Chris Anderson: We're having a debate. The debate is over the proposition: "What the world needs now is nuclear energy." True or false? And before we have the debate, I'd like to actually take a show of hands -- on balance, right now, are you for or against this? So those who are "yes," raise your hand. "For." Okay, hands down. Those who are against, raise your hands. Okay, I'm reading that at about 75 to 25 in favor at the start. Which means we're going to take a vote at the end and see how that shifts, if at all. So here's the format: They're going to have six minutes each, and then after one little, quick exchange between them, I want two people on each side of this debate in the audience to have 30 seconds to make one short, crisp, pungent, powerful point.
克里斯。安德森:我们将举行一场辩论 这个辩论的命题是: 这个世界现在到底需不需要 核能 在我们进行辩论之前 让我们先进行一轮举手投票 总的看看现在有多少人赞成或者反对这个观点: 赞成的人现在请举手! 好的,手放下 现在反对的人请举手 好的,我大概了解了 开始的时候赞成和反对的人分别为75%和25% 我们在辩论结束后还会进行一次投票 看一看到时候比例是不是会发生变化 今天采取这样的形式:双方首先各有六分钟的陈述 之后两位辩手会有一个简短的互辩 然后双方的支持者中各出两位观众 在30秒钟内 阐述一个简短,干脆,犀利而有力的观点
So, in favor of the proposition, possibly shockingly, is one of, truly, the founders of the environmental movement, a long-standing TEDster, the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, someone we all know and love, Stewart Brand.
现在,支持使用核能的人,也许有些出人意料 是一位环保运动的奠基人 一位ted网的长期演讲者 《全球目录》的创办人 深受我们爱戴的知名人士——Stewart Brand
Stewart Brand: Whoa. (Applause) The saying is that with climate, those who know the most are the most worried. With nuclear, those who know the most are the least worried. A classic example is James Hansen, a NASA climatologist pushing for 350 parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He came out with a wonderful book recently called "Storms of My Grandchildren." And Hansen is hard over for nuclear power, as are most climatologists who are engaging this issue seriously.
Stewart Brand:哇喔~~ 掌声 有一个关于天气的谚语:最了解天气的人 担心的也最多 但是关于核能:最了解核能的人 担心的最少 James Hansen就是一个经典的例子 这是美国国家航天局的气候学家 希望能够把二氧化碳的排放量控制在 0.035% 最近,他还出版了一本名字《孙辈的风暴》的书 一本好书。 Hansen是核能的支持者 同其他气候学家一样 被这个问题深深的吸引。
This is the design situation: a planet that is facing climate change and is now half urban. Look at the client base for this. Five out of six of us live in the developing world. We are moving to cities. We are moving up in the world. And we are educating our kids, having fewer kids, basically good news all around. But we move to cities, toward the bright lights, and one of the things that is there that we want, besides jobs, is electricity. And if it isn't easily gotten, we'll go ahead and steal it. This is one of the most desired things by poor people all over the world, in the cities and in the countryside. Electricity for cities, at its best, is what's called baseload electricity. That's where it is on all the time. And so far there are only three major sources of that -- coal and gas, hydro-electric, which in most places is maxed-out -- and nuclear. I would love to have something in the fourth place here, but in terms of constant, clean, scalable energy, [solar] and wind and the other renewables aren't there yet because they're inconstant. Nuclear is and has been for 40 years.
在现今的情况下 地球正面临着气象上的变化 并且一半的地球已被城市所覆盖 我们先看一下我们的能源需求人群: 有5/6的人口 居住在发展中国家 他们正在向城市转移,寻求更好的生活 我们给孩子更好的教育 人口出生率下降 这些都是好消息 但是我们向城市转移,走向光明。 除了工作,我们还需要另外一样东西 就是电力。 如果电力不能轻易获得,我们会通过偷窃所获取 这是全世界的贫穷人口 最希望获得的东西。 不论在城市还是乡村, 城市的电力,充其量, 也就是基本负载电力 也就是不间断 供给的电力 迄今为止,我们只知道三种主要的电力来源 煤、天然气和水力发电 以上是大多数地区所使用并且趋于饱和的, 另一个就是核能。 我在这里还会加入另一种方式: 一种持久的,清洁的 可持续发展的能源 太阳能,风能或其他可再生能源。 但现阶段这些可再生资源并不能提供持久的电力 核能已经成为,并且在过去的40年里一直是持久电力的提供者。
Now, from an environmental standpoint, the main thing you want to look at is what happens to the waste from nuclear and from coal, the two major sources of electricity. If all of your electricity in your lifetime came from nuclear, the waste from that lifetime of electricity would go in a Coke can -- a pretty heavy Coke can, about two pounds. But one day of coal adds up to one hell of a lot of carbon dioxide in a normal one-gigawatt coal-fired plant. Then what happens to the waste? The nuclear waste typically goes into a dry cask storage out back of the parking lot at the reactor site because most places don't have underground storage yet. It's just as well, because it can stay where it is. While the carbon dioxide, vast quantities of it, gigatons, goes into the atmosphere where we can't get it back -- yet -- and where it is causing the problems that we're most concerned about. So when you add up the greenhouse gases in the lifetime of these various energy sources, nuclear is down there with wind and hydro, below solar and way below, obviously, all the fossil fuels.
