I'm a believer. I'm a believer in global warming, and my record is good on the subject. But my subject is national security. We have to get off of oil purchased from the enemy. I'm talking about OPEC oil. And let me take you back 100 years to 1912. You're probably thinking that was my birth year. (Laughter) It wasn't. It was 1928. But go back to 1912, 100 years ago, and look at that point what we, our country, was faced with. It's the same energy question that you're looking at today, but it's different sources of fuel. A hundred years ago we were looking at coal, of course, and we were looking at whale oil and we were looking at crude oil. At that point, we were looking for a fuel that was cleaner, it was cheaper, and it wasn't ours though, it was theirs.
我是位信徒。 我相信全球暖化, 而在這個議題上 我的記錄良好。 但我要談論的主題 是國家安全。 我們必須停止從敵人那 購買石油。 我指的是石油輸出國組織的石油。 讓我帶各位回到 100年前的 1912年。 各位可能會認為那是我出生的年代 ♪笑聲♪ 不是的,我出生於1928年。 但回到1912年 100年前, 來看看當時 我們的國家所面臨的問題。 是與今日我們所面臨的問題 是相同的, 只是是不一樣的燃料源。 100年前 我們找煤炭,當然啦 我們也在尋找鯨油 和原油。 在當時, 我們希望的燃料 是較乾淨、 較便宜的, 然而那不是我們的燃料, 那是他們的。
So at that point, 1912, we selected crude oil over whale oil and some more coal. But as we moved on to the period now, 100 years later, we're back really at another decision point. What is the decision point? It's what we're going to use in the future. So from here, it's pretty clear to me, we would prefer to have cleaner, cheaper, domestic, ours -- and we have that, we have that -- which is natural gas.
在當時1912年, 我們選擇了原油而不是鯨油 以及再多點煤炭。 然而往前進 到現在,也就是100年後, 我們確實回到了 另一個決策點。 決策點是什麼? 就是我們未來要採用 什麼燃料。 所以從此刻 我相當的清楚, 我們寧願採用 較乾淨、較便宜、 國內的、我們的-- 我們有的-- 也就是天然氣。
So here you are, that the cost of all this to the world is 89 million barrels of oil, give or take a few barrels, every day. And the cost annually is three trillion dollars. And one trillion of that goes to OPEC. That has got to be stopped. Now if you look at the cost of OPEC, it cost seven trillion dollars -- on the Milken Institute study last year -- seven trillion dollars since 1976, is what we paid for oil from OPEC. Now that includes the cost of military and the cost of the fuel both. But it's the greatest transfer of wealth, from one group to another in the history of mankind. And it continues.
來看看這裡, 全球要為當時決策付出的代價 是8千9百萬桶石油, 這大約是每天的用量。 全年下來的成本 是3兆美元。 其中有1兆 是付給石油輸出國組織。 一定要中止這樣局勢。 如果觀察石油輸出國組織的成本, 成本是7兆美元-- 根據米爾肯研究機構去年做的研究-- 自從1976年來, 7兆美元 是我們從石油輸出國組織所支付的石油成本。 這包含軍事 以及燃料二種成本。 然而這是在人類歷史上 財富最龐大的從一個組織轉移 到另一個組織。 而且還在持續進行中。
Now when you look at where is the transfer of wealth, you can see here that we have the arrows going into the Mid-East and away from us. And with that, we have found ourselves to be the world's policemen. We are policing the world, and how are we doing that? I know the response to this. I would bet there aren't 10 percent of you in the room that know how many aircraft carriers there are in the world. Raise your hand if you think you know. There are 12. One is under construction by the Chinese and the other 11 belong to us.
