obviously, all the fossil fuels.

    低於太陽能,也低於所有化石燃料

  • Wind is wonderful; I love wind.

    風力發電是很棒的,我很愛風力

  • I love being around these

    我也喜歡那些

  • big wind generators.

    巨大的風力發電機

  • But one of the things we're discovering is that

    不過我們發現一件事

  • wind, like solar, is an actually relatively

    風力,就像太陽能一樣

  • dilute source of energy.

    發電過程都會稀釋功率,浪費能量

  • And so it takes a very large footprint on the land,

    風力發電需要很大的土地面積

  • a very large footprint in terms of materials,

    建造這些高塔也需要許多資源

  • five to 10 times what you'd use for nuclear,

    大概是核能發電所需的5到10倍

  • and typically to get one gigawatt of electricity

    一般而言,要獲取十億瓦特的發電量

  • is on the order of 250 sq. mi.

    風力發電大概需要

  • of wind farm.

    250平方英哩的土地(約2.5個台北市)

  • In places like Denmark and Germany,

    有些國家,像是丹麥和德國

  • they've maxed out on wind already.

    他們幾乎都用風力發電

  • They've run out of good sites.

    他們幾乎把可能的地點都用盡了

  • The power lines are getting overloaded.

    電力網已經超出負荷

  • And you peak out.

    達到巔峰

  • Likewise, with solar,

    還有,太陽能

  • especially here in California,

    在加州

  • we're discovering that the 80 solar farm

    我們發現在南方沙漠

  • schemes that are going forward

    當地為了建造

  • want to basically bulldoze

    80座太陽能發電廠

  • 1,000 sq. mi. of southern California desert.

    用推土機剷出1000平方英里的土地

  • Well, as an environmentalist, we would rather that didn't happen.

    嗯,作為一個環保人士,我們不希望這種事情發生

  • It's okay on frapped-out agricultural land.

    這個地方還可以開發成農業區

  • Solar's wonderful on rooftops.

    太陽能電版可以放在屋頂上

  • But out in the landscape,

    若在平地上

  • one gigawatt is on the order of 50 sq. mi.

    蓋十億瓦特的太陽能電廠

  • of bulldozed desert.

    就需要剷平50平方英里的沙漠

  • When you add all these things up --

    把這些成本加一加

  • Saul Griffith did the numbers and figured out

    薩羅•格里菲斯做了一些統計

  • what it would take

    如果想要

  • to get 13 clean

    產生13太瓦(1太瓦=10兆瓦)

  • terawatts of energy

    的潔淨能源

  • from wind, solar and biofuels,

    像是來自風、太陽能、或是生質燃料

  • and that area would be roughly the size the United States,

    大概需要一整個美國的土地面積

  • an area he refers to as "Renewistan."

    這種地區叫「再生能源區」(註:Renewistan)

  • A guy who's added all this up very well is David Mackay,

    有個叫大衛•麥凱的人,細算出這些成本

  • a physicist in England,

    來自英格蘭的物理學家

  • and in his wonderful book, "Sustainable Energy," among other things,

    在他的暢銷著作《永續能源》中

  • he says, "I'm not trying to be pro-nuclear. I'm just pro-arithmetic."

    裡面提到「我不是支持核能,我只是喜歡算術」

  • (Laughter)

    (笑聲)

  • In terms of weapons,

    如果談到武器方面

  • the best disarmament tool so far is nuclear energy.

    最棒的裁軍方式就是核能發電了

  • We have been taking down

    我們已經拆除了許多

  • the Russian warheads,

    俄國的核子彈頭

  • turning it into electricity.

    然後把它轉為發電用

  • 10 percent of American electricity

    美國有10%的發電量

  • comes from decommissioned warheads.

    就是來自這些俄國的核子武器

  • We haven't even started the American stockpile.

    我們甚至還沒使用自己的退役核子彈頭

  • I think of most interest to a TED audience

    我想在場的聽眾都應該有興趣

  • would be the new generation of reactors

    見證新一代的核子反應爐

  • that are very small,

    它非常小

  • down around 10

    可以產生10兆瓦特

  • to 125 megawatts.

    到125兆瓦特的電量

  • This is one from Toshiba.

    這是東芝研發的(Toshiba)

  • Here's one that the Russians are already building that floats on a barge.

    俄國人利用它來作為貨運船的動力來源

  • And that would be very interesting in the developing world.

    這對開發中國家來說,是很有意思的

  • Typically, these things are put in the ground.