现在,从环境学的立场上讲: 我们主要关心的是: 电力的两种主要来源: 核能和煤资源所产生的废料问题。 如果我们一生中所使用的电力都来自核能, 那么在你一生中因为用电所产生的核废料 大概可以装满一个可乐罐 一个挺重的可乐罐,大约两磅 在一个普通的10亿瓦特的发电厂中 一天所用的煤炭 就会产生 超级多的二氧化碳 那么怎么处理这些废料呢? 核废料将会被储存在 干燥的储存桶中 放置在核反应堆后面的堆物场上, 因为大多数地方并没有地下的储物场。 这样也没有问题,因为核废料不会自己跑到到其他地方去。 然而,大量的二氧化碳 数十亿吨的二氧化碳 会释放到大气之中, 而且,我们永远无法将他们收回。 这些二氧化碳会在大气中一直制造让我们担忧的问题。 所以当你把一辈子用的各种能源 所产生的温室气体加以考虑,你会发现 风能,水能还有核能的温室气体产量最低, 它们比太阳能的温室气体产量还低,更不用说比化石燃料低了
Wind is wonderful; I love wind. I love being around these big wind generators. But one of the things we're discovering is that wind, like solar, is an actually relatively dilute source of energy. And so it takes a very large footprint on the land, a very large footprint in terms of materials, five to 10 times what you'd use for nuclear, and typically to get one gigawatt of electricity is on the order of 250 square miles of wind farm. In places like Denmark and Germany, they've maxed out on wind already. They've run out of good sites. The power lines are getting overloaded. And you peak out. Likewise, with solar, especially here in California, we're discovering that the 80 solar farm schemes that are going forward want to basically bulldoze 1,000 square miles of southern California desert. Well, as an environmentalist, we would rather that didn't happen. It's okay on frapped-out agricultural land. Solar's wonderful on rooftops. But out in the landscape, one gigawatt is on the order of 50 square miles of bulldozed desert.
风能非常好,我喜欢风能 我希望能够多一些 巨大的风能发电机 但我们发现 风能,就像太阳能一样 是一种相对来说利用效率不高的能量。 它需要在地面上占用大量的面积 巨大的面积也就意味着巨大的物质消耗 所占用的面积是我们用于核能的5 至10 倍, 尤其是,为取得10亿瓦特的电力 我们需要250平方英里 的风力电厂。 在德国和丹麦 他们主要靠风能发电 合适的风力发电地理位置已经不够了 电力网不堪重负 而你还在雪上加霜。 类似的还有太阳能 尤其在这里,加利弗里亚 我们发现原来的80个 太阳能发电厂的规划 已经占用了加利弗里亚南部沙漠里 1000平方英里的地了 作为一个环境学家,我们并不希望这样的情况发生。 在闲置的农业用地上也许没问题 放在屋顶上,太阳能非常好, 但是在地面上, 用50平方英里的沙漠面积 换取10亿瓦特的电力。
When you add all these things up -- Saul Griffith did the numbers and figured out what would it take to get 13 clean terawatts of energy from wind, solar and biofuels, and that area would be roughly the size of the United States, an area he refers to as "Renewistan." A guy who's added it up all this very well is David Mackay, a physicist in England, and in his wonderful book, "Sustainable Energy," among other things, he says, "I'm not trying to be pro-nuclear. I'm just pro-arithmetic."
