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 možda zvuči iznenađujuće od mene budući da moj posao u fondaciji podrazumeva većinom oblasti vezane za vakcine i semena, stvari koje je potrebno da osmišljavamo i isporučujemo da bismo pomogli da dve milijarde najsiromašnijih žive bolje živote. Ali energija i klima su izuzetno važne upravo ovim ljudima, zapravo, važnije nego bilo kome drugom na celoj planeti. Pogoršanje klimatskih uslova znači loš rast i razvoj njihovih useva. Ili će biti previše kiše ili nedovoljno kiše. Stvari će se menjati na način koji njihova osetljiva sredina jednostavno neće podneti. A to vodi do umiranja od gladi. To vodi do nesigurnosti, do nestabilnosti i nemira. Tako će klimatske promene biti katastrofalne za njih.
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.
Takođe, cena energije njima je veoma važna. U principu, kada bismo imali mogućnost da biramo da snizimo cenu samo jedne stvari, u cilju smanjenja siromaštva, to bi bila energija. Cena energije je vremenom opala. Zaista, napredak civilizacije je baziran na napretku energije. Revolucija u proizvodnji uglja dovela je do industrijske revolucije, čak smo videli drastičan pad cene električne energije početkom XX veka, i zbog toga danas imamo frižidere, klima uređaje, možemo stvarati savremene materijale i činiti mnogo stvari. I tako smo se našli u predivnoj situaciji sa električnom energijom u bogatom svetu. Ali, kako je činimo jeftinijom - i recimo neka bude i duplo jeftinija - moramo da se suočimo sa novim ograničenjima, a ta ograničenja su u vezi 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 zagreva planetu, a računica sa CO2 je izuzetno jednostavna. Ako sumirate CO2 koji se emituje, videćete da to dovodi do porasta temperature, a to povećanje temperature dovodi do negativnih posledica. Posledice se odnose na klimu i u još gorem slučaju, posledice mogu biti indirektne u tom smislu što se prirodni ekosistemi ne mogu prilagoditi tim brzim promenama, te tako dolazi do kolapsa ekosistema.
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.
E sada, tačan podatak koji želite da dobijete o tome koliko će sniženje temperature biti u zavisnosti od umanjenja emisije CO2 i kakve će biti pozitivne povratne reakcije, u tome postoji neki stepen nesigurnosti, ali ne prevelik. I postoji izvesna neodređenost u vezi s tim koliko su loši efekti emisije ali biće ekstremno loši. Pitao sam vodeće stručnjake u ovoj oblasti više puta, da li je zaista potrebno svesti emisiju baš skoro do nule? Možemo li je samo smanjiti na pola ili na četvrtinu? Odgovor je bio da, sve dok ne svedemo emisiju skoro do nule, temperatura će nastaviti da raste. A to je veliki izazov. To je prilično drugačije od toga da pokušamo da uguramo kamion visok 4m ispod mosta visine 3m, gledaćemo samo da ga nekako provučemo ispod. Ovo je nešto što mora da se svede na nulu.
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 sada, mi ispuštamo mnogož ugljen dioksida svake godine, tačnije, preko 26 milijardi tona. Za svakog Amerikanca, to je oko 20 tona. Za ljude u siromašnim zemljama, to je manje od jedne tone. To je u proseku, oko pet tona po svakoj osobi na planeti. I nekako, mi moramo da napravimo promene da bismo sveli to na nulu. To je proces koji je stalno u porastu. Samo različite ekonomske promene su doprinele smanjenju, tako da mi moramo da idemo od brzog rasta do naglog spuštanja skroz 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.
Ova jednačina ima četiri faktora. Malo množenja. Tako, imate CO2 na levoj strani koji želite da svedete na nulu, i to će biti zasnovano na broju ljudi, na uslugama kojima se koriste u proseku, energiji koja se prosečno potroši pri svakoj usluzi, i količini CO2 koja se potroši po jedinici te energije. Pogledajmo svaku od postojećih vrednosti, i vidimo kako ćemo doći do nule. Verovatno, jedan od ovih brojeva će morati da bude prilično blizu nule.
(Laughter)
E sada, to bi bilo malo povratka školskoj algebri,
That's back from high school algebra. But let's take a look.
ali hajde da pogledamo.
