I'm going to talk today about energy and climate. And that might seem a bit surprising, because my full-time work at the foundation is mostly about vaccines and seeds, about the things that we need to invent and deliver to help the poorest two billion live better lives. But energy and climate are extremely important to these people; in fact, more important than to anyone else on the planet. The climate getting worse means that many years, their crops won't grow: there will be too much rain, not enough rain; things will change in ways their fragile environment simply can't support. And that leads to starvation, it leads to uncertainty, it leads to unrest. So, the climate changes will be terrible for them.
Danas ću govoriti o energiji i klimi. To se može činiti malo iznenađujuće jer se moj glavni posao u fondaciji uglavnom vrti oko cjepiva i sjemena, oko stvari koje trebamo izmisliti i dostaviti da bismo pomogli da dvije najsiromašnije milijarde žive bolje živote. Ali energija i klima su izuzetno važni tim ljudima, u stvari, važniji su njima nego ikome drugome na planetu. Klima se pogoršava, to znači da mnogo godina njihovi usjevi neće roditi. Biti će previše kiše, ili premalo kiše. Stvari će se promijeniti na načine kakve njihov krhki okoliš jednostavno neće moći podnijeti. I to vodi ka gladovanju. To vodi u nesigurnost. To vodi u nemire. Znači, klimatske promjene za njih će biti strašne.
Also, the price of energy is very important to them. In fact, if you could pick just one thing to lower the price of to reduce poverty, by far you would pick energy. Now, the price of energy has come down over time. Really advanced civilization is based on advances in energy. The coal revolution fueled the Industrial Revolution, and, even in the 1900s, we've seen a very rapid decline in the price of electricity, and that's why we have refrigerators, air-conditioning; we can make modern materials and do so many things. And so, we're in a wonderful situation with electricity in the rich world. But as we make it cheaper -- and let's say, let's go for making it twice as cheap -- we need to meet a new constraint, and that constraint has to do with CO2.
Također, za njih je jako važna cijena energije. U stvari, ako biste mogli izabrati samo jednu stvar kojoj ćete sniziti cijenu da bi smanjili siromaštvo, to je uvjerljivo energija. Ipak, cijena energije se snizila tijekom vremena. Zaista, napredna civilizacija je bazirana na napredku u energetici. Parna revolucija temeljena na ugljenu pokrenula je industrijsku revoluciju, i, čak i u 1900-tima vidjeli smo veoma nagli pad u cijeni električne energije, i zbog toga mi imamo hladnjake, klima uređaje, možemo stvarati moderne materijale i činiti toliko mnogo stvari. I tako, imamo predivnu situaciju sa električnom energijom u bogatom svijetu. Ali, kako ona postaje jeftinija, recimo da postane dvaput jeftinija, trebamo upoznati novo ograničenje, a to ograničenje ima veze sa CO2.
CO2 is warming the planet, and the equation on CO2 is actually a very straightforward one. If you sum up the CO2 that gets emitted, that leads to a temperature increase, and that temperature increase leads to some very negative effects: the effects on the weather; perhaps worse, the indirect effects, in that the natural ecosystems can't adjust to these rapid changes, and so you get ecosystem collapses.
CO2 zagrijava planet, a jednadžba o CO2 je zapravo prilično jednostavna. Ako zbrojite sav CO2 koji se ispušta, to vodi do porasta temperature, a taj porast temperature vodi do nekih veoma negativnih učinaka. Učinaka na vrijeme i, možda još i gore, neizravnih učinaka, u tome da se prirodni ekosustavi ne mogu prilagoditi ovim naglim promjenama, i tako dolazi do kolapsa ekosustava.
Now, the exact amount of how you map from a certain increase of CO2 to what temperature will be, and where the positive feedbacks are -- there's some uncertainty there, but not very much. And there's certainly uncertainty about how bad those effects will be, but they will be extremely bad. I asked the top scientists on this several times: Do we really have to get down to near zero? Can't we just cut it in half or a quarter? And the answer is, until we get near to zero, the temperature will continue to rise. And so that's a big challenge. It's very different than saying, "We're a twelve-foot-high truck trying to get under a ten-foot bridge, and we can just sort of squeeze under." This is something that has to get to zero.
Sada, točan način kako doći od određenog porasta koncentracije CO2 do koje temperature će to voditi i gdje će biti pozitivni učinci, postoji neka nesigurnost oko toga, ali ne prevelika. Sigurno da postoji i nesigurnost o tome koliko loši će biti ovi učinci, ali biti će ekstremno loši. Nekoliko puta sam pitao vrhunske znanstvenike, trebamo li zbilja ići dolje do oko nulte emisije? Ne možemo li ju samo smanjiti na polovicu ili na četvrtinu? A odgovor je bio, dok ne dođemo oko nule, temperature će nastaviti rasti. I to je taj veliki izazov. Nije da smo 4 m visok kamion koji pokušava proći ispod 3.5 m visokog mosta pa se možemo takoreći provući ispod. Ovo je nešto što mora doći do nule.
Now, we put out a lot of carbon dioxide every year -- over 26 billion tons. For each American, it's about 20 tons. For people in poor countries, it's less than one ton. It's an average of about five tons for everyone on the planet. And somehow, we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero. It's been constantly going up. It's only various economic changes that have even flattened it at all, so we have to go from rapidly rising to falling, and falling all the way to zero.
E sad, mi svake godine ispuštamo mnogo ugljičnog dioksida, preko 26 milijardi tona. To je oko 20 tona po svakom Amerikancu. Za ljude u siromašnim zemljama taj broj iznosi manje od 1 tone. U prosjeku to iznosi oko 5 tona po svakoj osobi na planetu. Nekako moramo napraviti promjene koje će to smanjiti na nulu. Emisija danas stalno raste. Samo su ju razne ekonomske promjene uspjele malo usporiti, tako da moramo doći od naglog rasta do pada, i to pada sve do nule.