    一般而言,這種設備用在陸地上比較多

  • They're referred to as nuclear batteries.

    這就像核能電池

  • They're incredibly safe,

    它非常安全

  • weapons proliferation-proof and all the rest of it.

    核武器的擴散會因此得到緩和

  • Here is a commercial version from New Mexico

    這是一個商業化的核能電池

  • called the Hyperion,

    由新墨西哥州的 Hyperion 企業所研發

  • and another one from Oregon called NuScale.

    這個是由奧勒崗州的 NuScale 企業所研發

  • Babcock & Wilcox that make nuclear reactors ...

    Babcock & Wilcox 是製作核子反應爐的公司

  • here's an integral fast reactor.

    這是一個快速反應器

  • Thorium reactor that Nathan Myhrvold's involved in.

    前微軟技術長,內森•麥沃爾德也投資發展釷反應器

  • The governments of the world are going to have to decide

    這世界上的一些政府都必須決定

  • that coal needs to be made expensive, and these will go ahead.

    要讓煤炭越來越貴,還是發展核能

  • And here's the future.

    這將是未來值得關注的地方

  • (Applause)

    (掌聲)

  • CA: Okay. Okay.

    很好,很好

  • (Applause)

    (掌聲)

  • So arguing against,

    接下來,反方辯士

  • a man who's been at the nitty-gritty heart

    他總是陳述事實真相,擁有堅毅的心

  • of the energy debate and the climate change debate for years.

    這幾年來,他參與了許多能源與氣候變遷議題的討論

  • In 2000, he discovered that soot

    在2000年時,他發現了煤煙

  • was probably the second leading cause of global warming, after CO2.

    可能是僅次於二氧化碳的暖化元兇之一

  • His team have been making detailed calculations

    他的研究團隊

  • of the relative impacts

    針對各種發電方式的環境影響

  • of different energy sources.

    做了詳細的計算

  • His first time at TED, possibly a disadvantage -- we shall see --

    這是他第一次出席 TED 大會,也許比較吃虧,看他表現如何

  • from Stanford,

    來自史丹佛大學的

  • Professor Mark Jacobson. Good luck.

    馬克•雅各布森教授。祝好運

  • Mark Jacobson: Thank you.

    謝謝

  • (Applause)

    (掌聲)

  • So my premise here is that nuclear energy

    我的認定是,核能

  • puts out more carbon dioxide,

    會製造更多二氧化碳

  • puts out more air pollutants,

    更多的空氣污染

  • enhances mortality more and takes longer to put up

    增加死亡率,而且相較於風力、太陽能

  • than real renewable energy systems,

    地熱能、潮汐能等等再生能源

  • namely wind, solar,

    核能需要更長的

  • geothermal power, hydro-tidal wave power.

    建造時間

  • And it also enhances nuclear weapons proliferation.

    核能發電也會增加核子武器的擴散

  • So let's just start by looking at the

    讓我們先來觀察

  • CO2 emissions from the life cycle.

    各種發電廠生命周期的二氧化碳排放量

  • CO2e emissions are equivalent emissions

    CO2e是指(註:CO2e = 二氧化碳等價量)

  • of all the greenhouse gases and particles

    那些會造成地球暖化的

  • that cause warming,

    溫室氣體、微粒(註:溫室氣體有6~7種)

  • and converted to CO2.

    把它們轉換成等效的CO2排放量

  • And if you look, wind and concentrated solar

    你能發現,風力和太陽能

  • have the lowest CO2 emissions, if you look at the graph.

    擁有最低的二氧化碳排放量

  • Nuclear -- there are two bars here.

    看到核能的那處,顯示2個直條圖

  • One is a low estimate, and one is a high estimate.

    一條是估計最低排放量,另一個是最高估計量

  • The low estimate is the nuclear energy industry

    最低估計量是

  • estimate of nuclear.

    核能產業人員計算的

  • The high is the average of 103

    最高的估計量是來自

  • scientific, peer-reviewed studies.

    103個科學研究報告的平均數值

  • And this is just the

    這裡只計算

  • CO2 from the life cycle.

    發電廠從使用到廢棄所產生的二氧化碳

  • If we look at the delays,

    建造一座核能電廠,如果有點延誤的話

  • it takes between 10 and 19 years

    從營運的事前規劃

  • to put up a nuclear power plant

    到電廠的建造完成

  • from planning to operation.

    大概需要10到19年

  • This includes about three and a half to six years

    取得土地的許可

  • for a site permit.

