When the Industrial Revolution started, the amount of carbon sitting underneath Britain in the form of coal was as big as the amount of carbon sitting under Saudi Arabia in the form of oil. This carbon powered the Industrial Revolution, it put the "Great" in Great Britain, and led to Britain's temporary world domination. And then, in 1918, coal production in Britain peaked, and has declined ever since. In due course, Britain started using oil and gas from the North Sea, and in the year 2000, oil and gas production from the North Sea also peaked, and they're now on the decline.
工业革命刚开始的时候 在不列颠地下以煤炭形式 和在沙特阿拉伯地下以石油形式 存在的能源资源是一样多的。 这些煤炭资源促进了工业革命 让英国成了一个工业强国 并在世界上取得了短暂的霸权地位 1918年英国的煤碳产量达到顶峰 从那以后便开始下降 之后,英国开始使用来自北海的 石油和天然气,到了2000年 北海石油和天燃气的产量也达到顶峰 现在呢?它们在减少
These observations about the finiteness of easily accessible, local, secure fossil fuels, is a motivation for saying, "Well, what's next? What is life after fossil fuels going to be like? Shouldn't we be thinking hard about how to get off fossil fuels?" Another motivation, of course, is climate change.
对这些有限的、易获取的 本地的、以及安全的矿物能源进行观察 让我们不禁问:“下一种(能源资源)会是什么?” 没有矿物能源的生活会变得怎样? 我们不是应该努力设法 摆脱矿物能源吗? 另一个引发这些问题的原因当然是气候变化
And when people talk about life after fossil fuels and climate change action, I think there's a lot of fluff, a lot of greenwash, a lot of misleading advertising, and I feel a duty as a physicist to try to guide people around the claptrap and help people understand the actions that really make a difference, and to focus on ideas that do add up.
当人们谈论没有矿物能源的生活 以及气候变化运动时,我认为他们有 许多误解、虚假公关和误导的广告 作为一个物理学家,我认为有责任去 引导群众防止被误导,并帮助他们 去理解真正可以改变世界的行动 去关注真正有益的想法
Let me illustrate this with what physicists call a back-of-envelope calculation. We love back-of-envelope calculations. You ask a question, write down some numbers, and get an answer. It may not be very accurate, but it may make you say, "Hmm." So here's a question: Imagine if we said, "Oh yes, we can get off fossil fuels. We'll use biofuels. Problem solved. Transport ... We don't need oil anymore." Well, what if we grew the biofuels for a road on the grass verge at the edge of the road? How wide would the verge have to be for that to work out?
让我用一种物理学家叫做“猜量推算”方法 来阐述我的想法 人们喜欢猜量推算 你可以提出一个问题,写下一些数字 然后自己得出一个答案。 它可能不够准确,但是让你觉得 “嗯,还不错。” 想象一下 如果我们说,“是的,我们可以摆脱矿物能源, 我们可以使用生物能源。问题解决了。 运输交通再也不需使用石油了。“ 好吧,如果我们在马路的两边种植生物能源作物 去供给这条路上的消耗,会怎么样呢? 需要种植多宽的作物带才足够?
OK, so let's put in some numbers. Let's have our cars go at 60 miles per hour. Let's say they do 30 miles per gallon. That's the European average for new cars. Let's say the productivity of biofuel plantations is 1,200 liters of biofuel per hectare per year. That's true of European biofuels. And let's imagine the cars are spaced 80 meters apart from each other, and they're perpetually going along this road. The length of the road doesn't matter, because the longer the road, the more biofuel plantation. What do we do with these numbers? Take the first number, divide by the other three, and get eight kilometers. And that's the answer. That's how wide the plantation would have to be, given these assumptions. And maybe that makes you say, "Hmm. Maybe this isn't going to be quite so easy."
让我们来做一些计算 假设车辆以60英里的时速行驶 以每加仑燃料可以跑30英里来算。 这是现在欧洲新车的平均数据 假设生物能源作物的产量为 每公顷每年1200升 这同样也是欧洲的现状 假设车辆间距为80米 他们是延缦不断的 沿着这条路行驶。 这条公路的长度不重要 应为公路有多长,我们就有多少的能源作物。 有了这些数字我们能做些什么呢? 把第一个数除以其他三个数 得到8公里 这就是答案。 在之前的假设前提下 这就是能源作物带所需要的宽度。 这个答案可能会让你说,”嗯,还不错。” 事情可能不那么简单
And it might make you think, perhaps there's an issue to do with areas. And in this talk, I'd like to talk about land areas, and ask: Is there an issue about areas? The answer is going to be yes, but it depends which country you are in.