This equation has four factors, a little bit of multiplication. So you've got a thing on the left, CO2, that you want to get to zero, and that's going to be based on the number of people, the services each person is using on average, the energy, on average, for each service, and the CO2 being put out per unit of energy. So let's look at each one of these, and see how we can get this down to zero. Probably, one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero.
Ta jednadžba ima četiri faktora. I malo množenja. Znači, na lijevoj strani imamo CO2 kojeg želimo dovesti do nule i koji ovisi o broju ljudi, uslugama koje svaka osoba prosječno koristi, prosječnoj energiji po usluzi, i količini CO2 koja se ispušta po jedinici energije. Idemo pogledati svaki od ovih faktora da vidimo kako ih možemo dovesti do nule. Vjerojatno će jedan od ovih brojeva trebati doći poprilično blizu nuli.
(Laughter)
Znam da je to matematika još iz srednje škole,
That's back from high school algebra. But let's take a look.
ali pogledajmo.
First, we've got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent. But there, we see an increase of about 1.3.
Za početak imamo stanovništvo Danas svijet ima 6.8 milijardi ljudi. Predviđa se da će taj broj rasti do negdje oko 9 milijardi. E sad, ako napravimo dobar posao sa novim cjepivima, zdravstvenom skrbi, poboljšanjem reproduktivnog zdravlja, mogli bi smanjiti taj broj za možda 10 ili 15 posto, ali ipak vidimo porast od oko 1.3.
The second factor is the services we use. This encompasses everything: the food we eat, clothing, TV, heating. These are very good things. Getting rid of poverty means providing these services to almost everyone on the planet. And it's a great thing for this number to go up. In the rich world, perhaps the top one billion, we probably could cut back and use less, but every year, this number, on average, is going to go up, and so, overall, that will more than double the services delivered per person. Here we have a very basic service: Do you have lighting in your house to be able to read your homework? And, in fact, these kids don't, so they're going out and reading their schoolwork under the street lamps.
Drugi faktor su usluge koje koristimo. Ovo obuhvaća sve, hranu koju jedemo, odjeću, televiziju, grijanje. To su sve jako dobre stvari, a rješiti se siromaštva znači omogućiti ove usluge gotovo svima na planetu. Zato je odlična stvar podizanje ove vrijednosti. U bogatom svijetu, možda u najvišoj milijardi, vjerovatno možemo nešto srezati i koristiti manje, ali svake godine će ovaj broj, u prosjeku, rasti, i tako će se, na kraju svega više nego udvostručiti usluge dostupne po osobi. Ovdje imamo jednu osnovnu uslugu. Imate li struju u Vašoj kući da možete raditi svoju domaću zadaću, ova djeca je nemaju, pa idu vani i pišu svoje školske zadaće pod uličnim lampama.
Now, efficiency, "E," the energy for each service -- here, finally we have some good news. We have something that's not going up. Through various inventions and new ways of doing lighting, through different types of cars, different ways of building buildings -- there are a lot of services where you can bring the energy for that service down quite substantially. Some individual services even bring it down by 90 percent. There are other services, like how we make fertilizer, or how we do air transport, where the rooms for improvement are far, far less. And so overall, if we're optimistic, we may get a reduction of a factor of three to even, perhaps, a factor of six. But for these first three factors now, we've gone from 26 billion to, at best, maybe 13 billion tons, and that just won't cut it.
Znači učinkovitost, E, energija po svakoj usluzi, ovdje napokon imamo neke dobre vijesti. Ovdje imamo nešto što neće rasti. Kroz razne izume i druge načine za poboljšanje rasvjete, kroz drugačije tipove automobila, druge načine gradnje zgrada. Postoje mnoge usluge gdje se može prilično smanjiti energija za nju, u nekim slučajevima je čak spustiti za 90 posto. Postoje druge stvari, na primjer način na koji radimo gnojivo, ili kako provodimo zračni transport, gdje je prostor za poboljšanje puno, puno manji. I tako, ukupno gledajući, ako smo optimistični možemo postići smanjenje tri do čak šest puta. Ali za ova tri prva čimbenika, otišli smo od 26 milijardi do, u najboljem slučaju, 13 milijardi tona, i to jednostavno neće proći.
So let's look at this fourth factor -- this is going to be a key one -- and this is the amount of CO2 put out per each unit of energy. So the question is: Can you actually get that to zero? If you burn coal, no. If you burn natural gas, no. Almost every way we make electricity today, except for the emerging renewables and nuclear, puts out CO2. And so, what we're going to have to do at a global scale, is create a new system. So we need energy miracles.
Pogledajmo, znači, ovaj četvrti čimbenik- on će biti ključan- a to je količina CO2 ispuštena po svakoj jedinici energije. Pitanje je, na kraju, možemo li zaista spustiti to na nulu? Ako izgaramo ugljen, ne. Ako izgaramo prirodni plin, ne. Gotovo svaki način na koji danas proizvodimo električnu energiju, izuzev nuklearnih i rastućih obnovljivih izvora, ispušta CO2. Znači da ćemo na globalnoj razini morati stvoriti novi sustav. I tako, trebaju nam energetska čuda.
Now, when I use the term "miracle," I don't mean something that's impossible. The microprocessor is a miracle. The personal computer is a miracle. The Internet and its services are a miracle. So the people here have participated in the creation of many miracles. Usually, we don't have a deadline where you have to get the miracle by a certain date. Usually, you just kind of stand by, and some come along, some don't. This is a case where we actually have to drive at full speed and get a miracle in a pretty tight timeline.