    大概就要 3.5 年到 6 年

  • and another two and a half to four years

    還要再花 2.5 年到 4 年

  • for a construction permit and issue,

    去取得建造許可

  • and then four to nine years for actual construction.

    然後再花 4 到 9 年去真正動工建造

  • And in China, right now,

    現在在中國

  • they're putting up five gigawatts of nuclear.

    有5個十億瓦特的核能發電廠

  • And the average, just for the construction time of these,

    平均建造這些核能發電廠所需時間

  • is 7.1 years

    大約是 7.1 年

  • on top of any planning times.

    是整個過程中最漫長的部分

  • While you're waiting around for your nuclear,

    當你在等待使用核能電力時

  • you have to run the regular electric power grid,

    這段過渡期還是要使用一般的電路線

  • which is mostly coal in the United States and around the world.

    這表示要繼續使用煤炭發電

  • And the chart here shows the difference between

    這張圖表顯示了如果建造核能,或是其他電廠

  • the emissions from the regular grid,

    像是風力、集光式太陽能、光電太陽能

  • resulting if you use nuclear, or anything else,

    使用前的建造時間所產生的

  • versus wind, CSP or photovoltaics.

    溫室氣體排放量

  • Wind takes about two to five years on average,

    風力發電平均需要 2 到 5 年的建造時間

  • same as concentrated solar and photovoltaics.

    跟集光式太陽能和光電太陽能一樣

  • So the difference is the opportunity cost

    所以這種機會成本,就是使用核能與

  • of using nuclear versus wind, or something else.

    其他發電方式的差異之處

  • So if you add these two together, alone,

    把使用核能跟風力的機會成本相比,

  • you can see a separation

    甚至把任 2 種的機會成本加起來

  • that nuclear puts out at least nine to 17 times

    核能發電所造成的二氧化碳排放量

  • more CO2 equivalent emissions than wind energy.

    都至少比風力高達 9 倍到 17 倍

  • And this doesn't even account

    這些甚至還沒計算

  • for the footprint on the ground.

    核能電廠所要佔據的土地面積

  • If you look at the air pollution health effects,

    若你想看看空氣污染對人體健康的影響

  • this is the number of deaths per year in 2020

    這張圖顯示到2020年時

  • just from vehicle exhaust.

    每年因汽車排放物致死的人數

  • Let's say we converted all the vehicles in the United States

    假設我們將全美的汽車

  • to battery electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles

    都換成電池動力、氫燃料電池車

  • or flex fuel vehicles run on E85.

    或是混合燃料等等不同燃料來驅動

  • Well, right now in the United States,

    在美國,每年因空污死亡的人數

  • 50 to 100,000 people die per year from air pollution,

    隨空汙來源的不同,死亡人數有50人到10萬人不等

  • and vehicles are about 25,000 of those.

    汽車的空污大約會導致2萬5千人喪命

  • In 2020, the number will go down to 15,000

    不過到了2020年,因為交通工具的改善

  • due to improvements.

    這個數字會降到1萬5千人

  • And so, on the right, you see gasoline emissions,

    圖表最右邊,是到2020年

  • the death rates of 2020.

    用石油當汽車燃料所導致的平均每年死亡數

  • If you go to corn or cellulosic ethanol,

    如果使用的是玉米或是纖維乙醇燃料(註:右2右3)

  • you'd actually increase the death rate slightly.

    死亡數會稍微增加

  • If you go to nuclear,

    如果使用核能當汽車燃料

  • you do get a big reduction,

    這死亡數會大大削減(註:右5)

  • but it's not as much as with wind and/or concentrated solar.

    但是削減的數量完全比不過風力和太陽能

  • Now if you consider the fact

    你會考慮到

  • that nuclear weapons proliferation

    核子武器的擴展

  • is associated with nuclear energy proliferation,

    是跟我們使用核能發電的擴展有正相關

  • because we know for example,

    因為我們都知道

  • India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons secretly

    印度和巴基斯坦都偷偷地從

  • by enriching uranium

    核能發電廠煉出的濃縮鈾

  • in nuclear energy facilities.

    來發展核子武器

  • North Korea did that to some extent.

    北韓就是用這種方式發展核子武器

  • Iran is doing that right now.

    伊朗正在這麼做

  • And Venezuela would be doing it

    若委內瑞拉啟動核能電廠

  • if they started with their nuclear energy facilities.