你也许会想,面积可能不够 在这里让我来讲讲关于面积的事情 我会问,面积真的不够吗? 答案是肯定的, 但这取决于你在哪个国家。
So let's start in the United Kingdom, since that's where we are today. The energy consumption of the United Kingdom, the total energy consumption -- not just transport, but everything -- I like to quantify it in lightbulbs. It's as if we've all got 125 lightbulbs on all the time, 125 kilowatt-hours per day per person is the energy consumption of the UK. So there's 40 lightbulbs' worth for transport, 40 lightbulbs' worth for heating, and 40 lightbulbs' worth for making electricity, and other things are relatively small, compared to those three big fish. It's actually a bigger footprint if we take into account the embodied energy in the stuff we import into our country as well. And 90 percent of this energy, today, still comes from fossil fuels, and 10 percent, only, from other, greener -- possibly greener -- sources, like nuclear power and renewables.
身在此地, 我们从英国开始吧。 英国的能源消耗量 是总量,而不仅仅是指交通运输业的消耗量, 我喜欢用灯泡来量化它, 能源消耗总量相当于 全国每人拥有125个一直亮着的灯泡 每天每人消耗125千瓦时的电量。 也就是说,交通运输耗能相当于其中40个灯泡, 供暖耗能相当于40个灯泡, 发电需要40个灯泡, 相对于这三个耗能大鳄 其他的消耗相对会小些。 如果把每天进口的实体能量也考虑进来 这实际上是很大的能源消耗 其中90%的能源依然来自矿物能源 只有10%的能量来自其它渠道 更绿色的——可能是更绿色的——能源 比如说核能或可再生能源
So. That's the UK. The population density of the UK is 250 people per square kilometer. I'm now going to show you other countries by these same two measures. On the vertical axis, I'm going to show you how many lightbulbs -- what our energy consumption per person is. We're at 125 lightbulbs per person, and that little blue dot there is showing you the land area of the United Kingdom. The population density is on the horizontal axis, and we're 250 people per square kilometer. Let's add European countries in blue, and you can see there's quite a variety. I should emphasize, both of these axes are logarithmic; as you go from one gray bar to the next gray bar, you're going up a factor of 10. Next, let's add Asia in red, the Middle East and North Africa in green, sub-Saharan Africa in blue, black is South America, purple is Central America, and then in pukey-yellow, we have North America, Australia and New Zealand. You can see the great diversity of population densities and of per capita consumptions. Countries are different from each other.
这就是英国的情况 英国的人口密度是 250人每平方公里, 现在我要向你们展示 其他国家的这两项指标。 纵轴代表灯泡个数, 也就是平均每人的能源消耗量 我们是每人125个灯泡 那个蓝点的面积可以反映 英国的土地面积, 横轴是人口密度, 我们是每平方公里250人。 同样用蓝色代表其他的欧洲国家, 你们会发现差异很大。 应该强调,两个坐标轴的都是对数的 从一个灰杠到下一个灰杠 会增长10倍。 下面,用红色代表亚洲国家, 绿色代表中东和北非国家, 蓝色代表非洲的撒哈拉以南地区, 黑色代表南美, 紫色代表中美洲, 淡黄色代表北美洲、 澳大利亚和新西兰。 可以看到在人口密度和人均消耗上 有很大的差别。 国家之间各有不同。
Top left, we have Canada and Australia, with enormous land areas, very high per capita consumption -- 200 or 300 lightbulbs per person -- and very low population densities. Top right: Bahrain has the same energy consumption per person, roughly, as Canada -- over 300 lightbulbs per person, but their population density is a factor of 300 times greater, 1,000 people per square kilometer. Bottom right: Bangladesh has the same population density as Bahrain, but consumes 100 times less per person.
