Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
我們有一場辯論 Chris Anderson: We're having a debate.
這場辯論的主題是: The debate is over the proposition
「這個世界需要核能-- "What the world needs now
是對還是錯?」 is nuclear energy" -- true or false?
在辯論開始之前 And before we have the debate,
我想讓現場各位簡單表決一下 I'd like to actually take a show of hands --
總體來說,目前你是站在那一方? on balance, right now, are you for or against this?
贊成核能的人,請舉手 So those who are "yes," raise your hand. "For."
好的,請把手放下 Okay, hands down.
反對核能的人,請舉手 Those who are "against," raise your hands.
嗯,從舉手的數量來看 Okay, I'm reading that at about
目前贊成與反對的比例大約是75:25 75-25 in favor at the start.
辯論完後,我們會再作一次統計 Which means we're going to take a vote at the end
看是不是有所改變 and see how that shifts, if at all.
現在說明規則:雙方各有6分鐘 So here's the format: They're going to have six minutes each,
一方說完馬上換另一方 and then after one little, quick exchange between them,
我會從現場觀眾挑出2位支持者跟反對者 I want two people on each side of this debate in the audience
這4位有30秒 to have 30 seconds
表達支持論點的理由 to make one short, crisp, pungent, powerful point.
有點不可思議,今天的辯論正方 So, in favor of the proposition, possibly shockingly,
他是環保運動的 is one of, truly, the founders of the
創始者之一 environmental movement,
他多次出現在 TED 演講,同時也是雜誌《Whole Earth Catalog》的創辦人 a long-standing TEDster, the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog,
我們熟悉且敬愛的,史都華特-布蘭德 someone we all know and love, Stewart Brand.
哇嗚 Stewart Brand: Whoa.
(掌聲) (Applause)
說到氣候,瞭解氣候的專家 The saying is that with climate, those who know the most
一定都非常擔心氣候問題 are the most worried.
但是講到核能,最瞭解它的專家 With nuclear, those who know the most
卻一點都不擔心它 are the least worried.
一個典型的例子就是,詹姆斯-漢森 A classic example is James Hansen,
他是NASA的氣候學家 a NASA climatologist
並極力呼籲將大氣中的二氧化碳 pushing for 350 parts per million
降到 350PPM 以下(註:可抵抗暖化的濃度) carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
他最近推出了一本書 He came out with a wonderful book recently
書名《子孫的風暴》(Storms of My Grandchildren) called "Storms of My Grandchildren."
漢森致力研究核能 And Hansen is hard over for nuclear power,
就像許多氣候學家 as are most climatologists
正專注這個問題 who are engaging this issue seriously.
現在的情況是 This is the design situation:
地球正在面對氣候改變 a planet that is facing climate change
都市面積幾乎佔了陸地的一半 and is now half urban.
在這種情況下 Look at the client base for this.
有6分之5的人(83%) Five out of six of us
居住在開發中國家 live in the developing world.
我們會往城市集中,尋找更適合生活的地方 We are moving to cities. We are moving up in the world.
我們會給予下一代教育 And we are educating our kids,
生育率下降 having fewer kids,
這些,基本上都是不錯的消息 basically good news all around.
我們會往城市光亮的地方聚集 But we move to cities, toward the bright lights,
在城市裡,除了工作,另一個我們要的東西 and one of the things that is there that we want, besides jobs,
就是電力 is electricity.
如果電力不易取得,我們會用偷的 And if it isn't easily gotten, we'll go ahead and steal it.
對於全世界 This is one of the most desired things
住在城市和鄉間的窮人 by poor people all over the world,
電力是他們迫切需求的必需品之一 in the cities and in the countryside.
一個城市所需的電力 Electricity for cities, at its best,
我們稱之為基本負載電力 is what's called baseload electricity.
基本負載電力是指 That's where it is on
能維繫生活所需的基本電力 all the time.
至今我們主要用 3 種發電方式 And so far there are only three major sources of that --
煤氣發電、水力發電 coal and gas, hydro-electric,
這二者佔了大部分 which in most places is maxed-out --
還有一項是核能發電 and nuclear.
我希望這張圖表還能加上第4項 I would love to have something in the fourth place here,
這一項是穩定、乾淨、 but in terms of constant, clean,
可擴展的能源 scalable energy,
太陽能、風力、以及其他再生能源 [solar] and wind and the other renewables
都還不算是這種能源,因為他們都不夠穩定 aren't there yet because they're inconstant.
迄今,核能的發展已 40 年了 Nuclear is and has been for 40 years.
目前,站在環境保護的立場來看 Now, from an environmental standpoint,
你會特別注意 the main thing you want to look at
我們在核能發電和煤炭發電上 is what happens to the waste from nuclear and from coal,
消耗了哪些東西,產生了哪些東西 the two major sources of electricity.
