MyOOPS開放式課程
請加入會員以使用更多個人化功能
來自全球頂尖大學的開放式課程,現在由世界各國的數千名義工志工為您翻譯成中文。請免費享用!
課程來源:TED
     

 

辯論:這個世界需要核能嗎?

Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?

 

Photo of three lions hunting on the Serengeti.

正方講者:Stewart Brand

 

Photo of three lions hunting on the Serengeti.

反方講者:Mark Z. Jacobson

2010年2月演講,2010年6月在TED2010上線

 

翻譯:洪曉慧

編輯:朱學恆

簡繁轉換:洪曉慧

後製:洪曉慧

字幕影片後制:謝旻均

 

影片請按此下載

MAC及手持裝置版本請按此下載

閱讀中文字幕純文字版本

 

關於這場演講

核能:能源危機甚至使死硬派環保人士重新審視這個問題。在這場TED首次舉行的辯論中,Stewart Brand 和 Mark Z. Jacobson分別闡述贊成與反對的論點。這場討論將使你思考-甚至可能改變你的看法。

 

正方講者

Stewart Brand:環保運動者,未來學家

 

關於Stewart Brand

歷經60年代反文化時期後,Stewart Brand致力於建立網路互動世界。現在,隨著生物科技以超越數位科技四倍的速度進展,Stewart Brand有個大膽的新計劃…

 

為什麼要聽他演講

隨著生物科技以超越數位科技四倍的速度進展,已滅絕物種的復活成為可能。Stewart Brand的計劃不僅是使物種重返地球,還要使牠們在自然界復育。

 

Brand創造的事物已成為科技業傳奇:《Whole Earth Catalog》雜誌,The WELL網站,全球企業網(Global Business Network),今日永存基金會(Long Now Foundation),及「資訊渴望自由」這句名言。Brand目前是終身環保運動者,希望重新創造-或「反滅絕」-一些已從地球上消失的動物。

 

確實,使用古代DNA復活長毛象或許聽起來像瘋狂科學。但Brand的復活和復育計畫有個十分合理的目標:瞭解導致物種滅絕的原因,使我們能保護目前瀕危物種,保存遺傳基因和生物多樣性,修復枯竭的生態系統,主要是「彌補人類過去造成的傷害」。

 

他的最新著作為《地球的法則-21世紀地球宣言》(簡體譯本)。

 

「Brand一向是反對偶像崇拜者,而非偶像。」

-《史丹佛社會創新評論》,2010年冬季

 

Stewart Brand的英語網上資料

Project: Revive and Restore

Book: Whole Earth Discipline

Website: The Long Now Foundation

Website: The Rosetta Project

 

反方講者

Mark Z. Jacobson:土木和環境工程師

 

關於Mark Z. Jacobson

史丹佛大學的Mark Z. Jacobson利用數值模型,研究能源系統和交通工具對氣候及空氣污染的影響,並對再生能源資源進行分析。

 

為什麼要聽他演講

Mark Z. Jacobson研究的主題是許多複雜過程的原因及影響-大氣的物理和化學現象。他和所屬的史丹佛大學團隊開創了新型大氣研究和分析技術,描繪大氣層當前狀態,顯示來自氣膠(空氣懸浮微粒)、乙醇、農業及紫外線輻射的污染情況,預測這些因素可能對氣候造成的影響。

 

Jacobson研發出第一個互動模型,顯示氣體、氣膠和輻射空氣污染對天氣系統的綜合影響。他也發現黑碳-煤煙顆粒主要成分-或許是僅次於二氧化碳、導致全球暖化的第二大原因。

 

Jacobson的團隊藉由目前風力渦輪機高度的數據,發展出世界首張風力地圖,作為近年大型風力發電場提案的科學評估標準。

 

「大規模的風力、水力和太陽能系統足以可靠地供應世界能源需求,對氣候、空氣品質、水質、生態及能源安全十分有利…主要障礙在於政治,而非技術。」

-Mark Z. Jacobson和Mark A. Delucchi於《科學美國人》雜誌。

 

Mark Z. Jacobson的英語網上資料

Website: Mark Z. Jacobson's homepage

 

[TED科技‧娛樂‧設計]

已有中譯字幕的TED影片目錄(繁體)(簡體)。請注意繁簡目錄是不一樣的。

 

辯論:這個世界需要核能嗎?