左上角是加拿大和澳大利亚 它们有很大的陆地面积,很高的人均消耗, 相当于每人200或300个灯泡, 而其人口密度相对较低。 右上角是巴林岛 与加拿大有相仿的人均消耗值, 相当于每人超过300个灯泡 但是人口密度是加拿大的300倍, 约1000人每平方公里。 右下角是孟加拉国 和巴林岛有同样的人口密度,但人均消耗要少100倍
Bottom left: well, there's no one. But there used to be a whole load of people. Here's another message from this diagram. I've added on little blue tails behind Sudan, Libya, China, India, Bangladesh. That's 15 years of progress. Where were they 15 years ago, and where are they now? And the message is, most countries are going to the right, and they're going up. Up and to the right: bigger population density and higher per capita consumption. So, we may be off in the top right-hand corner, slightly unusual, the United Kingdom accompanied by Germany, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, and a bunch of other slightly odd countries, but many other countries are coming up and to the right to join us. So we're a picture, if you like, of what the future energy consumption might be looking like in other countries, too.
曾经有大量人口的左下角, 现在一个国家也没有。 这个图标还可以提供另一个信息。 我在苏丹、利比亚、中国、印度以及孟加拉 的圆点加上了蓝色的线条 这是个15年的过程。 15年前它们在哪?现在在哪? 我们得到的结论是,大部分这些国家在向右边区域靠近 并且呈上升趋势, 向右上角走代表着更高的人口密度 和更高的人均耗能。 我们英国也在右上角, 和德国、日本 韩国、荷兰 以及一些不出名的国家在一起 但是有许多其他国家在赶上来 并且向右移来加入我们, 可以这么说,我们是一个样板, 很多其他国家的能源消耗将来会与我们现在一样的情况一样。
I've also added in this diagram now some pink lines that go down and to the right. Those are lines of equal power consumption per unit area, which I measure in watts per square meter. So, for example, the middle line there, 0.1 watts per square meter, is the energy consumption per unit area of Saudi Arabia, Norway, Mexico in purple, and Bangladesh 15 years ago. Half of the world's population lives in countries that are already above that line. The United Kingdom is consuming 1.25 watts per square meter. So is Germany, and Japan is consuming a bit more.
现在我在图标中加入了一些粉色的线条 指向右下方 他们代表相同的单位面积耗能 单位是瓦特每平方米 举例来说,中间的那条线 0.1瓦特每平方米,是沙特阿拉伯、挪威、 紫色代表的墨西哥以及孟加拉15年前的 单位面积能源消耗, 世界的一半以上人口都居住在 在这条线之上的国家里。 英国平均每平方米 消耗1.25瓦特的电量。 德国也一样。而日本比英国多一点点。
So, let's now say why this is relevant. Why is it relevant? Well, we can measure renewables in the same units and other forms of power production in the same units. Renewables is one of the leading ideas for how we could get off our 90 percent fossil-fuel habit. So here come some renewables. Energy crops deliver half a watt per square meter in European climates. What does that mean? You might have anticipated that result, given what I told you about the biofuel plantation a moment ago. Well, we consume 1.25 watts per square meter. What this means is, even if you covered the whole of the United Kingdom with energy crops, you couldn't match today's energy consumption. Wind power produces a bit more -- 2.5 watts per square meter. But that's only twice as big as 1.25 watts per square meter. So that means if you wanted, literally, to produce total energy consumption in all forms, on average, from wind farms, you need wind farms half the area of the UK. I've got data to back up all these assertions, by the way.
现在我来解释一下为什么 这个数字有关联。为什么其有关联? 我们可以用同样的单位来估量可再生能源 以及其他形式的能源 为了摆脱那90%的矿物能源 可再生能源是众望所归的一个想法。 以下是一些关于可再生能源的信息。 在欧洲的气候下,每平方米能源作物 可以提供0.5瓦特的能源 这意味着什么?你或者可以 通过刚才我对生物燃料种植的介绍 预料到这一结果了。 我们每平方米平均耗能1.25瓦特。 这意味着即使整个英国 都种满了能源作物, 其依然不足以提供当今水平的能耗。 风力发电许会更高效一些, 其可以达到每平方米可以产生2.5瓦特的电量,但那只是 1.25瓦特每平方米的两倍, 这意味着如果仅用风能 来提供所有的能源消耗, 你需要占地半个英国那么大面积的风力发电厂才能做到。 顺便说一句,我的这些说法都是有数据支持的。
Next, let's look at solar power. Solar panels, when you put them on a roof, deliver about 20 watts per square meter in England. If you really want to get a lot from solar panels, you need to adopt the traditional Bavarian farming method, where you leap off the roof, and coat the countryside with solar panels, too. Solar parks, because of the gaps between the panels, deliver less. They deliver about 5 watts per square meter of land area. And here's a solar park in Vermont, with real data, delivering 4.2 watts per square meter. Remember where we are, 1.25 watts per square meter, wind farms 2.5, solar parks about five. So whichever of those renewables you pick, the message is, whatever mix of those renewables you're using, if you want to power the UK on them, you're going to need to cover something like 20 percent or 25 percent of the country with those renewables. I'm not saying that's a bad idea; we just need to understand the numbers. I'm absolutely not anti-renewables. I love renewables. But I'm also pro-arithmetic.