如果你一輩子所用的電力都來自核能 If all of your electricity in your lifetime came from nuclear,
為了產生這些發電量所造成的廢棄物 the waste from that lifetime of electricity
大概只有一個可樂罐大小 would go in a Coke can --
有點重的可樂罐,大約 2 磅 a pretty heavy Coke can, about two pounds.
不過在一個 But one day of coal
發電量十億瓦特的煤炭發電廠 adds up to one hell of a lot
發電一天所產生的二氧化碳 of carbon dioxide
會多到嚇死人 in a normal one-gigawatt coal-fired plant.
這些廢棄物會到哪裡去? Then what happens to the waste?
從反應爐取出來的核廢料 The nuclear waste typically goes into
一般會儲存在一個乾燥桶裡 a dry cask storage
然後放在反應爐附近的空地 out back of the parking lot at the reactor site
目前還沒有太多的地下儲存廠 because most places don't have underground storage yet.
但也無傷大雅,至少這些廢料不會亂跑 It's just as well, because it can stay where it is.
當超多的二氧化碳 While the carbon dioxide,
達到數10億噸的份量 vast quantities of it, gigatons,
跑到我們的大氣層 goes into the atmosphere
我們就沒辦法再將它們回收 where we can't get it back, yet,
這將引起許多我們迫切關心的問題 and where it is causing the problems that we're most concerned about.
當用不同發電方式產生你一生的用電 So when you add up the greenhouse gases
然後計算這過程所排放的溫室氣體 in the lifetime of these various energy sources,
核能產生的溫室氣體,低於風力和水力 nuclear is down there with wind and hydro,
低於太陽能,也低於所有化石燃料 below solar and way below, obviously, all the fossil fuels.
風力發電是很棒的,我很愛風力 Wind is wonderful; I love wind.
我也喜歡那些 I love being around these
巨大的風力發電機 big wind generators.
不過我們發現一件事 But one of the things we're discovering is that
風力,就像太陽能一樣 wind, like solar, is an actually relatively
發電過程都會稀釋功率,浪費能量 dilute source of energy.
風力發電需要很大的土地面積 And so it takes a very large footprint on the land,
建造這些高塔也需要許多資源 a very large footprint in terms of materials,
大概是核能發電所需的5到10倍 five to 10 times what you'd use for nuclear,
一般而言,要獲取十億瓦特的發電量 and typically to get one gigawatt of electricity
風力發電大概需要 is on the order of 250 sq. mi.
250平方英哩的土地(約2.5個台北市) of wind farm.
有些國家,像是丹麥和德國 In places like Denmark and Germany,
他們幾乎都用風力發電 they've maxed out on wind already.
他們幾乎把可能的地點都用盡了 They've run out of good sites.
電力網已經超出負荷 The power lines are getting overloaded.
達到巔峰 And you peak out.
還有,太陽能 Likewise, with solar,
在加州 especially here in California,
我們發現在南方沙漠 we're discovering that the 80 solar farm
當地為了建造 schemes that are going forward
80座太陽能發電廠 want to basically bulldoze
用推土機剷出1000平方英里的土地 1,000 sq. mi. of southern California desert.
嗯,作為一個環保人士,我們不希望這種事情發生 Well, as an environmentalist, we would rather that didn't happen.
這個地方還可以開發成農業區 It's okay on frapped-out agricultural land.
太陽能電版可以放在屋頂上 Solar's wonderful on rooftops.
若在平地上 But out in the landscape,
蓋十億瓦特的太陽能電廠 one gigawatt is on the order of 50 sq. mi.
就需要剷平50平方英里的沙漠 of bulldozed desert.
把這些成本加一加 When you add all these things up --
薩羅•格里菲斯做了一些統計 Saul Griffith did the numbers and figured out
如果想要 what it would take
產生13太瓦(1太瓦=10兆瓦) to get 13 clean
的潔淨能源 terawatts of energy
像是來自風、太陽能、或是生質燃料 from wind, solar and biofuels,
大概需要一整個美國的土地面積 and that area would be roughly the size the United States,
這種地區叫「再生能源區」(註:Renewistan) an area he refers to as "Renewistan."
有個叫大衛•麥凱的人,細算出這些成本 A guy who's added all this up very well is David Mackay,
來自英格蘭的物理學家 a physicist in England,
在他的暢銷著作《永續能源》中 and in his wonderful book, "Sustainable Energy," among other things,
裡面提到「我不是支持核能,我只是喜歡算術」 he says, "I'm not trying to be pro-nuclear. I'm just pro-arithmetic."
(笑聲) (Laughter)
如果談到武器方面 In terms of weapons,
最棒的裁軍方式就是核能發電了 the best disarmament tool so far is nuclear energy.