算算成本 Saul Griffith 算过后发现: 要从风能,太阳能或生物燃料中 获得 13太瓦的电力 就要 一个和美国差不多大的地方 这个地方被他称为“Renewistan”(一块奉献给可再生能源的土地) 有个叫“David Mackay‘的人将这些总结的很好 一个英国的物理学家 在他的著作“绿色能源”中, 提到:我并不是喜欢核能,我只是喜欢计算
(Laughter)
笑声
In terms of weapons, the best disarmament tool so far is nuclear energy. We have been taking down the Russian warheads, turning it into electricity. Ten percent of American electricity comes from decommissioned warheads. We haven't even started the American stockpile. I think of most interest to a TED audience would be the new generation of reactors that are very small, down around 10 to 125 megawatts. This is one from Toshiba. Here's one the Russians are already building that floats on a barge. And that would be very interesting in the developing world. Typically, these things are put in the ground. They're referred to as nuclear batteries. They're incredibly safe, weapons proliferation-proof and all the rest of it. Here is a commercial version from New Mexico called the Hyperion, and another one from Oregon called NuScale. Babcock & Wilcox that make nuclear reactors, here's an integral fast reactor. Thorium reactor that Nathan Myhrvold's involved in. The governments of the world are going to have to decide that coals need to be made expensive, and these will go ahead. And here's the future.
就武器方面而言, 至今为止,核能是最好的裁军工具 我们卸下了 苏联的核弹头 将其转化为电能, 10%的美国电力 来源于退役的核弹头。 而我们还没开始动用美国的储备。 我想TED的观众们感兴趣的是 新一代的反应堆 非常之小, 大约10到125 兆瓦 这个由东芝公司出品。 这个是俄罗斯在游艇上安装的。 发展中国家对这个小型的反应堆将会很有趣 尤其是把这些东西埋入地下, 他们就像是核能电池, 他们非常的安全, 而且还有防止核武器扩散等其他优点。 这是一个新墨西哥州的商业样本, 被称为亥伯龙神号 还有来自俄勒冈州的NuScale 核反应堆的制造公司Babcock@Wilcox 这是一个完整的快中子裂变反应堆 Nathan Myhrvold参与制造的钍反应堆 世界各国政府即将不得不做出决定: 是让煤炭的价格持续的不停上涨, 还是选择一个核能的未来。
(Applause)
掌声
CA: Okay. Okay. (Applause) So arguing against, a man who's been at the nitty, gritty heart of the energy debate and the climate change debate for years. In 2000, he discovered that soot was probably the second leading cause of global warming, after CO2. His team have been making detailed calculations of the relative impacts of different energy sources. His first time at TED, possibly a disadvantage -- we shall see -- from Stanford, Professor Mark Jacobson. Good luck.
ca:好的,好的 掌声 下面是反方: 一个细心、坚韧不拔地进行了多年 关于能源和气象变化辩论的人, 2000年,他发现煤烟可能是 在二氧化碳之后的第二大温室气体。 他的团队一直在致力于计算 不同的能源资源 的对气候的相对影响。 这是他第一次来到TED,也许是个劣势 我们将要看到的是: 来自斯坦福大学的Mark Jacobson教授,祝您好运。
Mark Jacobson: Thank you. (Applause) So my premise here is that nuclear energy puts out more carbon dioxide, puts out more air pollutants, enhances mortality more and takes longer to put up than real renewable energy systems, namely wind, solar, geothermal power, hydro-tidal wave power. And it also enhances nuclear weapons proliferation. So let's start just by looking at the CO2 emissions from the life cycle. CO2e emissions are equivalent emissions of all the greenhouse gases and particles that cause warming and converted to CO2. And if you look, wind and concentrated solar have the lowest CO2 emissions, if you look at the graph. Nuclear -- there are two bars here. One is a low estimate, and one is a high estimate. The low estimate is the nuclear energy industry estimate of nuclear. The high is the average of 103 scientific, peer-reviewed studies. And this is just the CO2 from the life cycle.
Mark Jacobson:谢谢。 掌声 那么我的观点是核能 其实会产生更多的二氧化碳 更多的空气污染物 导致更高的死亡率 比那些真正的可再生能源系统, 如风能,太阳能 地热能源,潮汐能源,需要更长的时间进行设施建设。 况且,核能还会增强核武器的扩散。 首先让我们看一下 各种能源在其使用周期内的二氧化碳排放量 这里的二氧化碳排放量是一个等效量 也就是说所有温室气体和微粒 对温室效应的影响都会 转换为相对应体积的二氧化碳对温室效应的影响来计算。 让我们再来看一下,风能和紧凑太阳能 二氧化碳的排放量最少,我们来看这个图表: 核能——这里有两个数据。 一个低一个高。 低的这个统计数据是核工业体系 统计的, 而高的这个,平均值103的这个 是科研机构经过反复论证而来的。 而这才仅仅是 在其使用周期内二氧化碳的排放量。
If we look at the delays, it takes between 10 and 19 years to put up a nuclear power plant from planning to operation. This includes about three and a half to six years for a site permit. and another two and a half to four years for a construction permit and issue, and then four to nine years for actual construction. And in China, right now, they're putting up five gigawatts of nuclear. And the average, just for the construction time of these, is 7.1 years on top of any planning times. While you're waiting around for your nuclear, you have to run the regular electric power grid, which is mostly coal in the United States and around the world. And the chart here shows the difference between the emissions from the regular grid, resulting if you use nuclear, or anything else, versus wind, CSP or photovoltaics. Wind takes about two to five years on average, same as concentrated solar and photovoltaics. So the difference is the opportunity cost of using nuclear versus wind, or something else. So if you add these two together, alone, you can see a separation that nuclear puts out at least nine to 17 times more CO2 equivalent emissions than wind energy. And this doesn't even account for the footprint on the ground.