下面再看看太阳能。 放在英格兰屋顶的太阳能面板 每平方米大概可提供20瓦特的电量。 如果想得到更高的在太阳能发电量, 则需要采用传统巴伐利亚农耕的方法 即跳下屋顶,把整个农村 铺满太阳能面板。 因为面板之间的缝隙,太阳能园区的效率比预期小一些 每平方米大概可以提供 5瓦特的能量。 这是佛蒙特一个太阳能园区的真实数据 每平方米可以产生4.2瓦特的能量。 记住我们的这些信息,真实能耗是1.25瓦特每平方米, 风能是2.5瓦特, 太阳能园区大概是5瓦特 所以,无论你怎么选, 事实是,无论怎么混合这些可再生能源 如果想要提供全英国的能源, 就必须要将大概 整个英国面积的20%到25% 用在这些可再生能源方面。 我并没有说这是个坏想法。 只是我们需要了解这些数字。 我绝对不反对可再生能源,我喜欢它们。 但我更倾向于算数。
(Laughter)
Concentrating solar power in deserts delivers larger powers per unit area, because you don't have the problem of clouds. So, this facility delivers 14 watts per square meter; this one 10 watts per square meter; and this one in Spain, 5 watts per square meter. Being generous to concentrating solar power, I think it's perfectly credible it could deliver 20 watts per square meter. So that's nice. Of course, Britain doesn't have any deserts. Yet.
因为不用担心云彩遮挡 集中在沙漠采集太阳能 可以提供更多的能量 所以这个设备可以提供14瓦特每平方米, 这个是10瓦特每平方米, 这一个在西班牙,可提供5瓦特每平方米。 乐观估计,集中的太阳能能源, 完全有可能提供20瓦特每平方米。 那就很不错了。 当然,英国没有沙漠。 至少暂时还没有。(笑声)
(Laughter)
所以, 先让我们对前面所说的做一个小结。
So here's a summary so far: All renewables, much as I love them, are diffuse. They all have a small power per unit area, and we have to live with that fact. And that means, if you do want renewables to make a substantial difference for a country like the United Kingdom on the scale of today's consumption, you need to be imagining renewable facilities that are country-sized. Not the entire country, but a fraction of the country, a substantial fraction.
所有的可再生能源都比较低效,尽管我很喜欢他们。 他们的单位面积效率都比较低, 人们必须意识到这个事实, 那意味着如果你真的 想在类似英国的国家全面使用可再生能源, 在如今的耗能水平下 可再生能源作物或设备的占地就必须与全国面积相当 不是整个国土而是一部分 相当大的一部分。
There are other options for generating power as well, which don't involve fossil fuels. So there's nuclear power, and on this ordinance survey map, you can see there's a Sizewell B inside a blue square kilometer. That's one gigawatt in a square kilometer, which works out to 1,000 watts per square meter. So by this particular metric, nuclear power isn't as intrusive as renewables.
不用矿物能源的话 还有其他的选择可以生产能源。 在这份英国地形测量局的地图上 你可以在蓝色的一平方公里中看到Sizewell B字样 那是一个核电厂 一平方公里的核电厂可以产生10亿瓦特的能量, 相当于每平方米1000瓦特。 从单位面积产能的标准来说, 核能比可再生能源要好很多。
Of course, other metrics matter, too, and nuclear power has all sorts of popularity problems. But the same goes for renewables as well. Here's a photograph of a consultation exercise in full swing in the little town of Penicuik just outside Edinburgh, and you can see the children of Penicuik celebrating the burning of the effigy of the windmill. So --
当然,其他的标准也很重要, 核能有其他各种各样常见的问题。 可再生能源也同样有其他问题。 这张照片上,在爱丁堡南部的小镇佩尼库克 一场协商正在如火如荼的进行, 你可以看到佩尼库克的孩子们 在围观燃烧着的风车。 人们反对所有事,我们需要
(Laughter)
People are anti-everything, and we've got to keep all the options on the table.