我們已經拆除了許多 We have been taking down
俄國的核子彈頭 the Russian warheads,
然後把它轉為發電用 turning it into electricity.
美國有10%的發電量 10 percent of American electricity
就是來自這些俄國的核子武器 comes from decommissioned warheads.
我們甚至還沒使用自己的退役核子彈頭 We haven't even started the American stockpile.
我想在場的聽眾都應該有興趣 I think of most interest to a TED audience
見證新一代的核子反應爐 would be the new generation of reactors
它非常小 that are very small,
可以產生10兆瓦特 down around 10
到125兆瓦特的電量 to 125 megawatts.
這是東芝研發的(Toshiba) This is one from Toshiba.
俄國人利用它來作為貨運船的動力來源 Here's one that the Russians are already building that floats on a barge.
這對開發中國家來說,是很有意思的 And that would be very interesting in the developing world.
一般而言,這種設備用在陸地上比較多 Typically, these things are put in the ground.
這就像核能電池 They're referred to as nuclear batteries.
它非常安全 They're incredibly safe,
核武器的擴散會因此得到緩和 weapons proliferation-proof and all the rest of it.
這是一個商業化的核能電池 Here is a commercial version from New Mexico
由新墨西哥州的 Hyperion 企業所研發 called the Hyperion,
這個是由奧勒崗州的 NuScale 企業所研發 and another one from Oregon called NuScale.
Babcock & Wilcox 是製作核子反應爐的公司 Babcock & Wilcox that make nuclear reactors ...
這是一個快速反應器 here's an integral fast reactor.
前微軟技術長,內森•麥沃爾德也投資發展釷反應器 Thorium reactor that Nathan Myhrvold's involved in.
這世界上的一些政府都必須決定 The governments of the world are going to have to decide
要讓煤炭越來越貴,還是發展核能 that coal needs to be made expensive, and these will go ahead.
這將是未來值得關注的地方 And here's the future.
(掌聲) (Applause)
很好,很好 CA: Okay. Okay.
(掌聲) (Applause)
接下來,反方辯士 So arguing against,
他總是陳述事實真相,擁有堅毅的心 a man who's been at the nitty, gritty heart
這幾年來,他參與了許多能源與氣候變遷議題的討論 of the energy debate and the climate change debate for years.
在2000年時,他發現了煤煙(soot) In 2000, he discovered that soot
可能是僅次於二氧化碳的暖化元兇之一 was probably the second leading cause of global warming, after CO2.
他的研究團隊 His team have been making detailed calculations
針對各種發電方式的環境影響 of the relative impacts
做了詳細的計算 of different energy sources.
這是他第一次出席 TED 大會,也許比較吃虧,看他表現如何 His first time at TED, possibly a disadvantage -- we shall see --
來自史丹佛大學的 from Stanford,
馬克•雅各布森教授。祝好運 Professor Mark Jacobson. Good luck.
謝謝 Mark Jacobson: Thank you.
(掌聲) (Applause)
我的認定是,核能 So my premise here is that nuclear energy
會製造更多二氧化碳 puts out more carbon dioxide,
更多的空氣污染 puts out more air pollutants,
增加死亡率,而且相較於風力、太陽能 enhances mortality more and takes longer to put up
地熱能、潮汐能等等再生能源 than real renewable energy systems,
核能需要更長的 namely wind, solar,
建造時間 geothermal power, hydro-tidal wave power.
核能發電也會增加核子武器的擴散 And it also enhances nuclear weapons proliferation.
讓我們先來觀察 So let's just start by looking at the
各種發電廠生命周期的二氧化碳排放量 CO2 emissions from the life cycle.
CO2e是指(註:CO2e = 二氧化碳等價量) CO2e emissions are equivalent emissions
那些會造成地球暖化的 of all the greenhouse gases and particles
溫室氣體、微粒(註:溫室氣體有6~7種) that cause warming,
把它們轉換成等效的CO2排放量 and converted to CO2.
你能發現,風力和太陽能 And if you look, wind and concentrated solar
擁有最低的二氧化碳排放量 have the lowest CO2 emissions, if you look at the graph.
看到核能的那處,顯示2個直條圖 Nuclear -- there are two bars here.
一條是估計最低排放量,另一個是最高估計量 One is a low estimate, and one is a high estimate.
最低估計量是 The low estimate is the nuclear energy industry
核能產業人員計算的 estimate of nuclear.
最高的估計量是來自 The high is the average of 103
103個科學研究報告的平均數值 scientific, peer-reviewed studies.
這裡只計算 And this is just the
發電廠從使用到廢棄所產生的二氧化碳 CO2 from the life cycle.
建造一座核能電廠,如果有點延誤的話 If we look at the delays,
從營運的事前規劃 it takes between 10 and 19 years
到電廠的建造完成 to put up a nuclear power plant
大概需要10到19年 from planning to operation.