如果你把前期影响也算进去, 我们需要10到19年的时间 去规划和运行 一个核能发电站。 需要大约3年半到6年的时间。 准备地址许可, 另外两年半到四年的时间 申请建筑许可 然后是4到9年的时间进行真正的建造。 现在在中国, 有5个发电量10亿瓦特的核电站, 平均下来,他们的建筑周期是 7.1年。 在这些准备和建造的过程中, 当我们在等待核能发电的时间里, 我们不得不维持常规电网的运行。 不论在美国还是世界的任何一个角落,这意味着煤炭的使用。 这个图表显示了 使用核能,或者相似能源, 与使用风能,CSP或光电能, 用来维持常规电网运行时二氧化碳排放量的差异。 风能发电站平均需要两到五年的时间 紧凑太阳能或光电能发电站也差不多 所以差别在于,使用核能,与使用风能或其他能源 相比,机会成本是不一样的。 因此综合考虑以上两者, 比较之下便可以发现区别。 相较于风能,核能会产生至少9至17倍 以上的二氧化碳当量的排放。 而这还不算 地面覆盖面积。
If you look at the air pollution health effects, this is the number of deaths per year in 2020 just from vehicle exhaust. Let's say we converted all the vehicles in the United States to battery electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles or flex fuel vehicles run on E85. Well, right now in the United States, 50 to 100,000 people die per year from air pollution, and vehicles are about 25,000 of those. In 2020, the number will go down to 15,000 due to improvements. And so, on the right, you see gasoline emissions, the death rates of 2020. If you go to corn or cellulosic ethanol, you'd actually increase the death rate slightly. If you go to nuclear, you do get a big reduction, but it's not as much as with wind and concentrated solar.
如果考虑到空气污染对健康的影响, 这个是2020年由 汽车尾气所导致的死亡人数。 让我们假设我们可以将美国所有的交通工具 都换成电池或氢燃料电池驱动, 或者都换成多燃料驱动交通工具。 好了,现在在美国 每年有5到10万人死于空气污染。 而其中大约2万5000人死于汽车尾气 而到了2020年,因为技术的改进, 这个数字将下降到15000人。 现在,在右边,你可以看到汽油的污染物排放所造成的 在2020的死亡率。 如果你使用由玉米或其他植物纤维所产生的乙醇, 实际上,你会使死亡率稍稍有所提高。 如果你使用核能, 你会使死亡率大大降低, 但是并不会比使用风能或紧凑太阳能减少的要多。
Now if you consider the fact that nuclear weapons proliferation is associated with nuclear energy proliferation, because we know for example, India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons secretly by enriching uranium in nuclear energy facilities. North Korea did that to some extent. Iran is doing that right now. And Venezuela would be doing it if they started with their nuclear energy facilities. If you do a large scale expansion of nuclear energy across the world, and as a result there was just one nuclear bomb created that was used to destroy a city such as Mumbai or some other big city, megacity, the additional death rates due to this averaged over 30 years and then scaled to the population of the U.S. would be this. So, do we need this?
而且考虑到 核武器的扩散 会伴随着核能使用的扩散, 众所周知, 印度和巴基斯坦秘密的发展了核武器, 通过使用生产核能的设备 积累铀元素。 朝鲜也曾经干过这种事情, 而伊朗正在进行这种行为。 而委内瑞拉也会效仿而行。 如果他们都开始建造他们的核能设备, 如果我们在世界范围内 大面积的发展核能的使用, 而结果将是哪怕只有一个核爆炸, 那么也会将 比如孟买,或 类似的大城市,巨型城市摧毁。 而在爆炸中丧生的死亡人数,也会记入核能使用所导致的死亡率中。 美国超过30年以上的可测量污染 也不过如此。 所以,我们真的需要这样么?