    他們也會循此方式製造核子武器

  • If you do a large scale expansion

    如果世界各地

  • of nuclear energy across the world,

    都大肆擴展核子發電

  • and as a result there was just one

    那麼,結果就是

  • nuclear bomb created

    將會製造出

  • that was used to destroy a city

    可以摧毀像孟買或是其他百萬人口城市的

  • such as Mumbai or some other big city, megacity,

    核子炸彈

  • the additional death rates due to this

    因核子彈所炸死的死亡數

  • averaged over 30 years and scaled to the population of the U.S.

    超過過去30年美國空污

  • would be this.

    所導致的死亡數

  • So, do we need this?

    我們真的需要核能嗎?

  • The next thing is: What about the footprint? Stewart mentioned the footprint.

    電廠佔地面積的又怎麼說?剛剛史都華特提到的

  • Actually, the footprint on the ground for wind

    事實上,風力發電場佔地面積

  • is by far the smallest of any energy source in the world.

    是低於全世界任何一種發電方式

  • That, because the footprint, as you can see,

    因為你看圖就可以發現

  • is just the pole touching the ground.

    風力發電機接觸到地面的只有那根水泥柱

  • And you can power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet

    你可以用這些

  • with 73,000 to 145,000

    7萬3千座到14萬5千座的5百萬瓦特風力渦輪

  • five-megawatt wind turbines.

    用以驅使全美的汽車

  • That would take between one and three sq. km.

    把這些風力發電的水泥柱占地面積相加

  • of footprint on the ground, entirely.

    也不過大概1到3平方公里

  • The spacing is something else.

    電廠的佔據空間又是另一回事

  • That's the footprint that's always being confused.

    電廠佔地面積總是被佔據空間所搞混

  • People confuse footprint with spacing.

    人們總是把佔地面積與佔據空間混為一談

  • As you can see from these pictures,

    你們可以看看這些圖片

  • the spacing between can be used for multiple purposes

    會發現風力發電機之間的間距空間可以有許多用途

  • including agricultural land,

    像是作為農業用地

  • range land or open space.

    或是牧場、遊憩用地

  • Over the ocean, it's not even land.

    如果建在海上,更沒有這個問題

  • Now if we look at nuclear -- (Laughter)

    如果你看看核能發電

  • With nuclear, what do we have?

    要蓋核能電廠,我們需要什麼?

  • We have facilities around there. You also have a buffer zone

    所需的設施會蓋得滿滿,周圍還需要

  • that's 17 sq. km.

    17平方公里的緩衝區

  • And you have the uranium mining

    你還必須處理

  • that you have to deal with.

    鈾礦的開採問題

  • Now if we go to the area,

    如果說到面積問題

  • lots is worse than nuclear or wind.

    還有很多東西是比核能和風力還糟的

  • For example, cellulosic ethanol, to power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet,

    舉例來說,要產生能驅動全美汽車的纖維乙醇

  • this is how much land you would need.

    需要這麼大的種植面積

  • That's cellulosic, second generation

    這是種植第二代的纖維乙醇所需面積

  • biofuels from prairie grass.

    從牧草提煉的

  • Here's corn ethanol. It's smaller.

    這是種植玉米纖維乙醇所需面積,就稍微小了點

  • This is based on ranges from data,

    這些都是根據詳細資料計算的

  • but if you look at nuclear,

    但倘若你反過頭來看核能

  • it would be the size of Rhode Island to power the U.S. vehicle fleet.

    要驅動全美的汽車,你需要一個像羅德島的核能電廠(約11.5個台北市)

  • For wind, there's a larger area,

    風力發電也是需要不小的土地

  • but much smaller footprint.

    不過覆蓋面積要小太多了

  • And of course, with wind,

    不過

  • you could put it all over the east coast,

    你可以把風力發電都移到東岸

  • offshore theoretically, or you can split it up.

    理論上你可以在建在海平面上,或者你也可以把它們分散開來

  • And now, if you go back to

    回頭看看地熱發電

  • looking at geothermal, it's even smaller than both,

    它所需面積比風力和核能都小

  • and solar is slightly larger than the nuclear spacing,

    太陽能的所需面積比核能電廠稍大

  • but it's still pretty small.

    但它也實在夠小了

  • And this is to power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet.

    以上是為了驅動全美汽車的各電廠所需面積

  • To power the entire world with 50 percent wind,

    若想完全利用全球50%的風力

  • you would need about one percent of world land.

    你必須使用1%的陸地

  • Matching the reliability, base load is actually irrelevant.