取得土地的許可 This includes about three and a half to six years
大概就要 3.5 年到 6 年 for a site permit.
還要再花 2.5 年到 4 年 and another two and a half to four years
去取得建造許可 for a construction permit and issue,
然後再花 4 到 9 年去真正動工建造 and then four to nine years for actual construction.
現在在中國 And in China, right now,
有5個十億瓦特的核能發電廠 they're putting up five gigawatts of nuclear.
平均建造這些核能發電廠所需時間 And the average, just for the construction time of these,
大約是 7.1 年 is 7.1 years
是整個過程中最漫長的部分 on top of any planning times.
當你在等待使用核能電力時 While you're waiting around for your nuclear,
這段過渡期還是要使用一般的電路線 you have to run the regular electric power grid,
這表示要繼續使用煤炭發電 which is mostly coal in the United States and around the world.
這張圖表顯示了如果建造核能,或是其他電廠 And the chart here shows the difference between
像是風力、集光式太陽能、光電太陽能 the emissions from the regular grid,
使用前的建造時間所產生的 resulting if you use nuclear, or anything else,
溫室氣體排放量 versus wind, CSP or photovoltaics.
風力發電平均需要 2 到 5 年的建造時間 Wind takes about two to five years on average,
跟集光式太陽能和光電太陽能一樣 same as concentrated solar and photovoltaics.
所以這種機會成本,就是使用核能與 So the difference is the opportunity cost
其他發電方式的差異之處 of using nuclear versus wind, or something else.
把使用核能跟風力的機會成本相比, So if you add these two together, alone,
甚至把任 2 種的機會成本加起來 you can see a separation
核能發電所造成的二氧化碳排放量 that nuclear puts out at least nine to 17 times
都至少比風力高達 9 倍到 17 倍 more CO2 equivalent emissions than wind energy.
這些甚至還沒計算 And this doesn't even account
核能電廠所要佔據的土地面積 for the footprint on the ground.
若你想看看空氣污染對人體健康的影響 If you look at the air pollution health effects,
這張圖顯示到2020年時 this is the number of deaths per year in 2020
每年因汽車排放物致死的人數 just from vehicle exhaust.
假設我們將全美的汽車 Let's say we converted all the vehicles in the United States
都換成電池動力、氫燃料電池車 to battery electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
或是混合燃料等等不同燃料來驅動 or flex fuel vehicles run on E85.
在美國,每年因空污死亡的人數 Well, right now in the United States,
隨空汙來源的不同,死亡人數有50人到10萬人不等 50 to 100,000 people die per year from air pollution,
汽車的空污大約會導致2萬5千人喪命 and vehicles are about 25,000 of those.
不過到了2020年,因為交通工具的改善 In 2020, the number will go down to 15,000
這個數字會降到1萬5千人 due to improvements.
圖表最右邊,是到2020年 And so, on the right, you see gasoline emissions,
用石油當汽車燃料所導致的平均每年死亡數 the death rates of 2020.
如果使用的是玉米或是纖維乙醇燃料(註:右2右3) If you go to corn or cellulosic ethanol,
死亡數會稍微增加 you'd actually increase the death rate slightly.
如果使用核能當汽車燃料 If you go to nuclear,
這死亡數會大大削減(註:右5) you do get a big reduction,
但是削減的數量完全比不過風力和太陽能 but it's not as much as with wind and/or concentrated solar.
你會考慮到 Now if you consider the fact
核子武器的擴展 that nuclear weapons proliferation
是跟我們使用核能發電的擴展有正相關 is associated with nuclear energy proliferation,
因為我們都知道 because we know for example,
印度和巴基斯坦都偷偷地從 India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons secretly
核能發電廠煉出的濃縮鈾 by enriching uranium
來發展核子武器 in nuclear energy facilities.
北韓就是用這種方式發展核子武器 North Korea did that to some extent.
伊朗正在這麼做 Iran is doing that right now.
若委內瑞拉啟動核能電廠 And Venezuela would be doing it
他們也會循此方式製造核子武器 if they started with their nuclear energy facilities.
如果世界各地 If you do a large scale expansion
都大肆擴展核子發電 of nuclear energy across the world,
那麼,結果就是 and as a result there was just one
將會製造出 nuclear bomb created
可以摧毀像孟買或是其他百萬人口城市的 that was used to destroy a city
核子炸彈 such as Mumbai or some other big city, megacity,
因核子彈所炸死的死亡數 the additional death rates due to this
超過過去30年美國空污 averaged over 30 years and scaled to the population of the U.S.
所導致的死亡數 would be this.
我們真的需要核能嗎? So, do we need this?
電廠佔地面積的又怎麼說?剛剛史都華特提到的 The next thing is: What about the footprint? Stewart mentioned the footprint.