Ipak, kada koristim izraz "čudo", ne mislim na nešto nemoguće. Mikroprocesor je čudo. Osobno računalo je čudo. Internet i njegovi servisi su čudo. Ljudi ovdje sudjelovali su u stvaranju mnogih čuda. Obično nemamo rok na način da moramo smisliti čudo do nekog određenog datuma. Obično samo čekate i neka dođu, a neka ne. Ovo je slučaj kada zapravo moramo ići punom brzinom i doći do čuda u prilično kratkom vremenskom roku.
Now, I thought, "How could I really capture this? Is there some kind of natural illustration, some demonstration that would grab people's imagination here?" I thought back to a year ago when I brought mosquitoes, and somehow people enjoyed that.
I tako sam pomislio, kako to zbilja možemo postići? Postoji li neka vrsta prirodne slike, neka demonstracija koja bi zaokupila ljudsku maštu? Otišao sam u mislima prije godinu dana, kada sam donio komarce, i ljudi su na neki način uživali u tome.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
It really got them involved in the idea of, you know, there are people who live with mosquitoes. With energy, all I could come up with is this. I decided that releasing fireflies would be my contribution to the environment here this year. So here we have some natural fireflies. I'm told they don't bite; in fact, they might not even leave that jar.
To ih je zbilja unijelo u ideju da, znate, zbilja postoje ljudi koji žive s komarcima. Što se tiče energije, sve što sam mogao smisliti je ovo. Odlučio sam da će puštanje krijesnica biti moj doprinos okolišu ove godine. Ovdje imamo prirodne krijesnice Rečeno mi je da ne grizu, u stvari mogle bi čak i ostati u staklenci.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Now, there's all sorts of gimmicky solutions like that one, but they don't really add up to much. We need solutions, either one or several, that have unbelievable scale and unbelievable reliability. And although there's many directions that people are seeking, I really only see five that can achieve the big numbers. I've left out tide, geothermal, fusion, biofuels. Those may make some contribution, and if they can do better than I expect, so much the better. But my key point here is that we're going to have to work on each of these five, and we can't give up any of them because they look daunting, because they all have significant challenges.
Danas postoji velik broj ovakvih varljivih rješenja, ali oni zbilja ne pomažu puno. Nama trebaju rješenja, jedno ili više njih, koja imaju nevjerovatnu veličinu i nevjerovatnu pouzdanost. i, unatoč tome što ljudi tragaju u mnogim smjerovima, ja vidim samo pet smjerova koji mogu postići ovako velike brojeve. Izostavio sam energiju plime, geotermalnu energiju, fuziju i biogoriva. Oni možda mogu dati neki doprinos, i ako budu bolji od mojih očekivanja, tim bolje, ali moja je poanta u tome da ćemo morati raditi na svakom od ovih pet, i ne možemo odustati od bilo kojeg od njih jer izgleda obeshrabrujuće, jer svi oni imaju značajne izazove.
Let's look first at burning fossil fuels, either burning coal or burning natural gas. What you need to do there seems like it might be simple, but it's not. And that's to take all the CO2, after you've burned it, going out the flue, pressurize it, create a liquid, put it somewhere, and hope it stays there. Now, we have some pilot things that do this at the 60 to 80 percent level. But getting up to that full percentage -- that will be very tricky. And agreeing on where these CO2 quantities should be put will be hard, but the toughest one here is this long-term issue: Who's going to be sure? Who's going to guarantee something that is literally billions of times larger than any type of waste you think of in terms of nuclear or other things? This is a lot of volume. So that's a tough one.
Pogledajmo prvo izgaranje fosilnih goriva, bilo da ložimo ugljen ili prirodni plin. Ono što trebate učiniti ovdje, čini se jednostavno, ali nije, je uzeti sav CO2 ispusten nakon izgaranja, stlačiti ga, pretvoriti u tekućinu, spremiti ga negdje i nadati se da će ostati ondje. Danas imamo neke pilot projekte koji čine ovo do 60 ili 80 posto, ali podizanje toga na puni postotak, to će biti jako zeznuto, i dogovaranje o tome gdje bi te količine CO2 trebale biti smještene biti će teško, ali najteži dio ovdje je dugoročni problem. Tko će biti siguran? Tko će garantirati za nešto što je doslovno milijardu puta veće nego bilo koji tip otpada na koji mislite kad govorite o nuklearnom i drugom otpadu? To je veliki obujam. Znači to je težak problem.
Next would be nuclear. It also has three big problems: cost, particularly in highly regulated countries, is high; the issue of safety, really feeling good about nothing could go wrong, that, even though you have these human operators, the fuel doesn't get used for weapons. And then what do you do with the waste? Although it's not very large, there are a lot of concerns about that. People need to feel good about it. So three very tough problems that might be solvable, and so, should be worked on.
Sljedeća bi bila nuklearna energija. Ona također ima tri velika problema. Cijena, osobito u zemljama sa strogo uređenim pravilima, je velika. Pitanje sigurnosti, da se zbilja osjećamo dobro i da ništa ne može poći krivo, da, čak i ako imamo ove ljudske operatore, da gorivo ne bude iskorišteno kao oružje. I na kraju, što uraditi sa otpadom? i, iako to nisu velike količine, postoji velika zabrinutost oko toga. Ljudi se trebaju osjećati dobro u vezi toga. Znači tri veoma teška problema koja mogu biti rješiva, i zato bi se trebalo raditi na njima.
The last three of the five, I've grouped together. These are what people often refer to as the renewable sources. And they actually -- although it's great they don't require fuel -- they have some disadvantages. One is that the density of energy gathered in these technologies is dramatically less than a power plant. This is energy farming, so you're talking about many square miles, thousands of times more area than you think of as a normal energy plant. Also, these are intermittent sources. The sun doesn't shine all day, it doesn't shine every day, and likewise, the wind doesn't blow all the time. And so, if you depend on these sources, you have to have some way of getting the energy during those time periods that it's not available. So we've got big cost challenges here. We have transmission challenges; for example, say this energy source is outside your country, you not only need the technology, but you have to deal with the risk of the energy coming from elsewhere.