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.
Prvo, imamo populaciju. Svet danas ima 6,8 milijardi ljudi. Ta cifra se kreće ka devet milijardi. E sad, ako odradimo zbilja dobar posao sa novim vakcinama, zdravstvenom negom, servisima za reproduktivno zdravlje, mogli bismo to sniziti za, recimo, 10 do 15 procenata, ali i dalje 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. To obuhvata baš sve, hranu koju jedemo, odeću, TV, grejanje. Ovo su sve jako dobre stvari, i rešavanje siromaštva znači obezbeđivanje ovih usluga skoro svima na planeti. I sjajna je stvar da se ovaj broj poveća. U bogatom svetu, recimo jednoj milijardi koja je na vrhu, verovatno bi mogla da smanji korišćenje ovih usluga, ali svake godine, ovaj broj, u proseku će rasti, i tako, povrh svega, udvostručiće se broj usluga po osobi. Ovde imamo najosnovnije usluge. Da li palite svetlo u kući da biste mogli da čitate svoj domaći zadatak, ova deca to ne mogu, oni izlaze napolje, da bi čitali svoj zadatak pod svetlošću uličnih lampi.
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.
Sada, efikasnost, E, energija utrošena za svaku ovu uslugu, ovde, najzad imamo malo dobrih vesti. Ovde imamo nešto što nije u porastu. Kroz različite inovacije i nove načine dobijanja svetlosti, kroz različite vrste automobila, različite načine izrade zgrada, postoji mnogo usluga gde se može postići prilično značajno smanjenje energije, u nekim individualnim uslugama čak se može sniziti za 90 procenata. Ali, postoje neke druge usluge kao na primer način na koji stvaramo đubrivo, ili kako omogućavamo avionski saobraćaj gde je prostor za poboljšanje znatno, znatno manji. I tako, sve u svemu, ukoliko smo optismiti, mogli bismo da postignemo redukciju od tri do čak, možda, šest puta. Ali za ova prva tri faktora, uspeli smo da samnjimo sa 26 milijardi, na, u najboljem slučaju, 13 milijardi tona, a to jednostavno nije dovoljno.
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.
Stoga, pogledajmo ovaj četvrti faktor - ovaj će se ispostaviti kao ključni - a to je količina CO2 emitovanog po jedinici energije. A glavno pitanje je, da li je zaista moguće da bude sveden na nulu? Ako sagorevate ugalj, ne. Ako sagorevate prirodni gas, ne. Skoro svi načini na koje danas stvaramo električnu energiju, izuzev obnovljivih izvora energije koja je u razvoju i nuklearne, oslobađaju CO2. I tako, ono što ćemo mi morati da uradimo na globalnom nivou, jeste da kreiramo novi sistem. 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.
Kada koristim termin "čudo", ja ne mislim na nešto što je nemoguće. Mikroprocesor je čudo. Personalni računar je čudo. Internet i njegove usluge su čudo. Dakle, ljudi ovde su učestvovali u kreiranju mnogih čuda. Obično nemamo fiksiran rok, do kog moramo da izmislimo to čudo. Obično smo u nekakvom stanju pripravnosti i neka čuda dođu, neka ne. Ovo je situacija u kojoj ćemo morati da se ubrzamo i pronađemo to čudo u prilično brzom 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.
Sada razmišljam, kako bih zaista mogao učiniti to? Postoji li neka vrsta prirodne ilustracije, nekakva demonstracija koja bi usmerila ljudsku imaginaciju na ovaj put? Pomislio sam na prošlu godinu kad sam doneo komarce ovde, i nekako su ljudi zbilja uživali u tome.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 zaista navelo da pomisle, da, znate, postoje ljudi koji žive sa komarcima. Sa energijom, sve što sam uspeo da smislim je ovo. Odlučio sam da je oslobađanje svitaca moj ovogodišnji doprinos okolini ovde. I tako mi ovde imamo neke prirodne svice. Rečeno mi je da oni ne ujedaju,
(Laughter)
zapravo, vrlo je moguće da uopšte i ne napuste teglu.
(Smeh)
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.