事實上,風力發電場佔地面積 Actually, the footprint on the ground for wind
是低於全世界任何一種發電方式 is by far the smallest of any energy source in the world.
因為你看圖就可以發現 That, because the footprint, as you can see,
風力發電機接觸到地面的只有那根水泥柱 is just the pole touching the ground.
你可以用這些 And you can power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet
7萬3千座到14萬5千座的5百萬瓦特風力渦輪 with 73,000 to 145,000
用以驅使全美的汽車 five-megawatt wind turbines.
把這些風力發電的水泥柱占地面積相加 That would take between one and three sq. km.
也不過大概1到3平方公里 of footprint on the ground, entirely.
電廠的佔據空間又是另一回事 The spacing is something else.
電廠佔地面積總是被佔據空間所搞混 That's the footprint that's always being confused.
人們總是把佔地面積與佔據空間混為一談 People confuse footprint with spacing.
你們可以看看這些圖片 As you can see from these pictures,
會發現風力發電機之間的間距空間可以有許多用途 the spacing between can be used for multiple purposes
像是作為農業用地 including agricultural land,
或是牧場、遊憩用地 range land or open space.
如果建在海上,更沒有這個問題 Over the ocean, it's not even land.
如果你看看核能發電 Now if we look at nuclear -- (Laughter)
要蓋核能電廠,我們需要什麼? With nuclear, what do we have?
所需的設施會蓋得滿滿,周圍還需要 We have facilities around there. You also have a buffer zone
17平方公里的緩衝區 that's 17 sq. km.
你還必須處理 And you have the uranium mining
鈾礦的開採問題 that you have to deal with.
如果說到面積問題 Now if we go to the area,
還有很多東西是比核能和風力還糟的 lots is worse than nuclear or wind.
舉例來說,要產生能驅動全美汽車的纖維乙醇 For example, cellulosic ethanol, to power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet,
需要這麼大的種植面積 this is how much land you would need.
這是種植第二代的纖維乙醇所需面積 That's cellulosic, second generation
從牧草提煉的 biofuels from prairie grass.
這是種植玉米纖維乙醇所需面積,就稍微小了點 Here's corn ethanol. It's smaller.
這些都是根據詳細資料計算的 This is based on ranges from data,
但倘若你反過頭來看核能 but if you look at nuclear,
要驅動全美的汽車,你需要一個像羅德島的核能電廠(約11.5個台北市) it would be the size of Rhode Island to power the U.S. vehicle fleet.
風力發電也是需要不小的土地 For wind, there's a larger area,
不過覆蓋面積要小太多了 but much smaller footprint.
不過 And of course, with wind,
你可以把風力發電都移到東岸 you could put it all over the east coast,
理論上你可以在建在海平面上,或者你也可以把它們分散開來 offshore theoretically, or you can split it up.
回頭看看地熱發電 And now, if you go back to
它所需面積比風力和核能都小 looking at geothermal, it's even smaller than both,
太陽能的所需面積比核能電廠稍大 and solar is slightly larger than the nuclear spacing,
但它也實在夠小了 but it's still pretty small.
以上是為了驅動全美汽車的各電廠所需面積 And this is to power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet.
若想完全利用全球50%的風力 To power the entire world with 50 percent wind,
你必須使用1%的陸地 you would need about one percent of world land.
風力發電的確可靠,但這種方式是不切實際的 Matching the reliability, base load is actually irrelevant.
我們想要一天24小時都有穩定的電力供給 We want to match the hour-by-hour power supply.
把各種再生能源合併運用也是可以的 You can do that by combining renewables.
這是從加州蒐集來的資料(註:縱座標為千瓦特,橫座標為1天24個小時) This is from real data in California,
看看風力(綠色)和太陽能(橘色)的那部份 looking at wind data and solar data.
從圖中可以發現 And it considers just using existing hydro
只有水力發電能24小時都穩定提供所需電量(白線以下為每小時所需電量) to match the hour-by-hour power demand.
這張是全球的風力資源配置圖 Here are the world wind resources.
全球可被利用的風力 There's 5 to 10 times more wind available worldwide
比我們所需要的還多上5到10倍 than we need for all the world.
最後我們來個總排名 So then the finally ranking.
這最後一張投影片,透漏了我們應該要的選擇 And one last slide I just want to show: this is the choice.
風力或核能你只能2選1 You can either have wind or nuclear.
若選擇風力 If you use wind,
則保證冰山不會融化 you guarantee ice will last.
核能,光是那建造的前置時間 Nuclear, the time lag alone
就能讓北極或是其他的地方的冰山融化更多 will allow the Arctic to melt and other places to melt more.
我們可以擁有更乾淨、更清澈的藍色天空 And we can guarantee a clean, blue sky
或是,擁有一個不確定的核子年代 or an uncertain future with nuclear power.