    風力發電的確可靠,但這種方式是不切實際的

  • We want to match the hour-by-hour power supply.

    我們想要一天24小時都有穩定的電力供給

  • You can do that by combining renewables.

    把各種再生能源合併運用也是可以的

  • This is from real data in California,

    這是從加州蒐集來的資料(註:縱座標為千瓦特,橫座標為1天24個小時)

  • looking at wind data and solar data.

    看看風力(綠色)和太陽能(橘色)的那部份

  • And it considers just using existing hydro

    從圖中可以發現

  • to match the hour-by-hour power demand.

    只有水力發電能24小時都穩定提供所需電量(白線以下為每小時所需電量)

  • Here are the world wind resources.

    這張是全球的風力資源配置圖

  • There's 5 to 10 times more wind available worldwide

    全球可被利用的風力

  • than we need for all the world.

    比我們所需要的還多上5到10倍

  • So then the finally ranking.

    最後我們來個總排名

  • And one last slide I just want to show: this is the choice.

    這最後一張投影片,透漏了我們應該要的選擇

  • You can either have wind or nuclear.

    風力或核能你只能2選1

  • If you use wind,

    若選擇風力

  • you guarantee ice will last.

    則保證冰山不會融化

  • Nuclear, the time lag alone

    核能,光是那建造的前置時間

  • will allow the Arctic to melt and other places to melt more.

    就能讓北極或是其他的地方的冰山融化更多

  • And we can guarantee a clean, blue sky

    我們可以擁有更乾淨、更清澈的藍色天空

  • or an uncertain future with nuclear power.

    或是,擁有一個不確定的核子年代

  • (Applause)

    (掌聲)

  • CA: All right.

    很棒的說明

  • So while they're having their comebacks on each other --

    等會,你們開始質詢對方的時候要控制時間

  • and yours is slightly short because you slightly overran --

    因為剛剛有一點超過時間了

  • I need two people from either side.

    等會我需要聽眾的意見

  • So if you're for this,

    如果你是支持核能的

  • if you're for nuclear power, put up two hands.

    請舉起雙手

  • If you're against, put up one.

    若你是反對的,請舉一隻手

  • And I want two of each for the mics.

    請給這些聽眾麥克風

  • Now then, you guys have --

    好的,那台上這2位先生

  • you have a minute comeback on him

    你有1分鐘的時間

  • to pick up a point he said, challenge it,

    質詢他剛剛的論點

  • whatever.

    內容不拘

  • SB: I think a point of difference we're having, Mark,

    馬克,我對於武器和能源方面

  • has to do with weapons

    跟你相比

  • and energy.

    有著不同觀點

  • These diagrams that show that nuclear is somehow

    剛剛的圖表都沒有顯示

  • putting out a lot of greenhouse gases --

    核能是如何釋放出溫室氣體的

  • a lot of those studies will include, "Well of course war will be inevitable

    有許多研究這樣陳述:「如果城市繼續使用核能

  • and therefore we'll have cities burning and stuff like that,"

    那戰爭就無法避免」

  • which is kind of finessing it

    我認為

  • a little bit, I think.

    這句話有語病

  • The reality is that there's, what,

    實際上,應該要問

  • 21 nations that have nuclear power?

    是哪 21 個國家擁有核能電廠?

  • Of those, seven have nuclear weapons.

    而這21個國家裡,只有7個持有核子武器

  • In every case, they got the weapons

    這7個國家,在建造核能電廠之前

  • before they got the nuclear power.

    就已經有核子武器了

  • There are two nations, North Korea and Israel,

    其中的2個國家,北韓跟伊朗

  • that have nuclear weapons

    雖然擁有核子武器

  • and don't have nuclear power at all.

    但是沒有核能電廠

  • The places that we would most like to have

    有一些

  • really clean energy occur

    希望使用潔淨能源的地區

  • are China, India, Europe, North America,

    像是中國、印度、歐洲、北美

  • all of which have sorted out their situation

    這些國家

  • in relation to nuclear weapons.

    已經在處理核子武器的問題了

  • So that leaves a couple of places like Iran,

    還有一些國家像伊朗

  • maybe Venezuela,

    委內瑞拉

  • that you would like to have very close

    我們也在密切的監視

  • surveillance of anything

    這些國家

  • that goes on with fissile stuff.