當你在找 財富移轉的地區時 你會注意到 有個箭頭 從我們這裡 指向中東地區。 有鑑於此, 我們發現自已 扮演起世界警察的角色。 我們在維護世界治安, 我們怎麼維護世界的治安呢? 我知道我們如何做的。 我打賭在座不到10%的人 知道全世界有幾艘航空母艦。 認為自己知道答案的人舉手。 有12艘。 有1艘中國在建造當中 另11艘是我們的。
Why do we have 11 aircraft carriers? Do we have a corner on the market? Are we smarter than anybody else? I'm not sure. If you look at where they're located -- and on this slide it's the red blobs on there -- there are five that are operating in the Mid-East, and the rest of them are in the United States. They just move back to the Mid-East and those come back. So actually most of the 11 we have are tied up in the Mid-East. Why? Why are they in the Mid-East? They're there to control, keep the shipping lanes open and make oil available. And the United States uses about 20 million barrels a day, which is about 25 percent of all the oil used everyday in the world. And we're doing it with four percent of the population. Somehow that doesn't seem right. That's not sustainable.
為何要有11艘航空母艦? 是因為我們獨占了這個市場嗎? 還是我們比其它人聰明嗎?我不確定。 如果觀察航空母艦停泊地-- 這張幻燈片上的紅點標示區-- 有5艘在中東執勤, 其餘的在美國。 5艘是剛派遣過去的,這些是剛回來的。 因此事實上大部分這11艘航空母艦 都跟中東地區情事相關聯。 為什麼?航空母艦為何要駐紮中東地區呢? 因為要控制當地, 確保航道通行 以及石油的取得。 美國每天用油量約2千萬桶, 約佔全世界每天用油量的 25﹪。 而且要4﹪的人口來從事這件事。 這似乎有點怪怪的。 這並不是長遠之計。
So where do we go from here? Does that continue? Yes, it's going to continue. The slide you're looking at here is 1990 to 2040. Over that period you are going to double your demand. And when you look at what we're using the oil for, 70 percent of it is used for transportation fuel. So when somebody says, "Let's go more nuclear, let's go wind, let's go solar," fine; I'm for anything American, anything American. But if you're going to do anything about the dependency on foreign oil, you have to address transportation.
所以我們要怎麼辦呢? 那會持續下去? 沒錯,狀況會持續下去。 這張幻燈片你們看到 的是1990到2040年。 在這期間 對油的需求量會變雙倍。 來看看我們應用石油在哪些領域, 70﹪ 是用在交通運輸上。 因此當有人提倡, “用核能、 風能、太陽能吧“, 對我來說用什麼都好;只要是美國做的我都贊成, 是美國自己生產的都行。 然而如果是以仰賴 國外燃料為出發點, 那麼就必須滿足運輸使用燃料的問題。
So here we are using 20 million barrels a day -- producing eight, importing 12, and from the 12, five comes from OPEC. When you look at the biggest user and the second largest user, we use 20 million barrels and the Chinese use 10. The Chinese have a little bit better plan -- or they have a plan; we have no plan. In the history of America, we've never had an energy plan. We don't even realize the resources that we have available to us. If you take the last 10 years and bring forward, you've transferred to OPEC a trillion dollars. If you go forward the next 10 years and cap the price of oil at 100 dollars a barrel, you will pay 2.2 trillion. That's not sustainable either.
我們 每天用掉2千萬桶石油-- 自產8百萬桶,進口1千兩百萬桶, 這1千兩百萬桶之中, 有5百萬桶來至石油輸出國組織。 來看看世界第一及第二用油國家, 我們用2千萬桶 中國用1千萬桶。 中國有較佳的規劃-- 或者說他們有了計劃; 而我們沒有。 由美國歴史中看來, 我們從來沒有過有能源規劃。 我們甚至不知道 自己有什麼可用的資源。 如果把過去10年 拿出來計算, 我們已經付了1兆美元給石油輸出國組織。 如果再往未來估算10年 並限制每桶石油價格為100美元, 要支付的費用為2.2兆美元。 這不也不是長久之計。
But the days of cheap oil are over. They're over. They make it very clear to you, the Saudis do, they have to have 94 dollars a barrel to make their social commitments. Now I had people in Washington last week told me, he said, "The Saudis can produce the oil for five dollars a barrel. That has nothing to do with it. It's what they have to pay for is what we are going to pay for oil." There is no free market for oil. The oil is priced off the margin. And the OPEC nations are the ones that price the oil.