(掌聲) (Applause)
很棒的說明 CA: All right.
等會,你們開始質詢對方的時候要控制時間 So while they're having their comebacks on each other --
因為剛剛有一點超過時間了 and yours is slightly short because you slightly overran --
等會我需要聽眾的意見 I need two people from either side.
如果你是支持核能的 So if you're for this,
請舉起雙手 if you're for nuclear power, put up two hands.
若你是反對的,請舉一隻手 If you're against, put up one.
請給這些聽眾麥克風 And I want two of each for the mics.
好的,那台上這2位先生 Now then, you guys have --
你有1分鐘的時間 you have a minute comeback on him
質詢他剛剛的論點 to pick up a point he said, challenge it,
內容不拘 whatever.
馬克,我對於武器和能源方面 SB: I think a point of difference we're having, Mark,
跟你相比 has to do with weapons
有著不同觀點 and energy.
剛剛的圖表都沒有顯示 These diagrams that show that nuclear is somehow
核能是如何釋放出溫室氣體的 putting out a lot of greenhouse gases --
有許多研究這樣陳述:「如果城市繼續使用核能 a lot of those studies will include, "Well of course war will be inevitable
那戰爭就無法避免」 and therefore we'll have cities burning and stuff like that,"
我認為 which is kind of finessing it
這句話有語病 a little bit, I think.
實際上,應該要問 The reality is that there's, what,
是哪 21 個國家擁有核能電廠? 21 nations that have nuclear power?
而這21個國家裡,只有7個持有核子武器 Of those, seven have nuclear weapons.
這7個國家,在建造核能電廠之前 In every case, they got the weapons
就已經有核子武器了 before they got the nuclear power.
其中的2個國家,北韓跟伊朗 There are two nations, North Korea and Israel,
雖然擁有核子武器 that have nuclear weapons
但是沒有核能電廠 and don't have nuclear power at all.
有一些 The places that we would most like to have
希望使用潔淨能源的地區 really clean energy occur
像是中國、印度、歐洲、北美 are China, India, Europe, North America,
這些國家 all of which have sorted out their situation
已經在處理核子武器的問題了 in relation to nuclear weapons.
還有一些國家像伊朗 So that leaves a couple of places like Iran,
委內瑞拉 maybe Venezuela,
我們也在密切的監視 that you would like to have very close
這些國家 surveillance of anything
使用任何核分裂的相關設備 that goes on with fissile stuff.
核能發電的推動就表示 Pushing ahead with nuclear power will mean we
我們會知道核分裂原料的去向 really know where all of the fissile material is,
同時就能 and we can move toward
推動零核武的世界 zero weapons left, once we know all that.
馬克 CA: Mark,
你有30秒,回應史都華特的質詢 30 seconds, either on that or on anything Stewart said.
我們都知道印度與巴基斯坦擁有核能電廠 MJ: Well we know India and Pakistan had nuclear energy first,
而同時他們也在電廠裡秘密研究核子武器 and then they developed nuclear weapons secretly in the factories.
另外,我們根本不需要核能發電 So the other thing is, we don't need nuclear energy.
我們有豐沛的太陽能與風力 There's plenty of solar and wind.
剛剛我拿出來的圖表顯示,我們可以依賴這二種發電 You can make it reliable, as I showed with that diagram.
這些都是真實的數據 That's from real data.
這項研究正不斷進步,也不是什麼高深學問 And this is an ongoing research. This is not rocket science.
這可以解決全世界的用電問題 Solving the world's problems can be done,
如果你下定決心要使用乾淨、再生的能源 if you're really put your mind to it and use clean, renewable energy.
那根本就不需要核能 There's absolutely no need for nuclear power.
(掌聲) (Applause)
接下來是觀眾質詢 CA: We need someone for.
我叫羅德-貝克斯特羅姆,ICANN的執行長(註:管理域名和IP的非營利組織) Rod Beckstrom: Thank you Chris. I'm Rod Beckstrom, CEO of ICANN.
自從1994 I've been involved in global warming policy
我加入環境保衛基金會的董事會後 since 1994,
這基金會是京都議定書的推手之一 when I joined the board of Environmental Defense Fund
從那時候開始我就涉入了許多暖化的政策 that was one of the crafters of the Kyoto Protocol.
我支持史都華特-布蘭德的論點 And I want to support Stewart Brand's position.
我關注這個議題至少10年 I've come around in the last 10 years.
我過去是反對核能發電 I used to be against nuclear power.
但是我現在站在史都華特這邊 I'm now supporting Stewart's position,
從風險管理的立場來看 softly, from a risk-management standpoint,
同意的要點在於 agreeing that
讓地球過熱的風險 the risks of overheating the planet
遠遠超過核子意外的風險 outweigh the risk of nuclear incident,
這是很有可能發生的,而且是個非常實際的問題 which certainly is possible and is a very real problem.