把所有方案都摆到桌面来谈。
What can a country like the UK do on the supply side? Well, the options are, I'd say, these three: power renewables, and recognizing that they need to be close to country-sized; other people's renewables, so we could go back and talk very politely to the people in the top left-hand side of the diagram and say, "Uh, we don't want renewables in our backyard, but, um, please could we put them in yours instead?" And that's a serious option. It's a way for the world to handle this issue. So countries like Australia, Russia, Libya, Kazakhstan, could be our best friends for renewable production. And a third option is nuclear power. So that's some supply-side options.
在能源供给方面,英国有哪些方案呢? 我认为有三种: 需要占用大量国土面积的可再生能源 其他国家的可再生能源, 我们可以很得体地 与那些处于图标左上角的国家说 呃,我们不想在自己的地盘上种能源作物, 可不可以种在你们那种呢? 这是一个值得考虑的选项。 世界上很多问题都是这样解决的。 像澳大利亚、俄罗斯、利比亚还有卡撒克斯坦这些国家 都可以作为我们种植能源作物的伙伴国家。 第三个选择是核能。 这是供给方面的对策。
In addition to the supply levers that we can push -- and remember, we need large amounts, because at the moment, we get 90 percent of our energy from fossil fuels -- in addition to those levers, we could talk about other ways of solving this issue. Namely, we could reduce demand, and that means reducing population -- I'm not sure how to do that -- or reducing per capita consumption.
我们除了可以增加供给杠杆外, 对了,要记住我们的需求量很大, 因为目前, 我们90%能源都来这矿物能源。 除了增加和改善供给,其实还有其他方法 去解决能源问题,也就是减少需求, 那意味着要缩减人口 或减少人均耗能 对于前者我无能为力
So let's talk about three more big levers that could really help on the consumption side. First, transport. Here are the physics principles that tell you how to reduce the energy consumption of transport. People often say, "Technology can answer everything. We can make vehicles that are 100 times more efficient." And that's almost true. Let me show you.
让我们讨论一下在消耗方面 能起到改善的三个办法 第一,运输。 有一些物理法则可以告诉你 怎么能减少运输的能源消耗, 人们经常会说:”哦,对,科技能解决所有事。 甚至可以让交通工具比现在节能100倍以上。“ 但这是真的,让我展示给你们看。 这辆车的能耗是
The energy consumption of this typical tank here is 80 kilowatt hours per hundred person kilometers. That's the average European car. Eighty kilowatt hours. Can we make something 100 times better by applying the physics principles I just listed? Yes. Here it is. It's the bicycle. It's 80 times better in energy consumption, and it's powered by biofuel, by Weetabix.
80千瓦时每100个客运周转量。 这是一种在欧洲常见的车。 80千瓦时。我们可以用之前列出的物理法则 让它的效率提高100倍吗? 当然可以,这个自行车的节能比高出80倍! 并且使用的是生物能源-------以谷物为燃料。
(Laughter)
(笑声)
And there are other options in between, because maybe the lady in the tank would say, "No, that's a lifestyle change. Don't change my lifestyle, please." We could persuade her to take a train, still a lot more efficient than a car, but that might be a lifestyle change. Or there's the EcoCAR, top-left. It comfortably accommodates one teenager and it's shorter than a traffic cone, and it's almost as efficient as a bicycle, as long as you drive it at 15 miles per hour. In between, perhaps some more realistic options on the transport lever are electric vehicles, so electric bikes and electric cars in the middle, perhaps four times as energy efficient as the standard petrol-powered tank.
当然在普通汽车和自行车之间还有其他选择的, 坐在小车里的女会说:“不,不” “这会改变我的生活方式。请不要改变我的生活方式。” 因此,我们可以说服她去坐火车, 这也是比小车更节能的方式, 但这需要一些生活方式的改变, 或者选用环保车----在左上角 这种车可以坐得下一个青少年 但比一个交通锥体还短, 其基本上和自行车一样节能 只要你速度不超过每小时15英里的话。 在这两者之间,可能还会有些更实际的选择 在交通业上,有电力驱动的机车, 所以,电动自行车和电动汽车当其中, 相对于使用汽油的车子 它们也许可以节能四倍。
Next, there's the heating lever. Heating is a third of our energy consumption in Britain, and quite a lot of that is going into homes and other buildings, doing space heating and water heating. So here's a typical crappy British house. It's my house, with a Ferrari out front.