The next thing is: What about the footprint? Stewart mentioned the footprint. Actually, the footprint on the ground for wind is by far the smallest of any energy source in the world. That, because the footprint, as you can see, is just the pole touching the ground. And you can power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet with 73,000 to 145,000 five-megawatt wind turbines. That would take between one and three square kilometers of footprint on the ground, entirely. The spacing is something else. That's the footprint that is always being confused. People confuse footprint with spacing. As you can see from these pictures, the spacing between can be used for multiple purposes including agricultural land, range land or open space. Over the ocean, it's not even land. Now if we look at nuclear -- (Laughter) With nuclear, what do we have? We have facilities around there. You also have a buffer zone that's 17 square kilometers. And you have the uranium mining that you have to deal with.
下一个问题是:占地面积又是怎么一回事。Stewart提到占地面积。 实际上,风力发电所需要的占地面积 比其他任何电力来源都要小。 大家可以发现,所谓的占地面积 不过只是一些插在地面上的杆子。 通过73000到145000个5兆瓦特的 风力涡轮发电机 你就可以满足整个美国交通工具的能量需求。 而这总共才需要1到3平方千米 的占地面积。 所需空间和占地面积其实不是一回事, 而这一点总是让人摸不着头脑。 人们总认为占地面积就是所需空间, 当你看到这些照片的时候, 你就会明白两个柱体之间的空间可以用于多种用途, 包括农田, 山脉,或开阔地。 如果建在海洋上,那甚至都谈不上对陆地的占用。 反观核能(笑声) 我们又需要什么呢? 需要相应的设备,还需要缓冲地带 这就是17平方千米。 你还需要铀矿 这是必须考虑的
Now if we go to the area, lots is worse than nuclear or wind. For example, cellulosic ethanol, to power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet, this is how much land you would need. That's cellulosic, second generation biofuels from prairie grass. Here's corn ethanol. It's smaller. This is based on ranges from data, but if you look at nuclear, it would be the size of Rhode Island to power the U.S. vehicle fleet. For wind, there's a larger area, but much smaller footprint. And of course, with wind, you could put it all over the East Coast, offshore theoretically, or you can split it up. And now, if you go back to looking at geothermal, it's even smaller than both, and solar is slightly larger than the nuclear spacing, but it's still pretty small. And this is to power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet. To power the entire world with 50 percent wind, you would need about one percent of world land.
现在,如果我们继续讨论面积, 还有更多比核能和风能还要糟糕的。 举例来说:这是产生能够满足整个美国交通需要的纤维素乙醇 所需要的陆地面积。 这是第二代纤维素乙醇 从牧草中产生的生物燃料 这是用玉米产生乙醇所需的面积,稍稍小一点。 这都是通过数据换算的。 如果使用核能, 产生满足美国交通所需的能源大概只需要罗得岛大小的面积。 风能需要的空间要大一些, 但占地面积则会小得多。 而且使用风能的话 当然我们就可以把它放在东海岸 的海面上,从理论上讲,或者你可以把这些面积分散。 现在,我们回到地热能源, 他甚至比前两者都小。 而太阳能所需的面积则比核能稍大, 但还是很小。 这是能够满足美国交通所需能源的统计, 那么如果用50%的风能来满足全世界所需, 我们大约需要占世界面积1%的土地。
Matching the reliability, base load is actually irrelevant. We want to match the hour-by-hour power supply. You can do that by combining renewables. This is from real data in California, looking at wind data and solar data. And it considers just using existing hydro to match the hour-by-hour power demand. Here are the world wind resources. There's five to 10 times more wind available worldwide than we need for all the world. So then here's the final ranking. And one last slide I just want to show. This is the choice: You can either have wind or nuclear. If you use wind, you guarantee ice will last. Nuclear, the time lag alone will allow the Arctic to melt and other places to melt more. And we can guarantee a clean, blue sky or an uncertain future with nuclear power.
至于可靠性,基础负荷其实与此并不相干。 我们希望随时满足电力的供给, 这可以通过综合使用不同的可再生能源来达到目的。 这是来自加利弗里亚的真实数据。 请看风能和太阳能的数据统计, 并且它认为即使只用水力发电, 也能够随时满足电力供给的要求。 这是全球风能资源的统计: 世界范围内,风能可提供的电力资源 是我们全世界所需资源的5到10倍。 这是最有效的资源。 这是我想展示的最后一张幻灯片:选择在我们手中, 你可以选择风能或核能, 如果你选择风能, 我们的冰川就不会融化, 如果你选择核能,随着时间的流逝, 北极将逐渐融化,而其他地域冰川的融化将更加严重。 问题在于,你是希望有一个天空明净,富有保障的未来, 还是一个核能当道,前途未知的未来。
(Applause)
掌声。
CA: All right. So while they're having their comebacks on each other -- and yours is slightly short because you slightly overran -- I need two people from either side. So if you're for this, if you're for nuclear power, put up two hands. If you're against, put up one. And I want two of each for the mics. Now then, you guys have -- you have a minute comeback on him to pick up a point he said, challenge it, whatever.