Postoji veliki broj raznovrsnih rešenja kao što je ovo, ali oni zapravo ne doprinose mnogo. Potrebno nam je rešenje, jedno ili nekoliko njih, koje će imati nezamislive domete i neverovatnu pouzdanost. I iako postoji mnoštvo različitih pravaca kojima se ljudi vode, ja trenutno mogu da vidim pet pristupa koji mogu da postignu velike brojeve. Izostavio sam plimu, geotermalne, fuziju, biogoriva. Oni mogu dati neki doprinos, i ukoliko mogu više od onoga koliko ja mislim, tim bolje. Ali moja ključna ideja ovde jeste da ćemo morati da radimo na svakoj od ovih pet, i ne smemo odustati niti od jedne jer sve one deluju zastrašujuće, jer 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.
Hajde prvo da pogledamo sagorevanje fosilnih goriva, ili sagorevanje uglja ili prirodnog gasa. Ono što se tu treba uraditi deluje jednostavno, ali zapravo nije, a to je je ekstrahovanje kompletnog CO2, nakon što ga sagorite, izdvojite iz goriva, kompresujete ga, stvorite tečnost, uskladištite ga negde, i potom se nadate da će tamo i ostati. Postoje neki pilot projekti koji rade upravo ovo sa uspešnošću od 60 do 80 procenata. Ali dostizanje punog procenta će biti izuzetno nezgodno. I dogovor oko toga gde će se taj CO2 skladištiti će biti izuzetno težak, ali najteže od svega ovde jeste pitanje dugoročnosti. Ko će uopšte biti siguran u to? Ko će garantovati nešto što bi bilo bukvalno milijardama puta veće od bilo kog tipa otpada koji vam padne na pamet, na primer nuklearnog ili tome slično? To je ogromna količina. Tako da je to pravi 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.
Sledeće bi bila nuklearna. I ona ima tri velika problema. Troškovi, posebno u visoko razvijenim zemljama su jako visoki. Pitanje bezbednosti, stvarno dobar osećaj da ništa ne može krenuti loše, iako time upravljaju ljudi, da se gorivo ne upotrebi za oružje. I onda, šta raditi sa otpadom? Iako nije prevelik, postoji mnogo brige oko toga. Ljudi moraju da se osećaju dobro povodom toga. Znači, tri veoma teška problema koja bi mogla bila rešiva, i na kojima bi stoga trebalo raditi.
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.
Preostala tri od pet, spojio sam zajedno. Oni se odnose na ono što ljudi najčešće nazivaju izvorima obnovljive energije. A oni zapravo, iako je sjajno što ne zahtevaju goriva, imaju i neke nedostatke. Jedan je ta da je gustina energije sakupljena pomoću ovih tehnologija drastično manja od one dobijene iz elektrana. To je uzgajanje energije, koje podrazumeva mnogo kvadratnih kilometara, hiljade puta više nego što bi pomislili kada je u pitanju obična elektrana. Takođe, ovo su i izvori na koje ne možemo uvek računati. Sunce ne sija ceo dan, ne sija ni svaki dan, i, slično, vetar ne duva stalno. I tako, da biste zavisili od ovih izvora, morate imati neki način za dobijanje energije u toku onih perioda kada ovi izvori nisu dostupni. Tako imamo izazove visokih cena ovde. Imamo izazove vezane za prenos. Na primer, recimo da su ovi izvori energije izvan vaše zemlje, ne samo da vam treba tehnologija, nego treba da se nosite i sa rizikom da dobijate energiju sa drugih strana.
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 najzad, problem sa skladištenjem. I da bih sagledao ovo sa svih strana, otišao sam i pogledao sve vrste baterija koje se prave - za automobile, kompjutere, telefone, lampe, za sve - i uporedio ih sa ukupnom količinom električne energije koju svet koristi, i otkrio sam da sve baterije koje pravimo danas mogu uskladištiti manje od 10 minuta celokupne energije. I tako nam je, zapravo, potreban veliki prodor ovde, nešto što će biti otprilike sto puta bolje od pristupa koje imamo sada. To nije nemoguće, ali nije ni lako postići. E sada, ovo se dešava kada pokušavate da koristite promenljive izvore da biste postigli rast od 20 do 30 procenata u nečemu što koristite. Ako ste računali na to za 100 procenata, potrebna vam je čudesna magična baterija.