Grupirao sam zajedno, ovo zadnje troje od pet. Ovo je ono što ljudi često spominju kao obnovljive izvore. A oni zapravo-iako je odlično to što ne trebaju gorivo- oni imaju neke nedostatke. Jedan je da je gustoća energije prikupljene ovim tehnologijama dramatično manja nego ona elektrane. Ovo je tzv."energy farming", govorimo o mnogo četvornih milja, područja tisuću puta većem od onoga o čemu mislite kao o normalnoj elektrani. Također, ovi izvori su nepredvidivi. Sunce ne sjaji cijeli dan, i ne sjaji svaki dan, i, slično, vjetar ne puše cijelo vrijeme. I tako, ako ovisite o ovim izvorima, morate imati neki način dobivanja energije tijekom tih perioda u kojima nije dostupna. Znači, ovdje imamo velike izazove glede cijene. Imamo izazove u prijenosu energije. Na primjer, recimo da je taj izvor energije izvan vaše zemlje, onda vam ne treba samo tehnologija, nego se morate nositi sa rizikom zbog energije koja dolazi izvana.
And, finally, this storage problem. To dimensionalize this, I went through and looked at all the types of batteries made -- for cars, for computers, for phones, for flashlights, for everything -- and compared that to the amount of electrical energy the world uses. What I found is that all the batteries we make now could store less than 10 minutes of all the energy. And so, in fact, we need a big breakthrough here, something that's going to be a factor of 100 better than the approaches we have now. It's not impossible, but it's not a very easy thing. Now, this shows up when you try to get the intermittent source to be above, say, 20 to 30 percent of what you're using. If you're counting on it for 100 percent, you need an incredible miracle battery.
I na kraju, problem skladištenja. Da vam prikažem ovo, prošao sam i pogledao sve vrste baterija koje proizvodimo, za automobile, za računala, za mobitele, za baterijske svjetiljke, za sve; usporedio sam to sa količinom električne energije koju svijet koristi i shvatio sam da sve baterije koje sada proizvodimo mogu spremiti manje od 10 minuta te energije. I tako, zapravo, trebamo veliko otkriće u ovom području, nešto što će biti sto puta bolje nego pristup koji danas imamo. To nije nemoguće, ali nije tako jednostavno. Ovo se javlja kad probate upotrijebiti nepredvidive izore da budu, recimo, 20 ili 30 posto onoga što koristite. Ako računate na njih za sto posto, trebate nevjerojatnu čudesnu bateriju.
Now, how are we going to go forward on this -- what's the right approach? Is it a Manhattan Project? What's the thing that can get us there? Well, we need lots of companies working on this -- hundreds. In each of these five paths, we need at least a hundred people. A lot of them, you'll look at and say, "They're crazy." That's good. And, I think, here in the TED group, we have many people who are already pursuing this. Bill Gross has several companies, including one called eSolar that has some great solar thermal technologies. Vinod Khosla is investing in dozens of companies that are doing great things and have interesting possibilities, and I'm trying to help back that. Nathan Myhrvold and I actually are backing a company that, perhaps surprisingly, is actually taking the nuclear approach. There are some innovations in nuclear: modular, liquid. Innovation really stopped in this industry quite some ago, so the idea that there's some good ideas laying around is not all that surprising.
Znači, kako ćemo ići dalje; koji je pravi pristup? Je li to Manhattan project? Što je to što nas može odvesti tamo? Pa, trebamo mnogo kompanija koje će raditi na ovome, stotine. Za svaki od ovih pet pristupa trebamo barem sto ljudi. I za mnogo njih, pogledat ćete ih i reći da su ludi. To je dobro. Ja mislim da, ovdje u TED grupi, imamo mnogo ljudi koji veće teže ovome. Bill Gross ima nekoliko tvrtki, uključujući jednu zvanu eSolar koja ima odlične solarno-termalne tehnologije. Vinod Khosla ulaže u desetke kompanija koje rade velike stvari i imaju zanimljive mogućnosti, i pokušavam podržati to. Nathan Myhrvold i ja zapravo podržavamo kompaniju koja, možda iznenađujuće, ide na nuklearni pristup. Postoje neke inovacije na polju nuklearne energije: na primjer modularna, tekuća . A inovacije u ovoj industriji stale su prije dosta vremena, tako da ideja da neke dobre ideje leže okolo i nije toliko iznenađujuća. Ideja iz Terrapower-a je da, umjesto da izgaramo dio urana,
The idea of TerraPower is that, instead of burning a part of uranium -- the one percent, which is the U235 -- we decided, "Let's burn the 99 percent, the U238." It is kind of a crazy idea. In fact, people had talked about it for a long time, but they could never simulate properly whether it would work or not, and so it's through the advent of modern supercomputers that now you can simulate and see that, yes, with the right materials approach, this looks like it would work.
onaj jedan posto koji je U235, odlučili smo, idemo izgarati 99 posto, uran 238. To je pomalo luda ideja. U stvari, ljudi pričaju o tome već dugo vremena, ali nikad nisu mogli točno simulirati bi li to radilo ili ne, i tako se kroz uspon modernih superračunala sada to može simulirati i vidjeti da bi, sa pravim materijalima i pristupom, ova ideja izgleda radila.
And because you're burning that 99 percent, you have greatly improved cost profile. You actually burn up the waste, and you can actually use as fuel all the leftover waste from today's reactors. So instead of worrying about them, you just take that, it's a great thing. It breeds this uranium as it goes along, so it's kind of like a candle. You see it's a log there, often referred to as a traveling wave reactor. In terms of fuel, this really solves the problem. I've got a picture here of a place in Kentucky. This is the leftover, the 99 percent, where they've taken out the part they burn now, so it's called depleted uranium. That would power the US for hundreds of years. And simply by filtering seawater in an inexpensive process, you'd have enough fuel for the entire lifetime of the rest of the planet.