    使用任何核分裂的相關設備

  • Pushing ahead with nuclear power will mean we

    核能發電的推動就表示

  • really know where all of the fissile material is,

    我們會知道核分裂原料的去向

  • and we can move toward

    同時就能

  • zero weapons left, once we know all that.

    推動零核武的世界

  • CA: Mark,

    馬克

  • 30 seconds, either on that or on anything Stewart said.

    你有30秒,回應史都華特的質詢

  • MJ: Well we know India and Pakistan had nuclear energy first,

    我們都知道印度與巴基斯坦擁有核能電廠

  • and then they developed nuclear weapons secretly in the factories.

    而同時他們也在電廠裡秘密研究核子武器

  • So the other thing is, we don't need nuclear energy.

    另外,我們根本不需要核能發電

  • There's plenty of solar and wind.

    我們有豐沛的太陽能與風力

  • You can make it reliable, as I showed with that diagram.

    剛剛我拿出來的圖表顯示,我們可以依賴這二種發電

  • That's from real data.

    這些都是真實的數據

  • And this is an ongoing research. This is not rocket science.

    這項研究正不斷進步,也不是什麼高深學問

  • Solving the world's problems can be done,

    這可以解決全世界的用電問題

  • if you're really put your mind to it and use clean, renewable energy.

    如果你下定決心要使用乾淨、再生的能源

  • There's absolutely no need for nuclear power.

    那根本就不需要核能

  • (Applause)

    (掌聲)

  • CA: We need someone for.

    接下來是觀眾質詢

  • Rod Beckstrom: Thank you Chris. I'm Rod Beckstrom, CEO of ICANN.

    我叫羅德-貝克斯特羅姆,ICANN的執行長(註:管理域名和IP的非營利組織)

  • I've been involved in global warming policy

    自從1994

  • since 1994,

    我加入環境保衛基金會的董事會後

  • when I joined the board of Environmental Defense Fund

    這基金會是京都議定書的推手之一

  • that was one of the crafters of the Kyoto Protocol.

    從那時候開始我就涉入了許多暖化的政策

  • And I want to support Stewart Brand's position.

    我支持史都華特-布蘭德的論點

  • I've come around in the last 10 years.

    我關注這個議題至少10年

  • I used to be against nuclear power.

    我過去是反對核能發電

  • I'm now supporting Stewart's position,

    但是我現在站在史都華特這邊

  • softly, from a risk-management standpoint,

    從風險管理的立場來看

  • agreeing that

    同意的要點在於

  • the risks of overheating the planet

    讓地球過熱的風險

  • outweigh the risk of nuclear incident,

    遠遠超過核子意外的風險

  • which certainly is possible and is a very real problem.

    這是很有可能發生的,而且是個非常實際的問題

  • However, I think there may be a win-win solution here

    然而,我認為應該有一個

  • where both parties can win this debate,

    可以讓正反二辯雙贏的方法

  • and that is, we face a situation

    我們要作決定

  • where it's carbon caps on this planet

    是設定碳排放上限?

  • or die.

    或是讓地球滅亡?

  • And in the United States Senate,

    在美國參議院裡

  • we need bipartisan support --

    我們需要來自兩個政黨的支持

  • only one or two votes are needed --

    只需要一兩張選票

  • to move global warming through the Senate,

    就可以在參議院通過有關暖化的議案

  • and this room can help.

    在那個小房間就能決定這一切

  • So if we get that through, then Mark will solve these problems. Thanks Chris.

    如果政府願意重視暖化問題,那馬克所提的問題也能被解決。謝謝

  • CA: Thank you Rod Beckstrom. Against.

    謝謝你。接下來換反方的聽眾

  • David Fanton: Hi, I'm David Fanton. I just want to say a couple quick things.

    嗨,我叫大衛-芬頓。我很快地說幾件事情

  • The first is: be aware of the propaganda.

    第一,請留意宣傳伎倆

  • The propaganda from the industry

    來自核能業界的鼓吹運作

  • has been very, very strong.

    一直非常強勁

  • And we have not had

    反對的聲音

  • the other side of the argument fully aired

    卻被壓抑,沒有傳播開來

  • so that people can draw their own conclusions.

    我們應該要勇於表達我們自己的意見

  • Be very aware of the propaganda.

    不要被業界所蒙蔽了

  • Secondly, think about this.

    第二,仔細思考

  • If we build all these nuclear power plants,

    如果我們建造核能電廠

  • all that waste

    所有的核廢料

  • is going to be on hundreds, if not thousands,

    都將被數以百計的

  • of trucks and trains,

    卡車和火車運送

  • moving through this country every day.