但廉價石油的時代已經結束了。 時代結束了。 他們很清楚的向你表示, 沙烏地表示, 油價必須每桶來到94美元 他們才要履行供應的社會責任。 上周一位華盛頓的人士跟我說, “沙烏地生產石油 每桶成本是5美元。 那根本無法可管, 也就是油價不管多高 全民都必須照單全收”。 石油沒有所謂的自由市場機制。 油價是以利潤定價。 油價是由石油輸出國組織 制定的。
So where are we headed from here? We're headed to natural gas. Natural gas will do everything we want it to do. It's 130 octane fuel. It's 25 percent cleaner than oil. It's ours, we have an abundance of it. And it does not require a refinery. It comes out of the ground at 130 octane. Run it through the separator and you're ready to use it. It's going to be very simple for us to use. It's going to be simple to accomplish this. You're going to find, and I'll tell you in just a minute, what you're looking for to make it happen. But here you can look at the list. Natural gas will fit all of those. It will replace or be able to be used for that. It's for power generation, transportation, it's peaking fuel, it's all those.
因此從這個局勢我們被導向何處呢? 我們被導向天然氣。 天然氣可以幫 我們解決每個問題。 天然氣是130辛烷值燃料。 它比石油清潔25﹪。 是我們自有的,我們有豐富的儲藏量。 它不需要煉油廠再提煉。 從地底開採出來就是130辛烷值了。 通過分離器後就可以用了。 對我們而言使用上將會相當的便利。 很簡單就能做到。 你們會得到你們殷切期盼的解答, 而我待會將馬上向你們說明。 先來看看這張圖表, 天然氣可以解決所有這些問題。 它可以取代或做為可適用性燃料。 可用在發電、交通、 燃值高、這些都是它的優勢。
Do we have enough natural gas? Look at the bar on the left. It's 24 trillion. It's what we use a year. Go forward and the estimates that you have from the EIA and onto the industry estimates -- the industry knows what they're talking about -- we've got 4,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that's available to us. How does that translate to barrels of oil equivalent? It would be three times what the Saudis claim they have. And they claim they have 250 billion barrels of oil, which I do not believe. I think it's probably 175 billion barrels. But anyway, whether they say they're right or whatever, we have plenty of natural gas.
我們有足夠的天然氣儲藏量嗎? 看左邊這個長條圖。24兆 是我們一年的用量。 再下來 看到美國能源信息署的 估計以及工業估計-- 該工業非常清楚自己在講什麼-- 將近4千兆立方尺 的天然氣量供我們使用。 這大約等於 多少桶的原油呢? 是沙烏地所宣稱 擁有石油量的三倍。 他們宣稱擁有2千5百億桶原油, 我不相信。 我認為應該只有1千750億桶。 但不論他們說的正不正確, 我們有很富豐的天然氣。
So I have tried to target on where we use the natural gas. And where I've targeted is on the heavy-duty trucks. There are eight million of them. You take eight million trucks -- these are 18-wheelers -- and take them to natural gas, reduce carbon by 30 percent, it is cheaper and it will cut our imports three million barrels. So you will cut 60 percent off of OPEC with eight million trucks. There are 250 million vehicles in America.
所以我要著眼 在天然氣的應用方向。 我的目標是 重型卡車。 有8百萬輛卡車。 8百萬輛卡車-- 18個輪子的卡車-- 採用天然氣的話, 可以減少30﹪的二氧化碳, 它價格較便宜 而且可以降低3百萬桶 的石油進口量。 如此一來,以8百萬輛的卡車就可以減少從石油輸出國組織 進口石油量的60﹪。 全美有2億5千萬輛的汽車。
So what you have is natural gas is the bridge fuel, is the way I see it. I don't have to worry about the bridge to where at my age. (Laughter) That's your concern. But when you look at the natural gas we have it could very well be the bridge to natural gas, because you have plenty of natural gas. But as I said, I'm for anything American.