I zbog toga što izgarate tih 99 posto, značajno ste poboljšali cijenu. Zapravo izgarate otpad, i možete koristiti kao gorivo sve ostatke iz današnjih reaktora. I tako, umjesto da se brinete zbog toga, koristite ga. To je odlična stvar. Udiše ovaj uran dok djeluje. Kao neka vrsta svijeće. Možete vidjeti ovaj valjak ovdje, često se spominje kao reaktor putujućih valova. Ako govorimo o gorivu, ovo zbilja rješava problem. Ovdje imam sliku mjesta u Kentuckyu. Ovo je ostatak goriva, 99 posto, iz kojeg su izvukli dio koji danas troše, pa se zove osiromašeni uran. Ovo bi pokretalo SAD stotinama godina. I samo kroz filtriranje morske vode u jeftinom postupku, dobili biste dovoljno goriva za cijeli preostali vijek planeta.
So, you know, it's got lots of challenges ahead, but it is an example of the many hundreds and hundreds of ideas that we need to move forward. So let's think: How should we measure ourselves? What should our report card look like? Well, let's go out to where we really need to get, and then look at the intermediate. For 2050, you've heard many people talk about this 80 percent reduction. That really is very important, that we get there. And that 20 percent will be used up by things going on in poor countries -- still some agriculture; hopefully, we will have cleaned up forestry, cement. So, to get to that 80 percent, the developed countries, including countries like China, will have had to switch their electricity generation altogether. The other grade is: Are we deploying this zero-emission technology, have we deployed it in all the developed countries and are in the process of getting it elsewhere? That's super important. That's a key element of making that report card.
Znate, ovo ima mnoge izazove pred sobom, ali je primjer mnogih stotina i stotina ideja koje trebamo da krenemo naprijed. Razmislimo, kako da se ocjenimo? Kako bi naš izvještaj trebao izgledati? Dođimo do te točke do koje trebamo doći i onda pogledajmo sredinu. Čuli ste mnoge ljude kako govore o tom 80% smanjenju do 2050. To je zbilja važno, da dođemo do toga. A onih 20 posto biti će korišteno za zbivanja u siromašnim zemljama i nešto zemljoradnje. Nadamo se da ćemo do tada rješiti problem šumarstva, cementa. Znači, da bi došli do tih 80 posto, razvijene zemlje, uključujući i zemlje poput Kine, će morati promijeniti svoju cjelokupnu električnu generaciju. Druga stvar je razvijamo li mi tu tehnologiju nulte emisije, jesmo li je razvili u svim razvijenim zemljama i jesmo li u procesu širenja te tehnologije. To je jako važno. To je ključni element u izradi tog izvještaja.
Backing up from there, what should the 2020 report card look like? Well, again, it should have the two elements. We should go through these efficiency measures to start getting reductions: The less we emit, the less that sum will be of CO2, and therefore, the less the temperature. But in some ways, the grade we get there, doing things that don't get us all the way to the big reductions, is only equally, or maybe even slightly less, important than the other, which is the piece of innovation on these breakthroughs.
Znači, da se vratimo natrag, kako bi izvještaj iz 2020. trebao izgledati? On bi, također, trebao imati dva elementa. Trebali bismo proći kroz mjere učinkovitosti da dođemo do ušteda. Što manje ispuštamo, manja će biti količina CO2, i, uslijed toga, temperatura će biti niža. Ali na neki način, ocjena koju dobijemo ovdje, čineći stvari koje nas ne dovode do konačne velike uštede, je jednako, ili čak i malo manje važna, od druge ocjene, one za inovacije koje će postići napredak.
These breakthroughs, we need to move those at full speed, and we can measure that in terms of companies, pilot projects, regulatory things that have been changed. There's a lot of great books that have been written about this. The Al Gore book, "Our Choice," and the David MacKay book, "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air." They really go through it and create a framework that this can be discussed broadly, because we need broad backing for this. There's a lot that has to come together.
Trebamo taj napredak da krenemo punom brzinom, a to možemo mjeriti u broju kompanija, novih projekata, regulacija koje su se promjenile. Mnoge su sjajne knjige napisane o ovome. Al Gore - "Our choice" ("Naš izbor") knjiga Davida McKaya "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" ("Održiva energija - bez brbljanja") One zbilja ulaze u taj problem i kreiraju okvir o tome da možemo govoriti o ovome u širokim krugovima, jer nam za ovo treba velika potpora. Mnoge se stvari moraju posložiti.
So this is a wish. It's a very concrete wish that we invent this technology. If you gave me only one wish for the next 50 years -- I could pick who's president, I could pick a vaccine, which is something I love, or I could pick that this thing that's half the cost with no CO2 gets invented -- this is the wish I would pick. This is the one with the greatest impact. If we don't get this wish, the division between the people who think short term and long term will be terrible, between the US and China, between poor countries and rich, and most of all, the lives of those two billion will be far worse.
Tako da je ovo želja. Veome stvarna želja je da izumimo ovu tehnologiju. Da imam samo jednu želju za sljedećih 50 godina, mogu izabrati tko će biti predsjednik, mogu izabrati cjepiva, a to je nešto što volim, ili mogu izabrati da ova stvar, a to je smanjenje cijene energije za pola bez izbacivanja CO2, bude izmišljena, to je želja koju bih odabrao. To je želja sa najvećim utjecajem. Ako ne dobijemo ovu želju rascjep između ljudi koji misle na duge i kratke staze biti će strašan, između SAD-a i Kine, između bogatih i siromašnih zemalja, a najgore je da će život one najsiromašnije dvije milijarde biti značajno lošiji.