CA: 好的。 当你们进行下一轮互辩的时候, 你的时间会稍短一些,因为这一轮你有点拖拉了。 我需要双方各出两个人, 如果你觉得世界需要核能, 请举双手, 如果你反对世界需要核能,举单手。 我希望一边出两个人一会互辩。 现在,你们俩, 你有一分钟的时间反驳他, 在他的论调中找一个点,挑战他 什么点都行。
SB: I think a point of difference we're having, Mark, has to do with weapons and energy. These diagrams that show that nuclear is somehow putting out a lot of greenhouse gases -- a lot of those studies include, "Well of course war will be inevitable and therefore we'll have cities burning and stuff like that," which is kind of finessing it a little bit, I think. The reality is that there's, what, 21 nations that have nuclear power? Of those, seven have nuclear weapons. In every case, they got the weapons before they got the nuclear power. There are two nations, North Korea and Israel, that have nuclear weapons and don't have nuclear power at all. The places that we would most like to have really clean energy occur are China, India, Europe, North America, all of which have sorted out their situation in relation to nuclear weapons. So that leaves a couple of places like Iran, maybe Venezuela, that you would like to have very close surveillance of anything that goes on with fissile stuff. Pushing ahead with nuclear power will mean we really know where all of the fissile material is, and we can move toward zero weapons left, once we know all that.
SB:Mark,我想我们的一个不同观点是 有关武器 和能源。 这个统计表显示因为某种原因, 核能释放出很多温室气体。 很多研究都表明了这一点。 当然,战争也是不可避免的, 因此,也会有城市被焚毁或类似的事情发生。 这种说法有些诡辩, 我认为。 事实情况是: 21个拥有核电力的国家, 其中的7个拥有核武器。 这7个国家都是在他们拥有核电力 之前就已经拥有核武器的。 还有另外两个国家,北朝鲜和以色列, 他们拥有核武器, 但是根本没有核电力。 而那些更有条件拥有 真正的清洁能源的地方, 像中国,印度,欧洲,北美, 他们都选择了核能 来解决他们的能源问题。 至于剩下的一些国家,如伊朗 也许再加上委内瑞拉, 我们只需要非常严格的 监督任何与 可裂变物质有关的行为就可以了。 推广核能可以让我们清楚的知道 所有的可裂变物质的去向。 甚至可以更进一步的说: 一旦我们知道这一点,就不会再有核武器留下来了。
CA: Mark, 30 seconds, either on that or on anything Stewart said.
CA:Mark. 你有30秒时间去反驳任何stewart所说的观点。
MJ: Well we know India and Pakistan had nuclear energy first, and then they developed nuclear weapons secretly in the factories. So the other thing is, we don't need nuclear energy. There's plenty of solar and wind. You can make it reliable, as I showed with that diagram. That's from real data. And this is an ongoing research. This is not rocket science. Solving the world's problems can be done, if you really put your mind to it and use clean, renewable energy. There's absolutely no need for nuclear power.
MJ:我们都知道印度和巴基斯坦拥有核能在前, 然后他们在工厂里偷偷的制造了核武器。 另一个我们不需要核能的原因是 我们有大量的风能和太阳能。 我们可以让他们变得可靠,就像我在图表中显示的那样。 这个是真实数据, 这个是正在进行的研究。 这个不是火箭科学。 这个世界性问题是可以解决的。 如果你真的用心去思考并且坚持使用清洁可再生能源的话 我们根本不需要核能
(Applause)
掌声
CA: We need someone for. Rod Beckstrom: Thank you Chris. I'm Rod Beckstrom, CEO of ICANN. I've been involved in global warming policy since 1994, when I joined the board of Environmental Defense Fund that was one of the crafters of the Kyoto Protocol. And I want to support Stewart Brand's position. I've come around in the last 10 years. I used to be against nuclear power. I'm now supporting Stewart's position, softly, from a risk-management standpoint, agreeing that the risks of overheating the planet outweigh the risk of nuclear incident, which certainly is possible and is a very real problem. However, I think there may be a win-win solution here where both parties can win this debate, and that is, we face a situation where it's carbon caps on this planet or die. And in the United States Senate, we need bipartisan support -- only one or two votes are needed -- to move global warming through the Senate, and this room can help. So if we get that through, then Mark will solve these problems. Thanks Chris.