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.
A kako sada da nastavimo napred sa ovim: koji je pravi pristup? Da li je to "Menhetn projekat"? Šta nas može dovesti dotle? Potrebno nam je mnogo kompanija koje će raditi na tome, stotine. I u svakom od ovih pet pristupa potrebne su nam stotine ljudi. I za veliki broj njih reći ćete da su ludi. A to je dobro. I ja mislim, ovde u TED grupi, imamo mnogo ljudi koji su već na tom tragu. Bil Gros ima nekoliko kompanija, uključujući jednu koja se zove eSolar koja ima neke sjajne solarno energetske tehnologije. Vinod Kosla investira u desetine kompanija koje rade neke sjajne stvari i imaju zanimljive mogućnosti, i ja se trudim da im pomognem. Netan Mirvold i ja podržavamo kompaniju koja, možda malo iznenadjujuće, zapravo ima nuklearni pristup. Ima nekih inovacija u nuklearnom pristupu: modularni, tečni. Inovacije u ovim industrijama su već neko vreme zastale, tako da otkriće da neke jako dobre ideje leže svuda oko nas i nije tako iznenađujuće.
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.
Ideja organizacije TerraPower jeste da, umesto sagorevanja dela uranijuma, jednog procenta, koji je U235, odlučili smo da sagorimo 99 procenata U238. To je zapravo jedna prilično luda ideja. U stvari, ljudi su pričali o tome dugo, ali nikada nisu uspeli da naprave dobru simulaciju kako bi videli da li to radi ili ne, i tako sa razvojem naprednih modernih superkompjutera, sa kojima je danas moguća dobra simulacija, zaključak je da sa dobrim pristupom, takva ideja bi mogla da radi.
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 iz razloga što sagorevate 99 procenata, izuzetno ste poboljšali troškove. Vi zapravo spaljujete i otpad, i možete kompletan otpad od današnjih reaktora koristiti kao gorivo. I tako, umesto da brinete o tome, vi ga jednostavno iskoristite, sjajno je. Iskorišćavate uranijum u toku samog procesa. To je nalik sagorevanju sveće. Kao što i vidite, najčešće se spominje kao putujući talasni reaktor. Ukoliko govorimo o gorivu, ovo rešava problem. Imam sliku ovde jednog mesta u Kentakiju. Ovo je ostatak, 99 procenata, gde su oni odneli deo koji sada sagorevaju, i to se zove istrošeni uranijum. To bi obezbedilo Americi energiju narednih nekoliko stotina godina. Jednostavnom filtracijom morske vode putem jeftinih procesa, imali bismo dovoljno goriva do kraja životnog ciklusa naše planete.
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.
I tako, postoje mnogi izazovi pred nama, ali ovo je primer nekih od stotina i stotina ideja koje su nam potrebne da bismo išli napred. Hajde da razmislimo, kako bi trebalo da ocenjujemo nas same? Kako bi trebalo da izgledaju naši izveštaji? Hajde da izađemo napolje gde zbilja treba da odemo, i pogledajmo brojke. Do 2050, čuli ste da mnogi pričaju o redukciji od 80 procenata. To je zaista veoma važno, da postignemo to. A tih preostalih 20 procenata će biti iskorišćeno u neke svrhe u siromašnim zemljama, u poljoprivredi. Nadamo se da ćemo očistiti šume, cementare... Tako, da bismo stigli do tih 80 procenata, razvijene zemlje, uključujući i one poput Kine, moraće potpuno da zamene svoje električne generatore. Sledeće pitanje je da li primenjujemo ove tehnologije od nula-emisija, da li je primenjujemo u svim razvijenim zemljama i jesmo li u procesu njene primene i u ostalim zemljama. To je izuzetno važno. To je ključni element našeg konačnog izveštaja.
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.
Ali pre toga, kako bi izveštaj trebalo da izgleda 2020? I ponovo, trebalo bi da ima ta dva elementa. Trebalo bi da se krećemo putem ovih efikasnih mera kako bismo počeli postizati redukciju. Što manje emitujemo, manja će biti količina emitovanog CO2, i analogno, temperatura će biti niža. Ali u neku ruku, stepen u kome stignemo do tamo, radeći stvari koje nas neće odvesti skroz do konačne redukcije, su jednako ili samo nešto manje važne od druge, koja se odnosi na deo inovacije ključnih prodora.