 

Chris Anderson:今天有一場辯論,辯論主題是:「這個世界需要核能嗎?是或否?」辯論開始之前,我想請各位表決一下,以目前來說,你是贊成或反對?因此,贊成者請舉手。好,請放下。反對者請舉手。好,大致看來,目前正反兩派的比例大約是75:25,這表示,你們知道,辯論結束後我們會再次進行表決,看看是否有所改變。規則如下:雙方各有6分鐘時間陳述論點,然後進行簡短的互辯。我會從現場觀眾挑出2位支持者和反對者,在30秒時間內,以簡短、扼要、辛辣、有力的方式闡述各自觀點。

 

這場辯論的正方,或許有些出人意料,是環保運動發起者之一,TED資深演講者,《Whole Earth Catalog》雜誌創辦人,知名且深受大家喜愛的Stewart Brand。

 

(歡呼聲)(掌聲)

 

Stewart Brand:有個關於氣候的說法:最瞭解它的人,正是最擔心它的人。至於核能:最瞭解它的人,正是最不擔心的人。一個典型的例子是James Hansen,NASA氣候學家,極力呼籲使大氣中的二氧化碳維持在350 ppm以下。他最近出了一本很棒的書,書名為《環境風暴》(簡體譯本)

(Storms of My Grandchildren)。Hansen致力於核能研究,如同大多數氣候學家,他們正致力於研究這個問題。

 

這是目前情況:地球正面臨氣候變遷和都市開發面積近半的情況。以這種情況來看,六分之五的人生活在開發中國家。我們搬遷至城市,尋求更好的生活環境;我們致力於教育下一代,生育率下降;基本上這都是好消息。但我們搬遷至城市,追求光明未來。在城市裡,除了工作之外,我們想要的另一樣東西就是電力。如果不易取得,我們就設法竊取。這是全世界貧困者最渴望的東西之一,無論城市或鄉間。滿足城市基本需求之電力,即所謂基本負載電力,即全天所需的電力。至今只有三種主要電力來源:煤和天然氣、水力發電-以上是大部分地區主要電力來源;以及核能。我希望在圖表上加上第四項,但它必須是穩定、潔淨、可持續發展的能源。核能(訂正:太陽能)、風力及其他再生能源尚不包括在內,因為它們不夠穩定。核能已存在四十年。

 

現在,以環境角度來看,你注意的焦點在於來自核能和煤炭-兩種主要電力來源-的廢棄物。如果你一生所用的電力都來自核能,終身用電所產生的廢棄物將可裝進一個可樂罐,十分重的可樂罐,大約兩磅。但以一般發電量為十億瓦的燃煤發電廠來說,煤炭一日發電所產生的二氧化碳總量十分驚人。這些廢棄物的去向為何?核廢料一般存放在乾式儲存筒中,置於反應爐旁的空地,因為大多數地方尚未興建地下儲存庫。這無所謂,因為核廢料不會自行離開原地。當大量二氧化碳-數十億噸-進入大氣層後,我們無法將它回收-目前為止。這將引起我們最憂心的問題。當你統計畢生所用的各種能源所產生的溫室氣體排放量,核能、風力和水力的排放量最低,低於太陽能,顯然遠低於所有化石燃料。

 