CA:现在我们需要一名支持正方的观众。 Rod Beckstrom: 谢谢你, Chris.我是Rod Beckstrom,ICANN的 CEO 自从1994年开始, 我就受到全球变暖政策的影响。 我曾今参加过美国环保基金会 关于京都协议草案的会议。 我愿意支Stewart Brand的立场。 我犹豫了近10年, 也曾今反对过核能的使用。 现在我站在支持Stewart Brand的立场上 从一个风险控制的角度上 我同意 地球过渡暖化的风险 要大于核意外的风险。 当然,核意外的可能性是真实存在的。 然而,我认为可能会有一个双赢的局面, 辩论双方都可以赢得这个辩论。 那就是:我们面临着一个选择, 是要这个星球戴上一顶二氧化碳的帽子, 还是死亡。 在美国参议院 我们需要两党连立的支持 只需要一到两票, 我们就可以把此事送到参议院, 这个房间里的每一位都可以提供帮助 如果我们成功了,Mark就可以解决这些问题了。 谢谢,Chris
CA: Thank you Rod Beckstrom. Against.
CA:谢谢Rod Beckstrom。 有请反方的观众。
David Fanton: Hi, I'm David Fanton. I just want to say a couple quick things. The first is: be aware of the propaganda. The propaganda from the industry has been very, very strong. And we have not had the other side of the argument fully aired so that people can draw their own conclusions. Be very aware of the propaganda. Secondly, think about this. If we build all these nuclear power plants, all that waste is going to be on hundreds, if not thousands, of trucks and trains, moving through this country every day. Tell me they're not going to have accidents. Tell me that those accidents aren't going to put material into the environment that is poisonous for hundreds of thousands of years. And then tell me that each and every one of those trucks and trains isn't a potential terrorist target.
David Fanton: 大家好,我是 David Fanton。 我想简短的说几件事 第一是注意宣传 工业的宣传 一直非常,非常有力。 我们并没有 让不同的声音充分的体现。 所以人们非常容易得下出结论. 所以,一定要注意宣传的影响。 第二,大家想一想 如果我们建立这些核电站, 那么所有的核废料 都需要通过数以百计甚至数以千计的 卡车和火车 进行运输,每天都要。 请告诉我不会有意外发生, 请告诉我这些意外不会 让核材料泄露到环境中去, 不会对环境造成成千上万年的毒害。 最后请告诉我这些运输核废料的卡车和火车 不会成为恐怖分子潜在的攻击目标。
CA: Thank you. For. Anyone else for? Go.
CA:谢谢。 支持者。 有谁支持正方的,有请。
Alex: Hi, I'm Alex. I just wanted to say, I'm, first of all, renewable energy's biggest fan. I've got solar PV on my roof. I've got a hydro conversion at a watermill that I own. And I'm, you know, very much "pro" that kind of stuff. However, there's a basic arithmetic problem here. The capability of the sun shining, the wind blowing and the rain falling, simply isn't enough to add up. So if we want to keep the lights on, we actually need a solution which is going to keep generating all of the time. I campaigned against nuclear weapons in the '80s, and I continue to do so now. But we've got an opportunity to recycle them into something more useful that enables us to get energy all of the time. And, ultimately, the arithmetic problem isn't going to go away. We're not going to get enough energy from renewables alone. We need a solution that generates all of the time. If we're going to keep the lights on, nuclear is that solution.
大家好,我是Alex.我想说的是 首先,我是清洁能源的忠实粉丝。 我的屋顶上有太阳能的接收板, 在我拥有的水车上 装有水力转换器。 所以,我很支持这些清洁能源的使用。 但是这里有一个基本的算术问题。 阳光,风力,雨水 的能力加起来, 也不能满足人类所需。 如果我们还想让家里的电灯继续亮下去的话 我们需要一个真正的解决方案 一个在任何时候都可以依靠的解决方案。 80年代,我是反对核武器的, 现在也一样。 但如果我们有一个机会, 能把核武器变成其他更有用的东西 能够让我们始终获得电力的东西。 总而言之,这个算术问题不会消失, 我们不可能从清洁能源那里获得足够的电力, 我们需要一个彻底的解决方案。 如果我们还希望灯继续亮着, 核能就是问题的答案。
CA: Thank you. Anyone else against?
CA:谢谢。 有人反对么?
Man: The last person who was in favor made the premise that we don't have enough alternative renewable resources. And our "against" proponent up here made it very clear that we actually do. And so the fallacy that we need this resource and we can actually make it in a time frame that is meaningful is not possible. I will also add one other thing. Ray Kurzweil and all the other talks -- we know that the stick is going up exponentially. So you can't look at state-of-the-art technologies in renewables and say, "That's all we have." Because five years from now, it will blow you away what we'll actually have as alternatives to this horrible, disastrous nuclear power.