    每天從這個國家來來去去

  • Tell me they're not going to have accidents.

    然後告訴我們說這一切都會很好,不會發生意外

  • Tell me that those accidents aren't going to

    說這些將會毒害環境數萬年的

  • put material into the environment

    核廢料

  • that is poisonous for hundreds of thousands of years

    永遠不會有事

  • And then tell me that each and every one of those trucks and trains

    說這些負責運送的每一輛卡車跟貨車

  • isn't a potential terrorist target.

    永遠不會被恐怖份子盯上

  • CA: Thank you.

    謝謝你

  • For.

    支持聽眾...

  • Anyone else for? Go.

    另一位支持聽眾呢?開始吧

  • Alex: Hi, I'm Alex. I just wanted to say,

    嗨,我叫艾力克斯,我只是想要講...

  • I'm, first of all, renewable energy's biggest fan.

    首先,我得承認我是再生能源的擁護者

  • I've got solar PV on my roof.

    我家屋頂有安裝太陽光電模板

  • I've got a hydro conversion

    我在水車磨坊上裝了

  • at a watermill that I own.

    水電轉換裝置

  • And I'm, you know, very much "pro" that kind of stuff.

    我非常喜歡這些再生能源

  • However, there's a basic arithmetic problem here.

    但是,問題出現了

  • The capability of

    太陽能發電

  • the sun shining, the wind blowing and the rain falling,

    只要遇到起風的陰天甚至下雨天就完全沒用

  • simply isn't enough to add up.

    老實說根本不夠用

  • So if we want to keep the lights on,

    如果我想讓燈持續開著

  • we actually need a solution

    我就需要一個好方法

  • which is going to keep generating all of the time.

    讓電的供應能夠穩定不斷

  • I campaigned against nuclear weapons in the 80s,

    我從80年代就開始抗議核子武器的發展

  • and I continue to do so now.

    而且會一直這麼做

  • But we've got an opportunity

    但是我們現在有機會

  • to recycle them into something more useful

    去回收這些核子彈頭

  • that enables us to get energy all of the time.

    然後再利用來發電

  • And, ultimately, the arithmetic problem isn't going to go away.

    問題還沒解決

  • We're not going to get enough energy from renewables alone.

    目前我們沒辦法從再生能源取得足夠的能量

  • We need a solution that generates all of the time.

    我們還需要一個完整的解決方案

  • If we're going to keep the lights on,

    照目前看來,如果我們想把燈點著

  • nuclear is that solution.

    核能似乎是目前最好的方案

  • CA: Thank you.

    謝謝你

  • Anyone else against?

    另一位反方?

  • Man: The last person who was in favor made the premise

    我贊成馬克的觀點

  • that we don't have enough

    我們的確還沒有足夠的

  • alternative renewable resources.

    可替代性的再生能源

  • And our "against" proponent up here

    而馬克清楚闡述了

  • made it clear that we actually do.

    我們這些反核人士的立場

  • And so the fallacy

    說我們需要核能

  • that we need this resource

    說這個時代

  • and we can actually make it in a time frame

    核能的使用是很重要的

  • that is meaningful is not possible.

    這根本是大錯特錯

  • I will also add one other thing.

    再跟各位分享另一件事

  • Ray Kurzweil and all the other talks --

    雷•庫茲威爾和其餘類似演講都曾提到

  • we know that the stick is going up exponentially.

    人類科技未來將呈指數增長

  • So you can't look at state-of-the-art technologies in renewables

    你不能指著目前最先進的再生能源技術

  • and say, "That's all we have."

    然後說:這大概就是我們僅有的

  • Because five years from now, it will blow you away

    也許再過5年

  • what we'll actually have as alternatives

    就會出現令人驚訝的再生能源科技

  • to this horrible, disastrous nuclear power.

    完全取代可怕又糟糕的核能

  • CA: Point well made. Thank you.

    很好的論點,謝謝你

  • (Applause)

    (掌聲)

  • So each of you has really just a couple sentences --

    現在請你們二位

  • 30 seconds each

    用30秒的時間

  • to sum up.

    做一個總結

  • Your final pitch, Stewart.

    你的最後機會了,史都華特

  • SB: I loved your "It all balances out" chart

    我喜歡你剛剛播放的

  • that you had there.

    那些長條圖

  • It was a sunny day and a windy night.