然而,我認為應該有一個 However, I think there may be a win-win solution here
可以讓正反二辯雙贏的方法 where both parties can win this debate,
我們要作決定 and that is, we face a situation
是設定碳排放上限? where it's carbon caps on this planet
或是讓地球滅亡? or die.
在美國參議院裡 And in the United States Senate,
我們需要來自兩個政黨的支持 we need bipartisan support --
只需要一兩張選票 only one or two votes are needed --
就可以在參議院通過有關暖化的議案 to move global warming through the Senate,
在那個小房間就能決定這一切 and this room can help.
如果政府願意重視暖化問題,那馬克所提的問題也能被解決。謝謝 So if we get that through, then Mark will solve these problems. Thanks Chris.
謝謝你。接下來換反方的聽眾 CA: Thank you Rod Beckstrom. Against.
嗨,我叫大衛-芬頓。我很快地說幾件事情 David Fanton: Hi, I'm David Fanton. I just want to say a couple quick things.
第一,請留意宣傳伎倆 The first is: be aware of the propaganda.
來自核能業界的鼓吹運作 The propaganda from the industry
一直非常強勁 has been very, very strong.
反對的聲音 And we have not had
卻被壓抑,沒有傳播開來 the other side of the argument fully aired
我們應該要勇於表達我們自己的意見 so that people can draw their own conclusions.
不要被業界所蒙蔽了 Be very aware of the propaganda.
第二,仔細思考 Secondly, think about this.
如果我們建造核能電廠 If we build all these nuclear power plants,
所有的核廢料 all that waste
都將被數以百計的 is going to be on hundreds, if not thousands,
卡車和火車運送 of trucks and trains,
每天從這個國家來來去去 moving through this country every day.
然後告訴我們說這一切都會很好,不會發生意外 Tell me they're not going to have accidents.
說這些將會毒害環境數萬年的 Tell me that those accidents aren't going to
核廢料 put material into the environment
永遠不會有事 that is poisonous for hundreds of thousands of years
說這些負責運送的每一輛卡車跟貨車 And then tell me that each and every one of those trucks and trains
永遠不會被恐怖份子盯上 isn't a potential terrorist target.
謝謝你 CA: Thank you.
支持聽眾... For.
另一位支持聽眾呢?開始吧 Anyone else for? Go.
嗨,我叫艾力克斯,我只是想要講... Alex: Hi, I'm Alex. I just wanted to say,
首先,我得承認我是再生能源的擁護者 I'm, first of all, renewable energy's biggest fan.
我家屋頂有安裝太陽光電模板 I've got solar PV on my roof.
我在水車磨坊上裝了 I've got a hydro conversion
水電轉換裝置 at a watermill that I own.
我非常喜歡這些再生能源 And I'm, you know, very much "pro" that kind of stuff.
但是,問題出現了 However, there's a basic arithmetic problem here.
太陽能發電 The capability of
只要遇到起風的陰天甚至下雨天就完全沒用 the sun shining, the wind blowing and the rain falling,
老實說根本不夠用 simply isn't enough to add up.
如果我想讓燈持續開著 So if we want to keep the lights on,
我就需要一個好方法 we actually need a solution
讓電的供應能夠穩定不斷 which is going to keep generating all of the time.
我從80年代就開始抗議核子武器的發展 I campaigned against nuclear weapons in the 80s,
而且會一直這麼做 and I continue to do so now.
但是我們現在有機會 But we've got an opportunity
去回收這些核子彈頭 to recycle them into something more useful
然後再利用來發電 that enables us to get energy all of the time.
問題還沒解決 And, ultimately, the arithmetic problem isn't going to go away.
目前我們沒辦法從再生能源取得足夠的能量 We're not going to get enough energy from renewables alone.
我們還需要一個完整的解決方案 We need a solution that generates all of the time.
照目前看來,如果我們想把燈點著 If we're going to keep the lights on,
核能似乎是目前最好的方案 nuclear is that solution.
謝謝你 CA: Thank you.
另一位反方? Anyone else against?
我贊成馬克的觀點 Man: The last person who was in favor made the premise
我們的確還沒有足夠的 that we don't have enough
可替代性的再生能源 alternative renewable resources.
而馬克清楚闡述了 And our "against" proponent up here
我們這些反核人士的立場 made it clear that we actually do.
說我們需要核能 And so the fallacy
說這個時代 that we need this resource
核能的使用是很重要的 and we can actually make it in a time frame
這根本是大錯特錯 that is meaningful is not possible.
再跟各位分享另一件事 I will also add one other thing.
雷•庫茲威爾和其餘類似演講都曾提到 Ray Kurzweil and all the other talks --
人類科技未來將呈指數增長 we know that the stick is going up exponentially.