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.
Moramo ove prodore pokretati punom brzinom, a to možemo meriti kroz postojanje kompanija, pilot projekata, regulatornim merama koje su promenjene. Postoje mnoge odlične knjige koje su napisane o ovome. Tu je knjiga Ala Gora, "Naš izbor" kao i knjiga Dejvida Mekaja, "Održiva energija bez toplog vazduha". Oni zbilja dotiču suštinu i stvaraju okvir da bi se o ovoj temi široko raspravljalo, jer nam je potrebna široka podrška za ovaj problem. Mnogo je toga što mora da se složi.
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.
Ovo je želja. Veoma konkretna želja da unapredimo ovu tehnologiju. Ukoliko bih mogao da poželim samo želju u narednih 50 godina: da izaberem ko će biti predsednik, da izaberem neku novu vakcinu, a to je nešto što zbilja volim, ili bih mogao da izaberem da se izmisli ova stvar koja košta duplo manje i nema CO2, upravo bih tu želju izabrao. To je ona koja ima najviše uticaja. Ukoliko ne dobijemo ovu želju, raskol između onih koji razmišljaju kratkoročno i dugoročno će biti strašan, između Amerike i Kine, između siromašnih i bogatih zemalja, i što je najznačajnije životi one dve milijarde ljudi će biti mnogo gori.
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.
Pa šta moramo da uradimo? Šta ja zapravo od vas tražim? Potrebno nam je više finansiranja u istraživačke projekte. Kada se zemlje nađu sve zajedno na mestu kao što je Kopenhagen, ne treba da raspravljaju samo o CO2. Trebalo bi da raspravlju pitanju inovacija i bili biste zapanjeni koliko je smešno nizak nivo ulaganja u ove inovativne pristupe. Moramo da podstičemo tržište, CO2 takse, ograničimo trgovinu, nešto što će proširiti ideju svuda. Moramo da prenesemo poruku. Moramo da vodimo jedan racionalniji dijalog, razumljiviji dijalog, uključujući tu i korake koje vlada čini. Ovo je važna želja, ali mislim da je moguće ostvariti je.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause) (Applause ends)
(Aplauz) (Kraj aplauza)
Thank you.
Chris Anderson: Thank you. Thank you.
Kris Anderson: Hvala. Hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
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?
KA: Hvala. Da bih razumeo malo više o projektu TerraPower, pre svega, možete li nagovestiti kolikih bi razmera bila ta investicija?
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.
Bil Gejts: Da bi se napravio softver, kupio super-kompjuter, angažovali svi vrhunski naučnici, što smo mi učinili, to je svega desetak miliona, i kada budemo testirali naš materijal u ruskom reaktoru da bismo se uverili da naš materijal ispravno funkcioniše, tada će biti potrebno nekoliko stotina miliona. Teža stvar je napraviti pilot reaktor, naći nekoliko milijardi, naći regulator, lokaciju kako bi se napravo prvi ovog tipa. Kada se napravi prvi i ukoliko se pokaže da funkcioniše prema predviđanjima, onda će biti jasno kao dan, jer je ekonomija, gustina energije, toliko drugačija od nuklearne koju poznajemo.
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?
KA: Znači, ukoliko sam dobro razumeo, to uključuje gradnju duboko u zemlju skoro kao neka vrsta vertikalnog stuba nuklearnog goriva, u ovog utrošenog uranijuma, i onda proces započinje na vrhu i ide ka dole?
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: Tako je. Danas se uvek reaktor dopunjava gorivom, tako da imate mnogo ljudi i mnogo kontrola koje mogu načiniti grešku, na mestu gde se otvara i gde se stvari ubacuju i izbacuju. A to nije dobro. Ako imate veoma jeftino gorivo koje možete usuti za narednih 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.
zamislite to kao deblo - ubacite unutra i nemate više tih problema. To samo postoji unutra i sagoreva narednih 60 godina, dok ne završi. KA: To su nuklearne elektrane koje koriste svoj sopstveni otpad kao gorivo.