因此 天然氣是銜接燃料, 我是這麼認為的。 以我的年紀,我不必擔心 這座橋樑銜接到什麼燃料。 ♪眾笑♪ 那是你們要擔心的。 然而檢視我們擁有的天然氣, 它會是相當好的 橋接燃料, 因為它的蘊藏量豐富。 然而就如我之前說的,只要是美國自產的我都接受。
Now let me take you -- I've been a realist -- I went from theorist early to realist. I'm back to theorist again. If you look at the world, you have methane hydrates in the ocean around every continent. And here you can see methane, if that's the way you're going to go, that there's plenty of methane -- natural gas is methane, methane and natural gas are interchangeable -- but if you decide that you're going to use some methane -- and I'm gone, so it's up to you -- but we do have plenty of methane hydrates.
現在讓我來帶領你們--我一直是唯實論者-- 我從早期的理論者變成現唯實論者。 現在我又回到理論學派。 看看這世界, 各大洲被含甲烷水合物 的海洋包圍著。 甲烷隨處可見, 假使要應用甲烷水合物, 那麼那是相當的富足的燃料-- 天然氣就是甲烷, 二者是可以互相交換的-- 然而如果你們決定 要採用些甲烷-- 而我不在人世,因此決定權在你們-- 但我們的確擁有 相當豐富的甲烷水合物。
So I think I've made my point that we have to get on our own resources in America. If we do -- it's costing us a billion dollars a day for oil. And yet, we have no energy plan. So there's nothing going on that impresses me in Washington on that plan, other than I'm trying to focus on that eight million 18-wheelers. If we could do that, I think we would take our first step to an energy plan. If we did, we could see that our own resources are easier to use than anybody can imagine.
因此,我想我的論點已經很清楚了: 我們要用美國自有的資源。 如果這麼做的話-- 我們一天用在石油的花費要10億美元。 然而我們確沒有應變的能源規劃。 因此, 華府對於能源所做規劃, 一點也沒有 比我專注於解決 8百萬輛重型卡車的燃料所需來的實際。 假定我們能夠這麼做的話, 我想我們就能向能源計劃 跨出第一步了。 如果我們去做了,會了解 採用我們自有資源,會比任何人想像 要來的容易。
Thank you.
謝謝各位。
(Applause)
♪掌聲♪
Chris Anderson: Thanks for that. So from your point of view, you had this great Pickens Plan that was based on wind energy, and you abandoned it basically because the economics changed. What happened?
克里斯·安德森:謝謝你的演說。 從你的觀點來看, 你曾有個偉大的皮肯斯計劃 是以風能為主軸, 而之後放棄這個計劃是基於 經濟的變動。 發生了什麼事?
TBP: I lost 150 million dollars. (Laughter) That'll make you abandon something. No, what happened to us, Chris, is that power, it's priced off the margin. And so the margin is natural gas. And at the time I went into the wind business, natural gas was nine dollars. Today it's two dollars and forty cents. You cannot do a wind deal under six dollars an MCF.
提 布恩·皮肯斯回答:我損失了1億5千萬美元。 ♪笑聲♪ 那會讓你放棄某件事情。 不是的,克里斯, 以利潤做為標價原則改變了我們的計劃。 而利潤就是天然氣。 當時我進入風能產業時, 天然氣是9美元。 今天天然氣的價格是2.4美元。 風能價格低於 1千立方尺6美元是做不起來的。
CA: So what happened was that, through increased ability to use fracking technology, the calculated reserves of natural gas kind of exploded and the price plummeted, which made wind uncompetitive. In a nutshell that's what happened?
克里斯:所以事情的原委就是 因為透過 水力壓裂鑽井技術的提昇, 天然氣的估計儲備量爆增 以及價格的爆跌 是導致風能失去競爭力的原因。 簡言之就是這樣嗎?