So what do we have to do? What am I appealing to you to step forward and drive? We need to go for more research funding. When countries get together in places like Copenhagen, they shouldn't just discuss the CO2. They should discuss this innovation agenda. You'd be stunned at the ridiculously low levels of spending on these innovative approaches. We do need the market incentives -- CO2 tax, cap and trade -- something that gets that price signal out there. We need to get the message out. We need to have this dialogue be a more rational, more understandable dialogue, including the steps that the government takes. This is an important wish, but it is one I think we can achieve.
Onda, što trebamo učiniti? Što vam nudim da istupite i pokrenete se? Treba nam više novca za financiranje istraživanja. Kada se zemlje skupe na skupovima poput Kopenhagena ne bi trebali raspravljati samo o CO2. Trebali bi raspravljati o ovom inovativnom pokretu, a bili biste zapanjeni koliko je smješno mala potrošnja na ove inovativne pristupe. Trebamo burzovne poticaje, poreze na CO2, ograničenja i trgovinu, nešto što će pokazati tu cijenu uspjeha. Trebamo proširiti poruku. Potreban nam je racionalniji dijalog, dijalog koji se lakše razumije, uključujući i korake koje poduzima vlada. To je važna želja, ali mislim da je to želja koju možemo ispuniti.
Thank you.
Hvala Vam.
(Applause) (Applause ends)
(Pljesak)
Thank you.
Hvala Vam.
Chris Anderson: Thank you. Thank you.
Chris Anderson: Hvala. Hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
CA: Thank you. So to understand more about TerraPower. I mean, first of all, can you give a sense of what scale of investment this is?
Hvala ti. Samo da malo bolje shvatim ovaj Terrapower projekt, znači - Mislim, za početak, možeš li nam dati neku procjenu o veličini ove investicije?
Bill Gates: To actually do the software, buy the supercomputer, hire all the great scientists, which we've done, that's only tens of millions. And even once we test our materials out in a Russian reactor to make sure our materials work properly, then you'll only be up in the hundreds of millions. The tough thing is building the pilot reactor -- finding the several billion, finding the regulator, the location that will actually build the first one of these. Once you get the first one built, if it works as advertised, then it's just clear as day, because the economics, the energy density, are so different than nuclear as we know it.
Bill Gates: Sam program, kupnja superračunala, zapošljavanje svih sjajnih znanstvenika, što smo već učinili, to je samo desetak milijuna, i čak kad testiramo naš materijal u ruskom reaktoru da se uvjerimo da radi ispravno, onda ćemo govoriti samo o stotinama milijuna. Težak dio je gradnja probnog reaktora, prikupljanje nekoliko milijardi, traženje pravila, lokacije na kojoj će se zapravo izgraditi prvi takav reaktor Jednom kad se taj prvi izgradi, ako bude radio kao što je planirano, onda je sve jasno kao dan, jer su ekonomičnost i gustoća energije znatno drugačiji od onih nuklearki koje znamo. CA: Znači, da vidim jesam li shvatio, to uključuje kopanje duboko u zemlju,
CA: So to understand it right, this involves building deep into the ground, almost like a vertical column of nuclear fuel, of this spent uranium, and then the process starts at the top and kind of works down?
gotovo nešto kao okomiti stupac nuklearnog goriva, tog potrošenog i osiromašenog urana, a potom postupak počinje na vrhu i napreduje prema dnu?
BG: That's right. Today, you're always refueling the reactor, so you have lots of people and lots of controls that can go wrong, where you're opening it up and moving things in and out -- that's not good. So if you have very --
BG: To je točno. Danas stalno punite reaktore, tako da imate mnogo ljudi i mnogo stvari koje mogu poći krivo, to kada otvarate reaktor i mičete stvari van i unutra. To nije dobro. Tako da ako imate veoma jeftino gorivo koje možete staviti unutra na 60 godina -
(Laughter)
very cheap fuel that you can put 60 years in -- just think of it as a log -- put it down and not have those same complexities. And it just sits there and burns for the 60 years, and then it's done.
mislite o tome kao o cjepanici - stavite ga dolje i nemate svu tu složenost. I ono samo tamo stoji i izgara šezdeset godina dok nije gotovo.
CA: It's a nuclear power plant that is its own waste disposal solution.
CA: To je nukleana elektrana koja je svoje vlastitio rješenje za zbrinjavanje otpada.
BG: Yeah; what happens with the waste, you can let it sit there -- there's a lot less waste under this approach -- then you can actually take that and put it into another one and burn that. And we start out, actually, by taking the waste that exists today that's sitting in these cooling pools or dry-casking by reactors -- that's our fuel to begin with. So the thing that's been a problem from those reactors is actually what gets fed into ours, and you're reducing the volume of the waste quite dramatically as you're going through this process.
BG: Da. Mislim, što se događa s otpadom, možete ga pustiti da stoji tamo - mnogo je manje otpada na ovakav način - onda zapravo možete uzeti to i staviti ga u drugi reaktor i iskoristiti. A počinjemo zapravo uzimajući otpad koji postoji danas, koji je u tim bazenima za hlađenje ili suhim skladištima uz reaktore. To je gorivo s kojim počinjemo. Znači stvar koja je bila problem tih reaktora je ono što zapravo pogoni naše, i prilično dramatično smanjujete količinu otpada kako prolazite kroz ovaj postupak.
CA: You're talking to different people around the world about the possibilities. Where is there most interest in actually doing something with this?
CA: U svojim razgovorima sa raznim ljudima diljem svijeta o mogućnostima ovog postupka, gdje su najviše zainteresirani da stvarno naprave nešto ovakvo?
BG: Well, we haven't picked a particular place, and there's all these interesting disclosure rules about anything that's called "nuclear." So we've got a lot of interest. People from the company have been in Russia, India, China. I've been back seeing the secretary of energy here, talking about how this fits into the energy agenda. So I'm optimistic. The French and Japanese have done some work. This is a variant on something that has been done. It's an important advance, but it's like a fast reactor, and a lot of countries have built them, so anybody who's done a fast reactor is a candidate to be where the first one gets built.