你不能指著目前最先進的再生能源技術 So you can't look at state-of-the-art technologies in renewables
然後說:這大概就是我們僅有的 and say, "That's all we have."
也許再過5年 Because five years from now, it will blow you away
就會出現令人驚訝的再生能源科技 what we'll actually have as alternatives
完全取代可怕又糟糕的核能 to this horrible, disastrous nuclear power.
很好的論點,謝謝你 CA: Point well made. Thank you.
(掌聲) (Applause)
現在請你們二位 So each of you has really just a couple sentences --
用30秒的時間 30 seconds each
做一個總結 to sum up.
你的最後機會了,史都華特 Your final pitch, Stewart.
我喜歡你剛剛播放的 SB: I loved your "It all balances out" chart
那些長條圖 that you had there.
不過,天氣是不穩定而且變化很快的 It was a sunny day and a windy night.
英格蘭地區 And just now in England
剛剛才度過寒流期 they had a cold spell.
他們整個國家的風力發電 All of the wind in the entire country
停機了一個星期 shut down for a week.
不過他們卻沒什麼反應 None of those things were stirring.
如同慣例,他們會跟法國買核能電力 And as usual, they had to buy nuclear power from France.
從英法海底隧道輸送20億瓦的電力 Two gigawatts comes through the Chunnel.
這種事會一直發生 This keeps happening.
我也曾經擔心那些會遺害萬年的廢料 I used to worry about the 10,000 year factor.
不過實際上,隨科技的發展 And the fact is, we're going to use the nuclear waste we have for fuel
未來我們能把第四代的核反應爐產生的廢料,回收利用 in the fourth generation of reactors that are coming along.
還有那種小型反應爐的發展 And especially the small reactors need to go forward.
我聽說內森•麥沃爾德(前微軟技術長) I heard from Nathan Myhrvold -- and I think here's the action point --
他將在國會採取行動 it'll take an act of Congress
並讓 NRC 盡速發展小型反應爐(NRC:美國核能安全管制最高機關) to make the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
這將是我們未來迫切需要的 start moving quickly on these small reactors,
我認為這才是有用、具體的行動方案 which we need very much, here and in the world.
(掌聲) (Applause)
我們剛剛分析過 MJ: So we've analyzed the hour-by-hour
每一小時所供給、所需求的電量 power demand and supply,
也看到太陽能、風力在加州的使用情形 looking at solar, wind, using data for California.
你可以發現再生能源可以滿足每一小時的需求量 And you can match that demand, hour-by-hour,
甚至滿足一整年的需求量 for the whole year almost.
講到資源 Now, with regard to the resources,
我們已經描繪出 we've developed the first wind map of the world,
離地表 80 公尺高上空的地球風向圖 from data alone, at 80 meters.
我們瞭解了這項資源,我們能利用15%的風力來發電 We know what the resources are. You can cover 15 percent.
全美 15% 的風力資源 15 percent of the entire U.S.
是很有成本優勢的 has wind at fast-enough speeds to be cost-competitive.
而且我們還有許多的太陽能 And there's much more solar than there is wind.
這些資源是相當的豐沛,你可以依賴這些資源 There's plenty of resource. You can make it reliable.
好的,謝謝你,馬克 CA: Okay. So, thank you, Mark.
(掌聲) (Applause)
如果你身在棕櫚泉市...(註:位於加州的城市) So if you were in Palm Springs ...
(危險核能) (Laughter)
(笑聲) (Applause)
你是站在哪一邊的啊 Shameless. Shameless. Shameless.
(掌聲) (Applause)
嗯,現在在場的各位 TED 聽眾 So, people of the TED community,
我說,現在世界上需要的 I put it to you that what the world needs now
是核能 is nuclear energy.
認同此論點的人,請舉手 All those in favor, raise your hands.
(歡呼) (Shouts)
反對核能的人 And all those against.
哇喔... Ooooh.
那麼現在...我問 Now that is -- my take on that ...
聽過這場辯論後改變立場的人 Just put up ... Hands up, people who changed their minds during the debate,
請舉手 who voted differently.
這些改變立場的聽眾 Those of you who changed your mind
你是轉為支持核能的人 in favor of "for"
請繼續舉手 put your hands up.
好,目前情況 Okay. So here's the read on it.
兩位都有各自的支持聽眾 Both people won supporters,
就我剛剛稍微計算一下 but on my count,
支持與反對的聽眾比例 the mood of the TED community shifted
從剛剛的75-25 from about 75-25
變成了65-35 to about 65-35
你們各有千秋 in favor, in favor.
你們二方都是贏家,恭喜你們 You both won. I congratulate both of you.
也謝謝你們今天的參與 Thank you for that.
(掌聲) (Applause)