TBP: That's what happened. We found out that we could go to the source rock, which were the carboniferous shales in the basins. The first one was Barnett Shale in Texas and then the Marcellus up in the Northeast across New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia; and Haynesville in Louisiana. This stuff is everywhere. We are overwhelmed with natural gas.
提 布恩·皮肯斯:是的。 我們發現水力壓裂鑽井技術可以用在生油岩 也就是石炭系頁岩盆地。 第一個是德州的巴納特頁岩 接著是東北方這個含概紐約、賓州、西維吉尼亞 的馬塞勒斯頁岩; 以及在路易斯安那州的海納斯維爾頁岩。 頁岩到處都是。 天然氣多到讓我們不知所措。
CA: And now you're a big investor in that and bringing that to market?
克里斯:所以你現在作大投資,並且向市場引進這個技術?
TBP: Well you say a big investor. It's my life. I'm a geologist, got out of school in '51, and I've been in the industry my entire life. Now I do own stocks. I'm not a big natural gas producer. Somebody the other day said I was the second largest natural gas producer in the United States. Don't I wish. But no, I'm not. I own stocks. But I also am in the fueling business.
提·布恩·皮肯斯:你稱我為大投資者。 我認為它是我的生命。 我是位地質學家,1951年從學校畢業, 我一生都待在這個產業。 現在我確認持有股票。 但我不是產天然氣的大廠。 過去有人說過 我是美國第二大天然氣生產商。 我也希望是。 但我不是。我只是持股而己。 而我也涉足燃料業務。
CA: But natural gas is a fossil fuel. You burn it, you release CO2. So you believe in the threat of climate change. Why doesn't that prospect concern you?
克里斯:但是天然氣是化石燃料。 燃燒天然氣 會釋出二氧化碳。 既然你相信氣候變遷的威脅 為何你不擔心 它會衍生的問題呢?
TBP: Well you're going to have to use something. What do you have to replace it? (Laughter)
提·布恩·皮肯斯:你還是得使用燃料呀。 你要用什麼來替代呢? ♪笑聲♪
CA: No, no. The argument that it's a bridge fuel makes sense, because the amount of CO2 per unit of energy is lower than oil and coal, correct? And so everyone can be at least happy to see a shift from coal or oil to natural gas. But if that's it and that becomes the reason that renewables don't get invested in, then, long-term, we're screwed anyway, right?
克里斯:不是在說那件事。橋接燃料的論點合理, 因為每能量單位的二氧化碳含量 低於石油及煤炭,對吧? 因此,基於這點,大家至少會欣然接受 由用煤炭或石油轉移到使用天然氣。 但如果就僅僅這樣, 而因此 再生能源沒人投資發展, 那麼,長期下我們還是得自食惡果,不是嗎?
TBP: Well I'm not ready to give up, but Jim and I talked there as he left, and I said, "How do you feel about natural gas?" And he said, "Well it's a bridge fuel, is what it is." And I said, "Bridge to what? Where are we headed?" See but again, I told you, I don't have to worry with that. You all do.
提·布恩·皮肯斯:讓我再補充說明一下, 吉姆離開那時, 我跟他談了一下話, 我問他:"你覺得天然氣可行嗎? 他回答:"它可做為橋接燃料,就這樣"。 我接著問:"橋接什麼燃料呢? 我們的目標在哪?" 看吧,就如我講的,我不用去擔心這個問題。 你們才要擔心。
CA: But I don't think that's right, Boone. I think you're a person who believes in your legacy. You've made the money you need. You're one of the few people in a position to really swing the debate. Do you support the idea of some kind of price on carbon? Does that make sense?
克里斯:但是布恩,我不認為那樣想是對的。 我認為你是位為後代樹立典範的人。 你要的財富都賺到了。 你是少數幾位 能影響輿論的有力人士。 你支持按二氧化碳課費的概念嗎? 那樣做有意義嗎?