BG: Pa, nismo izabrali određeno mjesto, a tu su i sva ta zanimljiva pravila o razotkrivanju svega što se naziva nuklearnim, tako da imamo mnogo interesa, ljudi iz tvrtke bili su u Rusiji, Indiji i Kini. Bio sam kod ovdašnjeg tajnika za energiju, govoreći o tome kako se ovo uklapa u energetsku politiku. Tako da sam optimističan. Znate da su Francuzi i Japanci napravili nešto posla. To je varijanta za nešto što je već napravljeno. To je važan napredak, ali je poput brzog reaktora, a mnoge zemlje su ih izgradile, tako da je svatko tko je napravio brzi reaktor kandidat za gradnju prvog reaktora.
CA: So, in your mind, timescale and likelihood of actually taking something like this live?
CA: Znači, po tvom mišljenju, vremenska skala i vjerojatnost da se nešto ovakvo zbilja poduzme su dobre?
BG: Well, we need -- for one of these high-scale, electro-generation things that's very cheap, we have 20 years to invent and then 20 years to deploy. That's sort of the deadline that the environmental models have shown us that we have to meet. And TerraPower -- if things go well, which is wishing for a lot -- could easily meet that. And there are, fortunately now, dozens of companies -- we need it to be hundreds -- who, likewise, if their science goes well, if the funding for their pilot plants goes well, that they can compete for this. And it's best if multiple succeed, because then you could use a mix of these things. We certainly need one to succeed.
BG: Pa, recimo, za jednog od tih naprednih elektro-generatora koji moraju biti veoma jeftini, imamo 20 godina da ih izumimo i onda 20 godina da ih stavimo u upotrebu. To je neka vrsta krajnjeg roka koji su nam modeli okoliša pokazali da ih se moramo držati. I, znate, Terrapower, ako stvari prođu u najboljem redu, što svi jako želimo, bi lako mogao zadovoljiti taj rok. Danas, srećom, postoje deseci kompanija, ali nama trebaju stotine kompanija, koje će se, također, ako njihove ideje prođu dobro, ako bude uspješnog financiranja njihovih probnih projekata, moći natjecati u postizanju tog cilja. Najbolje bi bilo ako više njih uspije, zato jer onda možete koristiti mješavinu svih tih stvari. Definitivno nam treba jedna koja će uspjeti.
CA: In terms of big-scale possible game changers, is this the biggest that you're aware of out there?
CA: Ako govorimo o velikoj promjeni u "načinu igre", je li ovo najveća moguća koja postoji, a za koju Vi znate?
BG: An energy breakthrough is the most important thing. It would have been, even without the environmental constraint, but the environmental constraint just makes it so much greater. In the nuclear space, there are other innovators. You know, we don't know their work as well as we know this one, but the modular people, that's a different approach. There's a liquid-type reactor, which seems a little hard, but maybe they say that about us. And so, there are different ones, but the beauty of this is a molecule of uranium has a million times as much energy as a molecule of, say, coal. And so, if you can deal with the negatives, which are essentially the radiation, the footprint and cost, the potential, in terms of effect on land and various things, is almost in a class of its own.
BG: Veliki napredak u energetici je najvažnija stvar. Bilo bi tako i bez ekoloških problema, ali ekološki problemi samo uvećavaju njegov značaj. Postoje i druge inovacije, ako govorimo o nuklearnoj energiji. Znate, ne znamo njihov rad tako dobro kao ovaj ovdje, ali modularni tip reaktora, to je drugačiji pristup. Postoji i tekući tip reaktora, koji se čini malo teži, ali možda to oni govore za nas. I tako, postoje mnogi pristupi, ali ljepota svega je u tome da molekula urana ima milijun puta više energije nego recimo molekula ugljena, i na taj način, ako se možemo nositi sa negativnim stranama, koje su u osnovi zračenje, utjecaj na okoliš i cijena; potencijal na razini učinka na okoliš i ostalim stvarima jest gotovo klasa za sebe.
CA: If this doesn't work, then what? Do we have to start taking emergency measures to try and keep the temperature of the earth stable?
CA: A ako ovo ne bude radilo, što tada? Trebamo li početi sa izvanrednim mjerama da pokušamo održati temperaturu Zemlje stabilnom?
BG: If you get into that situation, it's like if you've been overeating, and you're about to have a heart attack. Then where do you go? You may need heart surgery or something. There is a line of research on what's called geoengineering, which are various techniques that would delay the heating to buy us 20 or 30 years to get our act together. Now, that's just an insurance policy; you hope you don't need to do that. Some people say you shouldn't even work on the insurance policy because it might make you lazy, that you'll keep eating because you know heart surgery will be there to save you. I'm not sure that's wise, given the importance of the problem, but there's now the geoengineering discussion about: Should that be in the back pocket in case things happen faster, or this innovation goes a lot slower than we expect?
BG: Ako dođe do te situacije, to je kao da ste se prežderavali i sada vam prijeti srčani udar. Gdje onda idete? Tada trebate operaciju srca ili nešto drugo. Postolji polje koje se zove geoinžinjering koje se sastoji od raznih tehnika koje bi odgodile zagrijavanje te nam kupile 20 ili 30 godina da se saberemo. Ipak, to je tu samo za osiguranje. Nadamo se da to nećemo trebati koristiti. Neki ljudi govore da ne bi trebali uopće raditi na tom osiguranju jer nas može učiniti lijenima, na način da ćete nastaviti jesti jer znate da će vas operacija spasiti. Nisam siguran koliko je to mudro ako uvidimo važnost problema, ali danas postoji rasprava među geoinžinjerima o tome treba li ovaj pristup biti u pričuvi za slučaj da se stvari ubrzaju, ili će taj pristup ići mnogo sporije nego što mi očekujemo.