    不過,天氣是不穩定而且變化很快的

  • And just now in England

    英格蘭地區

  • they had a cold spell.

    剛剛才度過寒流期

  • All of the wind in the entire country

    他們整個國家的風力發電

  • shut down for a week.

    停機了一個星期

  • None of those things were stirring.

    不過他們卻沒什麼反應

  • And as usual, they had to buy nuclear power from France.

    如同慣例,他們會跟法國買核能電力

  • Two gigawatts comes through the Chunnel.

    從英法海底隧道輸送20億瓦的電力

  • This keeps happening.

    這種事會一直發生

  • I used to worry about the 10,000 year factor.

    我也曾經擔心那些會遺害萬年的廢料

  • And the fact is, we're going to use the nuclear waste we have for fuel

    不過實際上,隨科技的發展

  • in the fourth generation of reactors that are coming along.

    未來我們能把第四代的核反應爐產生的廢料,回收利用

  • And especially the small reactors need to go forward.

    還有那種小型反應爐的發展

  • I heard from Nathan Myhrvold -- and I think here's the action point --

    我聽說內森•麥沃爾德(前微軟技術長)

  • it'll take an act of Congress

    他將在國會採取行動

  • to make the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    並讓 NRC 盡速發展小型反應爐(NRC:美國核能安全管制最高機關)

  • start moving quickly on these small reactors,

    這將是我們未來迫切需要的

  • which we need very much, here and in the world.

    我認為這才是有用、具體的行動方案

  • (Applause)

    (掌聲)

  • MJ: So we've analyzed the hour-by-hour

    我們剛剛分析過

  • power demand and supply,

    每一小時所供給、所需求的電量

  • looking at solar, wind, using data for California.

    也看到太陽能、風力在加州的使用情形

  • And you can match that demand, hour-by-hour,

    你可以發現再生能源可以滿足每一小時的需求量

  • for the whole year almost.

    甚至滿足一整年的需求量

  • Now, with regard to the resources,

    講到資源

  • we've developed the first wind map of the world,

    我們已經描繪出

  • from data alone, at 80 meters.

    離地表 80 公尺高上空的地球風向圖

  • We know what the resources are. You can cover 15 percent.

    我們瞭解了這項資源,我們能利用15%的風力來發電

  • 15 percent of the entire U.S.

    全美 15% 的風力資源

  • has wind at fast-enough speeds to be cost-competitive.

    是很有成本優勢的

  • And there's much more solar than there is wind.

    而且我們還有許多的太陽能

  • There's plenty of resource. You can make it reliable.

    這些資源是相當的豐沛,你可以依賴這些資源

  • CA: Okay. So, thank you, Mark.

    好的,謝謝你,馬克

  • (Applause)

    (掌聲)

  • So if you were in Palm Springs ...

    如果你身在棕櫚泉市...(註:位於加州的城市)

  • (Laughter)

    (危險核能)

  • (Applause)

    (笑聲)

  • Shameless. Shameless. Shameless.

    你是站在哪一邊的啊

  • (Applause)

    (掌聲)

  • So, people of the TED community,

    嗯,現在在場的各位 TED 聽眾

  • I put it to you that what the world needs now

    我說,現在世界上需要的

  • is nuclear energy.

    是核能

  • All those in favor, raise your hands.

    認同此論點的人,請舉手

  • (Shouts)

    (歡呼)

  • And all those against.

    反對核能的人

  • Ooooh.

    哇喔...

  • Now that is -- my take on that ...

    那麼現在...我問

  • Just put up ... Hands up, people who changed their minds during the debate,

    聽過這場辯論後改變立場的人

  • who voted differently.

    請舉手

  • Those of you who changed your mind

    這些改變立場的聽眾

  • in favor of "for"

    你是轉為支持核能的人

  • put your hands up.

    請繼續舉手

  • Okay. So here's the read on it.

    好,目前情況

  • Both people won supporters,

    兩位都有各自的支持聽眾

  • but on my count,

    就我剛剛稍微計算一下

  • the mood of the TED community shifted

    支持與反對的聽眾比例

  • from about 75-25

    從剛剛的75-25

  • to about 65-35

    變成了65-35

  • in favor, in favor.

    你們各有千秋

  • You both won. I congratulate both of you.

    你們二方都是贏家,恭喜你們

  • Thank you for that.

    也謝謝你們今天的參與

  • (Applause)

    (掌聲)

Chris Anderson: We're having a debate.

我們有一場辯論

字幕與單字
已審核 字幕已審核

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