TBP: I don't like that because it ends up the government is going to run the program. I can tell you it will be a failure. The government is not successful on these things. They just aren't, it's a bad deal. Look at Solyndra, or whatever it was. I mean, that was told to be a bad idea 10 times, they went ahead and did it anyway. But that only blew out 500 million. I think it's closer to a billion. But Chris, I think where we're headed, the long-term, I don't mind going back to nuclear. And I can tell you what the last page of the report that will take them five years to write will be. One, don't build a reformer on a fault. (Laughter) And number two, do not build a reformer on the ocean. And now I think reformers are safe. Move them inland and on very stable ground and build the reformers. There isn't anything wrong with nuke. You're going to have to have energy. There is no question. You can't -- okay.
提·布恩·皮肯斯:我不喜歡 因為到頭來那是由政府來操作。 我敢說那一定會失敗的。 政府無法成功的 推動這些事情。 它們就是做不到。那是個壞點子。 看看索林卓太陽能公司或其它例子就知道。 我的意義是,那計劃大家都認為爛透了, 但政府還是做了。 雖然只搞砸5億美金。 但我認為應該有將近10億。 但是克里斯,我認為我們的方向 長期而言, 可以採用核能。 我可以跟你們說 它們花上5年時間所撰寫的核能報告的最後一頁 內容寫什麼。 第一:不要在斷層帶上建造重組器。 ♪笑聲♪ 第二: 重組器不能建在海上。 這麼一來,我認為重組器就很安全了。 將重組器移到陸上 在地質相當穏定的地方 來蓋重組器。 核能本身沒什麼問題。 大家都需要能源。這是毫無疑問的。 沒辦法不用能源--就這樣。
CA: One of the questions from the audience is, with fracking and the natural gas process, what about the problem of methane leaking from that, methane being a worse global warming gas than CO2? Is that a concern?
克里斯:聽眾有個問題要請教 採用水力壓裂鑽井技術以及天然氣製程的話, 那麼甲烷洩漏的問題要如何應變呢? 甲烷是比二氧化碳還要糟糕 的溫室氣體。 難到不用擔心這點嗎?
TBP: Fracking? What is fracking?
提·布恩·皮肯斯:水力鴨子?那是什麼?(英美對a的發音不同)
CA: Fracking.
克里斯:水力壓裂。
TBP: I'm teasing.
提·布恩·皮肯斯:逗你的啦。
(Laughter)
♪笑聲♪
CA: We've got a little bit of accent incompatibility here, you know.
克里斯:你知道的,我們在發音上是有點不太一致的。
TBP: No, let me tell you, I've told you what my age was. I got out of school in '51. I witnessed my first frack job at border Texas in 1953. Fracking came out in '47, and don't believe for a minute when our president gets up there and says the Department of Energy 30 years ago developed fracking. I don't know what in the hell he's talking about. I mean seriously, the Department of Energy did not have anything to do with fracking. The first frack job was in '47. I saw my first one in '53. I've fracked over 3,000 wells in my life. Never had a problem with messing up an aquifer or anything else. Now the largest aquifer in North America is from Midland, Texas to the South Dakota border, across eight states -- big aquifer: Ogallala, Triassic age. There had to have been 800,000 wells fracked in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas in that aquifer. There's no problems. I don't understand why the media is focused on Eastern Pennsylvania.
提·布恩·皮肯斯:我跟你說, 我已經說過我的年紀了。 我1951年從學校畢業。 1953年我第一次參與的水力壓裂鑽井工程 是在德州邊界。 水力壓裂鑽井技術是在1947年發明的, 我真不敢相信 我們的總統到了那 說水力壓裂鑽井技術是30年前 能源部發明的。 真不知道他到底在說什麼。 我說真的,那時能源部 不知道什麼是水力壓裂鑽井技術。 第一件水力壓裂鑽井工程是在1947年。 我第一次參與是1953年。 我此生已水力壓裂鑽超過3千口井。 從來沒有 破壞過含水層或引發任何問題。 北美最大的含水層 是從德州的米德蘭市到南達科塔州州界, 縱貫了8個州-- 這片廣大的含水層被稱為: 奧加拉拉含水層,型成於三疊紀。 在那片含水層中, 奧克拉何馬州、德州及堪薩斯州,已經有超過80萬口天然氣井 是以水力壓裂鑽鑿。 都沒出現過問題。 我不了解為何 媒體要聚焦在賓州東部。
CA: All right, so you don't support a carbon tax of any kind or a price on carbon. Your picture then I guess of how the world eventually gets off fossil fuels is through innovation ultimately, that we'll someday make solar and nuclear cost competitive?