CA: It's a nuclear power plant that is its own waste disposal solution.
BG: Da. Ono što se dešava sa otpadom,
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.
možete ga ostaviti tamo - ima mnogo manje otpada ovakvim pristupom - onda, možete ga jednostavno uzeti, i staviti u drugi reaktor i sagorevati. A počinjemo tako što uzimamo postojeći današnji otpad, koji se nalazi u rashladnim bazenima ili u skladištima u reaktorima. To je naše gorivo sa kojim počinjemo. I sada, ono što je bio problem kod tih reaktora se sada ubacuje u naše, i na taj način se drastično redukuje nivo otpada kako se ide kroz ovaj proces. KA: U Vašim govorima pred različitim ljudima po celom svetu
CA: You're talking to different people around the world about the possibilities. Where is there most interest in actually doing something with this?
vezanim za mogućnosti o kojima govorimo, gde je najveće interesovanje za stvarnu realizaciju ovoga?
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 konkretno mesto, i svuda postoje razna interesantna pravila kad god se pomene nešto što sadrži reč "nuklearno", tako imamo mnogo interesenata, ljudi iz kompanije su bili u Rusiji, Indiji, Kini. Ja sam se video sa sekretarom za energetiku ovde, razgovarali smo o tome kako se to uklapa u postojeći energetski program. I ja sam optimističan. Znate da su Francuzi i Japanci uradili već nešto. Ovo je varijanta nečega što se već radilo. Ovo je značajan napredak, ali je slično brzom reaktoru, i dosta zemalja ih je već gradilo, tako da svako ko je napravio brzi reaktor je kandidat da bude prvi gde će se graditi ovaj tip.
CA: So, in your mind, timescale and likelihood of actually taking something like this live?
KA: I po Vašem mišljenju, vreme i verovatnoća da će ovako nešto zbilja zaživeti?
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, potrebni su nam - za jedan od ovih elektro-generatora što je izuzetno jeftino, imamo 20 godina da osmislimo i 20 godina da implementiramo. To je neka vrsta roka koju nam je dala prirodna sredina i koji moramo da ostvarimo. I TerraPower, ako stvari budu tekle kako treba, čemu se nadamo, bi mogla ostvariti to. I postoje, na sreću, desetine kompanija, potrebno je da ih bude stotine, koje će se, ukoliko njihova nauka bude napredovala, ukoliko fondacije budu finansirale njihove pilot projekte, takmičiti oko ovoga. I najbolje je ako više njih uspe, jer ćete onda koristiti kombinaciju ovih stvari. Definitivno nam je potrebna makar jedna da bismo uspeli.
CA: In terms of big-scale possible game changers, is this the biggest that you're aware of out there?
KA: U terminima mogućih promena velikih razmera koje su u igri, da li je ovo najveća po Vašem mišljenju?
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: Prodor u energiji je najvažnija stvar. Bio bi čak i da ne postoje problemi u prirodnoj sredini, ali oni čine ovaj problem još značajnijim. U nuklearnom prostoru, postoje drugi inovatori. Mi ne poznajemo toliko dobro njihov rad kao što poznajemo naš, ali recimo modulacija, to je drugačiji pristup. Tu je i reaktor na bazi vode, koji deluje dosta komplikovano, ali možda i oni to kažu za nas. I tako, postoje različiti pristupi, ali lepota ovoga je ta da molekul uranijuma ima milion puta više energije od recimo, molekula uglja, i tako, ukoliko se možete nositi sa negativnim stranama, kao što je pre svega radijacija, a onda i troškovi, potencijalni uticaji na zemlju i druge različite stvari, onda je ovo zaista posebna vrednost 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?
KA: A ako to ne uspe, šta onda? Da li ćemo morati da počnemo sa nekim vanrednim merama da bismo zadržali stabilnu temperaturu na zemlji?