下一个是取暖 取暖耗能量占英国能耗的三分之一, 很多是在家庭使用的 而其它大型的建筑采用空间取暖和水暖系统。 所以,这是一个很典型的、很糟糕的英国式房子。 这是我的房子,房子前面停着我的法拉利小车。
(Laughter)
What can we do to it? Well, the laws of physics are written up there, which describe how the power consumption for heating is driven by the things you can control. The things you can control are the temperature difference between the inside and the outside. There's this remarkable technology called a thermostat: you grasp it, rotate it to the left, and your energy consumption in the home will decrease. I've tried it. It works. Some people call it a lifestyle change.
我们怎么能改变一下呢? 物理法则在这里写得很清楚: 取暖的能源消耗 是由你能控制的东西来决定的。 你能控制的就是 室内与室外温差的变化 而这是一种很了不起的技术-------温控器。 有了这个东西,你将其往左调, 你家里的能源消耗将会大大减少。 我试过,真管用。有些人将这叫做生活方式的改变。
(Laughter)
以减少你的建筑物的能源漏失,你也可以请工人来为房屋加装绒毛
You can also get the fluff men in to reduce the leakiness of your building -- put fluff in the walls, fluff in the roof, a new front door, and so forth. The sad truth is, this will save you money. That's not sad, that's good. But the sad truth is, it'll only get about 25 percent of the leakiness of your building if you do these things, which are good ideas. If you really want to get a bit closer to Swedish building standards with a crappy house like this, you need to be putting external insulation on the building, as shown by this block of flats in London. You can also deliver heat more efficiently using heat pumps, which use a smaller bit of high-grade energy like electricity to move heat from your garden into your house.
---如在墙体、在天花板处 或者加装一道新门等等, 尽管这能给你省些钱,但仍然是很悲剧的做法。 能省钱是好事啊?怎么成悲剧了呢? 我说它悲剧是因为此举只能减少楼房的能量流失的25% 如果你这样做了,也不失为一种明智的举动。 如果你想与一间这样差劲的房子的 防热流失的标准接近瑞典的楼房标准的话, 你得在楼房的内部加入很多的绝缘材料 正如我们所看到的伦敦的这一街区的楼房一样。 你还可以用热能泵更高效地将暖气输送到楼房的各处 而这种机器只消耗一点高端的能源,如电 就能把你花园里的热能输送到你的房子里面去。
The third demand-side option I want to talk about, the third way to reduce energy consumption is: read your meters. People talk a lot about smart meters, but you can do it yourself. Use your own eyes and be smart. Read your meter, and if you're anything like me, it'll change your life. Here's a graph I made. I was writing a book about sustainable energy, and a friend asked me, "How much energy do you use at home?" I was embarrassed; I didn't actually know. And so I started reading the meter every week. The old meter readings are shown in the top half of the graph, and then 2007 is shown in green at the bottom. That was when I was reading the meter every week. And my life changed, because I started doing experiments and seeing what made a difference. My gas consumption plummeted, because I started tinkering with the thermostat and the timing on the heating system, and I knocked more than half off my gas bills.
第三个可供选择的项目是 第三种减少能源消耗的方法就是: 看好你的电表 很多人都在说智能的能源消耗计量表 但其实你自己就是很智能的一个计量表。 用自己的眼睛,精明地读你的计量表, 如果你也是我这类人的话,这将改变你的生活。 这是一张我做的图表。 我当时在写一本关于可持续能源的书。 有个朋友问我, "你呆在家里消耗了多少能源?" 这一问使我感到无地自容:我确实不知道。 自那时始,我就开始每星期都看一下我的计量表 旧的计量表的读数 显示在这张图表的上方。而自2007年的读数 以绿色显示在图表的下半部分。而这是 我每周都看计量表之后的事了。我改变了自己的生活 因为我开始做实验来观察 我怎么做才能更节能。我的天燃气消耗有所下降 这是因为我开始留意温控器 和供暖系统的时间控制 而我省了一半的天燃气的开支费用。 我的用电量也是如此,
There's a similar story for my electricity consumption, where switching off the DVD players, the stereos, the computer peripherals that were on all the time, and just switching them on when I needed them, knocked another third off my electricity bills, too.