CA: Climate skeptics: If you had a sentence or two to say to them, how might you persuade them that they're wrong?
CA: Skeptici u vezi klimatskih promjena: ako im možete reći rečenicu ili dvije, kako bi ih mogli uvjeriti da su u krivu?
BG: Well, unfortunately, the skeptics come in different camps. The ones who make scientific arguments are very few. Are they saying there's negative feedback effects that have to do with clouds that offset things? There are very, very few things that they can even say there's a chance in a million of those things. The main problem we have here -- it's kind of like with AIDS: you make the mistake now, and you pay for it a lot later.
BG: Nažalost, skeptici dolaze sa različitih strana. Vrlo je malo onih koji daju znanstvene argumente. Govore li oni da postoje negativni povratni efekti koji utječu na oblake i remete stvari? Postoji malo, jako malo stvari za koje oni mogu uopće reći da postoji jedan u milijun šansa da se dogode. Glavni problem koji imamo je nešto poput AIDS-a. Pogriješite danas i platite za to mnogo kasnije.
And so, when you have all sorts of urgent problems, the idea of taking pain now that has to do with a gain later, and a somewhat uncertain pain thing. In fact, the IPCC report -- that's not necessarily the worst case, and there are people in the rich world who look at IPCC and say, "OK, that isn't that big of a deal." The fact is it's that uncertain part that should move us towards this. But my dream here is that, if you can make it economic, and meet the CO2 constraints, then the skeptics say, "OK, I don't care that it doesn't put out CO2, I kind of wish it did put out CO2. But I guess I'll accept it, because it's cheaper than what's come before."
I tako, kada govorimo o svim oblicima hitnih problema, ideja je prihvaćanje žrtve danas koja vodi do dobitka kasnije - još k tome i nesigurne žrtve. U stvari, u izvještaju Međuvladinog panela o klimatskim promjenama (IPCC) to nije najgora stvar, i postoje ljudi u bogatom svijetu koji gledaju IPCC i kažu, dobro, to nije tako velik problem. Stvar je u tome da nas je ovaj nesigurni dio trebao gurati naprijed. Ali moj san je da, ako ga možemo učiniti ekonomičnim, i biti unutar ograničenja CO2, skeptici će reći, u redu, nije me briga što ne ispušta CO2, čak bi i htio da ispušta CO2, ali mislim da ću ga prihvatiti jer je jeftiniji nego ono što je bilo prije.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
CA: So that would be your response to the Bjørn Lomborg argument, basically if you spend all this energy trying to solve the CO2 problem, it's going to take away all your other goals of trying to rid the world of poverty and malaria and so forth, it's a stupid waste of the Earth's resources to put money towards that when there are better things we can do.
CA: Znači to bi bio Vaš odgovor na izjavu Bjorna Lomborga da ćete, ako ulažete sve svoje napore u pokušaje rješavanja poblema sa CO2, zaboraviti sve druge ciljeve poput iskorjenjivanja siromaštva, malarije i tako dalje; te da je glup gubitak Zemljinih resursa ulagati novac u to kad postoje bolje stvari koje možemo učiniti. BG: Zapravo, trošak na istraživanje i razvoj -
BG: Well, the actual spending on the R&D piece -- say the US should spend 10 billion a year more than it is right now -- it's not that dramatic. It shouldn't take away from other things. The thing you get into big money on, and reasonable people can disagree, is when you have something that's non-economic and you're trying to fund that -- that, to me, mostly is a waste. Unless you're very close, and you're just funding the learning curve and it's going to get very cheap, I believe we should try more things that have a potential to be far less expensive. If the trade-off you get into is, "Let's make energy super expensive," then the rich can afford that. I mean, all of us here could pay five times as much for our energy and not change our lifestyle. The disaster is for that two billion.
recimo da bi SAD trebale trošiti 10 milijardi na godinu više nego danas - to nije toliko dramatično. Ne bi trebalo uzimati drugim stvarima. Stvar u koju ulažete mnogo novca, razumni ljudi se ne moraju složiti, je kada imate nešto što nije ekonomski isplativo i vi to pokušavate financirati. Po meni to je, ugalvnom, besmisleno. Osim ako niste jako blizu rezultatu i financirate samo razvoj znanja koje će postati jeftinije. Vjerujem da trebamo iskušavati više stvari koje imaju potencijal da budu daleko jeftinije. Ako je razmjena u koju uđete - učinimo energiju super skupom, onda bogati to mogu priuštiti. To što želim reći je, svi mi mogli bi platiti pet puta više za našu energiju i ne promijeniti naš stil života. Katastrofa je za one dvije milijarde.
And even Lomborg has changed. His shtick now is, "Why isn't the R&D getting more discussed?" He's still, because of his earlier stuff, still associated with the skeptic camp, but he's realized that's a pretty lonely camp, and so, he's making the R&D point. And so there is a thread of something that I think is appropriate. The R&D piece -- it's crazy how little it's funded.
Čak se je i Lomborg promjenio. Sada je njegovo razmišljanje zašto se ne raspravlja više o istraživanju i razvoju. Još je uvijek, zbog ranijih stvari, povezan sa taborom skeptika, ali je shvatio da je to prilično osamljen kamp, i zato govori o istraživanju i razvoju. Mislim da tu ima nečega prikladnog. Istraživanje i razvoj, ludo je kako malo novca dobiva.
CA: Well, Bill, I suspect I speak on behalf of most people here to say I really hope your wish comes true. Thank you so much.
CA: Bill, mislim da govorim u ime većine ljudi ovdje kad kažem da se zbilja nadam da će se tvoja želja ostvariti. Hvala ti puno. BG: Hvala vama.
BG: Thank you.
(Pljesak)
(Applause)