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: Ukoliko dođete u takvu situaciju, to je kao da ste se prejeli, i samo što niste dobili srčani udar. Gde onda idete? Biće vam potrebna operacija na srcu ili tako nešto. Postoji vrsta istraživanja koja se zove geoinženjering, koja se bazira na različitim tehnikama koje bi odložile pregrejavanje i na taj način nam kupile 20 do 30 godina da se saberemo. E sada, to je samo neka vrsta polise osiguranja. Nadamo se da neće biti potrebe za njom. Neki kažu da uopšte ne treba raditi na polisi osiguranja jer se možete ulenjiti, jer ćete nastaviti da jedete znajući da će vas operacija srca spasiti. Nisam siguran da je to mudro, imajući u vidu važnost problema, ali postoji diskusija na nivou geoinženjeringa o tome da li to treba imati u rezervi u slučaju da se stvari odviju brže, ili ova inovacija ide dosta sporije nego što očekujemo.
CA: Climate skeptics: If you had a sentence or two to say to them, how might you persuade them that they're wrong?
KA: Skepticima o klimatskim problemima: da imate rečenicu ili dve da im uputite, kako biste ih ubedili da nisu u pravu?
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: Na žalost, skeptici dolaze sa različitih strana. Oni koji imaju prave naučne argumente su malobrojni. Da li oni govore o negativnim povratnim efektima koji imaju veze sa oblacima koji neutralizuju stvari? Postoji jako, jako malo stvari koje oni mogu i pomenuti, šansa je jedan u milion za takvu neku stvar. Glavni problem koji mi ovde imamo je nekako sličan AIDS-u. Napraviš grešku sada, a plaćaš je 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."
Tako kada imate mnogo različitih hitnih problema, ideja da sada snosite bol koja će se tek kasnije pokazati kao dobit - pomalo postajete nesigurni u to. Zapravo, Izveštaj o klimatskim promenama ne pokazuje da je to nužno najteži slučaj, i postoje ljudi u bogatim zemljama koji su pogledali taj izveštaj i rekli da to nije toliko važna stvar. Činjenica je da je to taj nesiguran deo koji bi trebao da nas pokreće. Ali moj san je, ukoliko se ovo može učiniti ekonomičnim, i dostići CO2 ograničenja, onda će skeptici reći, u redu, nije mi važno to što se ne emituje CO2, nekako bih želeo da se emituje, ali prihvatiću to jer je jeftinije od onoga prethodnog. (Aplauz)
(Applause)
KA: Znači, to bi bio Vaš odgovor argumentima Bjorna Lomborga,
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.
a to je da ukoliko svu energiju utrošite na rešavanje problema sa CO2, to će ugroziti ostvarivanje drugih važnih ciljeva kao što su pokušaji smanjenja siromaštva i malarije i tako dalje, i da je to glupo trošenje resursa kada postoje pametnije stvari koje bi trebalo raditi.
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.
BG: Stvarni troškovi razvoja i istraživanja - recimo SAD treba da potroši 10 milijardi godišnje više nego što trenutno troši - to nije toliko dramatična promena. Ne bi trebalo da oduzima od drugih stvari. Radi se o tome da kada investirate velike pare, razumni ljudi se možda neće složiti, na nešto što je ekonomski neisplativo i pokušavate da to finansirate, to je, po meni, bacanje para. Osim ako je to nešto na samoj prekretnici da postane veoma jeftino. Mislim da bi trebalo da isprobamo više stvari koje imaju potencijal da postanu jeftinije. Ako se kompromis koji pravite kreće u tom smeru da će energija biti superskupa, bogati će moći da to sebi priušte. Svi mi ovde bismo mogli plaćati pet puta više našu energiju a da to ne utiče na promenu našeg životnog stila. Ali to bi bila katastrofa za one dve 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 i Lomborg promenio. Njegov glavni adut sada je: zašto se ne diskutuje malo više o istraživanju i razvoju? On je još uvek, zbog ranijih stvari, povezan sa skepticima, ali shvata da su postali prilično usamljeni, i stoga on ističe ovo u vezi sa istraživanjem i razvojem. I tako tu postoji samo mala nit onoga što ja smatram da je prihvatljivo. Smešno je koliko malo se investira u istraživanje i razvoj.
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.
KA: Bil, verujem da govorim u ime većine ljudi ovde kada kažem da se zaista nadam da će Vam se želja ispuniti. Mnogo hvala.
BG: Thank you.
BG: Hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)