通过随手关掉那些永远开着的DVD播放器、音响、 计算机外围设备等等, 我只在需要使用这些电子产品时才会将他们打开, 这样,我的用电量又被减了三分之一。
So we need a plan that adds up. I've described for you six big levers. We need big action, because we get 90 percent of our energy from fossil fuels, and so you need to push hard on most, if not all, of these levers. Most of these levers have popularity problems, and if there is a lever you don't like the use of, well, please do bear in mind that means you need even stronger effort on the other levers.
所以,我们需要一个可行的计划,也就是我之前为你描述过的 六个方面。我们需要采取切实的行动 因为我们90%的能源来自于化石燃料, 就算你不能做到所有这些l事,你也得努力做到他们当中的大部分吧。 大部分这些选择都有“偏爱“的问题, 如果你不喜欢某一选择的使用, 那你要切记,这意味着你需要 在其它方面上花更大的力气。
So I'm a strong advocate of having grown-up conversations that are based on numbers and facts. And I want to close with this map that just visualizes for you the requirement of land and so forth in order to get just 16 lightbulbs per person from four of the big possible sources. So, if you wanted to get 16 lightbulbs -- remember, today our total energy consumption is 125 lightbulbs' worth -- if you wanted 16 from wind, this map visualizes a solution for the UK. It's got 160 wind farms, each 100 square kilometers in size, and that would be a twentyfold increase over today's amount of wind.
所以,我是一个成熟的、成年人对话的积极倡议者 这些对话应该基于数学与事实。 我想用这张地图来结束我的演讲 对土地等等的要求,目的是为了 每个人只需要使用16只灯泡 从四种最大可能的能源中。 所以,如果你只想要16只灯泡,请记住 目前我们每个人的能源消耗量相当于125个灯泡的用量。 如果你想使用风能供电的16只灯泡,这张图可以为英国找到一个解决办法 这里有160间风力发电厂, 每间的面积为100平方公里, 依最近的风量,
Nuclear power: to get 16 lightbulbs per person, you'd need two gigawatts at each of the purple dots on the map. That's a fourfold increase over today's levels of nuclear power.
这一数字将会增长20倍。 核电,为了达到每个人16个灯光的用电量, 你需要在这张图的紫色点上获得两千兆瓦的电量。 这意味着核电厂的数量 要在现有数量的基础上增加四倍。
Biomass: to get 16 lightbulbs per person, you'd need a land area something like three and a half Wales' worth, either in our country, or in someone else's country, possibly Ireland, possibly somewhere else.
要用生物能源来解决每个人16个灯泡的用电量,我们需要 一个比威尔士大3.5倍的地方来积体这些作物。 我们可以在英国本土或外国去找一个这样的地方, 可能是爱尔兰比较合适,或别的什么国家吧。(笑声)
(Laughter)
第四种选择:太阳能
And a fourth supply-side option: concentrating solar power in other people's deserts. If you wanted to get 16 lightbulbs' worth, then we're talking about these eight hexagons down at the bottom right. The total area of those hexagons is two Greater London's worth of someone else's Sahara, and you'll need power lines all the way across Spain and France to bring the power from the Sahara to Surrey.
但要将它建在别国的沙漠里, 如果你想得到人均16个灯泡的电能, 我们谈的就是这张地图中的这8个六边形 就是在右下角的这些。 这些六边形的总面积 相当于两个大伦敦地区这么大,或者是撒哈啦沙漠那么大, 另外,我们还需要架设大量的电线, 并让这些电线杆穿超西班牙、法国才能将这些撒哈啦沙漠的电输送到萨里。
(Laughter)
我们需要一个切实可行的计划。
We need a plan that adds up. We need to stop shouting and start talking. And if we can have a grown-up conversation, make a plan that adds up and get building, maybe this low-carbon revolution will actually be fun.
我们需要停止空喊口号而坐下来谈正事, 如果我们能象成年一样进行理性的对话, 做一个可行的计划并着手进行建设, 或许,这种低碳排放的解决办法
Thank you very much for listening.
或许会很趣。谢谢大家。
(Applause)
(掌声)