克里斯:好的,所以你不支持課征任何形式的碳稅 或碳費。 那麼我認為 世界最終如何擺脫化石燃料 在你的構想下,是藉由創新來達成, 也就是說未來我們會將太陽能與核能發展到具成本競爭力嗎?
TBP: Solar and wind, Jim and I agreed on that in 13 seconds. That is, it's going to be a small part, because you can't rely on it.
提·布恩·皮肯斯:提姆跟我對太陽及風能只稍稍認同了一會。 就只有短短13秒而已。那部分實在太小了, 以致於不可靠。
CA: So how does the world get off fossil fuels?
克里斯:那麼如何擺脫化石燃料?
TBP: How do we get there? We have so much natural gas, a day will not come where you say, "Well let's don't use that anymore." You'll keep using it. It is the cleanest of all. And if you look at California, they use 2,500 buses. LAMTA have been on natural gas for 25 years. The Ft. Worth T has been on it for 25 years. Why? Air quality was the reason they used natural gas and got away from diesel. Why are all the trash trucks today in Southern California on natural gas? It's because of air quality. I know what you're telling me, and I'm not disagreeing with you. How in the hell can we get off the natural gas at some point? And I say, that is your problem.
提·布恩·皮肯斯:如何擺脫? 我們有那麼富豐的天然氣, 你們所謂的 "不再用化石燃料"的那天是不會到來的。 會一直使用。它是最乾淨的能源。 看看加州, 它們有2千5百輛巴士。 洛杉磯大都會運輸署採用天然氣巴士 有25年了。 沃斯堡大眾運輸 採用天然氣巴士也有25年。 那是為什麼?維護空氣品質是它們採用天然氣 而不用柴油的原因。 南加州全部的垃圾車為何都 採用天然氣? 是為了維護空氣品質。 我知道你要傳達給我的訊息為何,我不反對你的論點。 我們究竟要如何擺脫天氣然? 我的答案是,那是你們要解決的。
(Laughter)
♪笑聲♪
CA: All right, so it's the bridge fuel. What is at the other end of that bridge is for this audience to figure out. If someone comes to you with a plan that really looks like it might be part of this solution, are you ready to invest in those technologies, even if they aren't maximized for profits, they might be maximized for the future health of the planet?
克里斯:好吧, 它是做為銜接燃料的。 銜接到何處 是在座各位要解決的問題。 如果有人向你提個計劃 那計劃真的有可能是解決方案的一部分, 你會投資那些技術, 即便那不是很有利潤, 但可能會為地球生靈的未來福祉帶來最大的利益嗎?
TBP: I lost 150 million on the wind, okay. Yeah, sure, I'm game for it. Because, again, I'm trying to get energy solved for America. And anything American will work for me.
提·布恩·皮肯斯:我已損失1億5千萬在開發風能上了。 所以當然了,我會投資的。 原因再說一次, 我一直努力的在為美國解決能源議題。 只要是出自於美國, 我都認同。
CA: Boone, I really, really appreciate you coming here, engaging in this conversation. I think there's a lot of people who will want to engage with you. And that was a real gift you gave this audience. Thank you so much. (TBP: You bet, Chris. Thank you.)
克里斯:布恩,我真的相當感激你到這裡來 做這演說。 我想很多人都想要跟你交流。 你給聽眾們的演說真的相當的寶貴。 非常感謝你。(提·布恩·皮肯斯:不客氣。謝謝。)
(Applause)
♪掌聲♪