上个正方支持者认为我们 不可能从清洁能源那里 得到足够的电力。 我们反方阵营明确表示 我们可以做到这一点。 所以我们需要核能这个观点 根本是一个谬论。 我们甚至可以做一个时间表 证明这是完全可行的。 我还要补充一点: Ray Kurzweil和其他的演讲 我知道支持者在日益增加 但是我们不能只看到清洁能源的实验室的应用 就认为他们并没有实际用途 五年之后,他们将使你大开眼界 它们才是我们的选择 而不是可怕的,灾难性的核武器。
CA: Point well made. Thank you.
CA:观点表述明确,谢谢
(Applause)
掌声
So each of you has really just a couple sentences -- 30 seconds each to sum up. Your final pitch, Stewart.
现在你们双方各有30秒, 用简单的几句话 进行总结 你最后的一搏,Stewart
SB: I loved your "It all balances out" chart that you had there. It was a sunny day and a windy night. And just now in England they had a cold spell. All of the wind in the entire country shut down for a week. None of those things were stirring. And as usual, they had to buy nuclear power from France. Two gigawatts comes through the Chunnel. This keeps happening. I used to worry about the 10,000 year factor. And the fact is, we're going to use the nuclear waste we have for fuel in the fourth generation of reactors that are coming along. And especially the small reactors need to go forward. I heard from Nathan Myhrvold -- and I think here's the action point -- it'll take an act of Congress to make the Nuclear Regulatory Commission start moving quickly on these small reactors, which we need very much, here and in the world.
SB:我喜欢你的它们可以平衡使用的表格 就是你刚刚用的那个 那是白天阳光普照晚上清风徐徐的日子。 但现在在英国 他们有一个春寒期 整个国家的风力 整整停了一个星期 没有哪个风力发电机还在转动 像往常一样,他们只好向法国购买核能发的电。 20亿瓦特的电量通过电网输入, 这样的情况不断的重复 我曾经担心10000年后怎么办, 但事实是,我们将会把这些核废料用作燃料, 即将到来的第四代核反应堆的燃料, 尤其是那些即将推广的,较小的核反应堆的燃料。 我从Nathan Myhrvold那里听说,我认为个观点很可行 他们将会在议会采取行动 成立核能委员会 快速发展推广我们,这里和全世界 都急需的小型核能反应堆
(Applause)
掌声。
MJ: So we've analyzed the hour-by-hour power demand and supply, looking at solar, wind, using data for California. And you can match that demand, hour-by-hour, for the whole year almost. Now, with regard to the resources, we've developed the first wind map of the world, from data alone, at 80 meters. We know what the wind resources are. You can cover 15 percent. Fifteen percent of the entire U.S. has wind at fast enough speeds to be cost-competitive. And there's much more solar than there is wind. There's plenty of resource. You can make it reliable.
MJ:我们对电力的供给 进行了精确到小时的统计。 就说在加利弗里亚的数据,风能加太阳能 可以满足几乎全年内每一小时 的电力供给。 现在,为了更好的看清资源, 我们绘制了全球风能地图 从数据本身,80米左右, 我们知道资源是什么,你可以满足15% 全美15%的电力需求。 足够快速的风力是很有成本竞争力的 何况还有更多太阳能。 如此多的资源我们可以让他变得可靠。
CA: Okay. So, thank you, Mark. (Applause) So if you were in Palm Springs ... (Laughter) (Applause) Shameless. Shameless. Shameless. (Applause)
谢谢,Mark 掌声 如果你在Palm Spring 笑声 掌声 丢人,丢人,丢人 掌声
So, people of the TED community, I put it to you that what the world needs now is nuclear energy. All those in favor, raise your hands. (Shouts) And all those against. Ooooh. Now that is -- my take on that ... Just put up ... Hands up, people who changed their minds during the debate, who voted differently. Those of you who changed your mind in favor of "for" put your hands up. Okay. So here's the read on it. Both people won supporters, but on my count, the mood of the TED community shifted from about 75 to 25 to about 65 to 35 in favor, in favor.
TED观众朋友们。 现在你们来决定 世界是否需要核能 支持正方的观众,请举手。 吃惊得叫声 支持反方的,举手 哇哦。 好,现在,这样吧 听了辩论之后改变主意的人请举手 谁改变了立场, 谁改变主意开始 支持正方的观众 请举手。 好的,结果出来了 两边都赢得了新的支持者 根据我的统计 TED 观众的支持率与反对率的比例 从75 比25 下降到65比35 很好,很好。
You both won. I congratulate both of you. Thank you for that.
一个双赢的局面。恭喜两位 谢谢你们的精彩辩论
(Applause)
掌声