風力發電很棒,我喜歡風,我喜歡徜徉在巨大的風力發電機當中,但我們發現一件事:風力,如同太陽能,相對來說是十分不經濟的能源。它佔用十分廣大的土地,耗費大量建材,為核能發電廠的五到十倍。一般來說,產生十億瓦電力需要250平方英哩的風力發電廠。在某些地方,例如丹麥和德國,他們以風力發電為主,幾乎用盡所有適用地點。電力網不堪負荷,電力仍不足夠。同樣的,以太陽能來說,特別是加州,我們發現,建造80座太陽能發電廠,基本上得剷平1000平方英哩南方沙漠。好,身為環保人士,我們不希望發生這種情況。在農業用地之外或許可行,屋頂上陽光充足,但在平地上,獲得十億瓦電力得佔用50平方英哩沙漠。

 

當你將所有因素加總,Saul Griffith計算後發現,藉由風力、太陽能和生質燃料產生13 TW(TW=10 ^ 12瓦)潔淨能源,所需土地大約相當於美國面積。它被稱為「再生能源奉獻區」(Renewistan)。有個叫David Mackay的人-一位英國物理學家-做了詳細統計,在他的精彩著作《永續能源》(Sustainable Energy)中提到:「我並非支持核能,只是喜歡算術。」

 

(笑聲)

 

以武器方面來說,至今最棒的裁軍工具就是核能。我們拆除蘇聯的核彈頭,將它轉為電力來源。美國有10 % 的電力來自退役的核彈頭,我們甚至還沒動用我國的儲備核武。我想TED聽眾最感興趣的是新一代反應爐。它非常小,大約可產生10 MW(MW=10 ^ 6瓦)到125 MW電力。這是東芝(Toshiba)公司製造的,俄國人已將它裝設在遊艇上,開發中國家將十分感興趣。一般來說,這些裝置埋設於地底,它們如同核能電池,十分安全,亦有防止核武擴張等優點。這是新墨西哥州Hyperion公司製造的商業化核能電池;這是奧勒崗州NuScale公司製造的;Babcock & Wilcox是核反應爐製造公司,這是整合式快中子反應爐;這是Nathan Myhrvold(前微軟技術總監)參與設計的釷反應爐。世界各國政府將必須決定,是讓煤炭價格持續上漲,還是選擇這樣的(核能)未來。

 

(掌聲)

 

CA:好,好。(掌聲)(口哨聲)現在是反方辯者:一位以實事求是精神,多年來積極參與能源及氣候變遷辯論的學者。2000年時,他發現煤煙或許是僅次於二氧化碳的暖化元兇之一。他的團隊致力於詳細計算不同能源對環境的相對影響,這是他第一次來到TED,或許是個劣勢,我們拭目以待。來自史丹佛大學的Mark Jacobson教授,祝好運。

 

Mark Jacobson:謝謝。(掌聲)我的觀點是,相較於真正的再生能源系統,例如風力、太陽能、地熱能、潮汐能等,核能會製造更多二氧化碳、更多空氣污染物、提高死亡率、需要花更長時間建設。核能也會加速核子武器擴張。我們先觀察各種發電系統生命週期所產生的二氧化碳排放量。CO2e(二氧化碳當量)代表所有會導致暖化及轉變成CO2的溫室氣體和微粒所產生的排放量。以圖表來看,風力和聚光式太陽能的CO2排放量最低。如果觀察圖表,核能—這裡有兩個長條圖,一條是低估量,一條是高估量。低估量來自核能工業的評估,高估量來自103份經同儕審查的科學研究報告平均值。這僅是發電系統生命週期中的CO2排放量。

 

如果考慮前期影響,建造一座核電廠,從規劃到實際運行,需要10到19年時間。包括取得土地使用許可大約需要3.5年到6年,取得建造許可和許可證得花上2.5到4年時間,然後再花4到9年時間進行實際建造。目前(2010年)中國興建了5座發電量為10億瓦的核電廠,僅建造部分,所需時間平均為7.1年,是整個過程中最漫長的部分。在等待使用核能電力期間,依然得維持一般電力網運作,在美國和世界各地主要仰賴的是煤炭發電。這張圖表顯示了核電廠和其他電廠,相較於風力、聚光式太陽能(CSP)或太陽能光電廠建造期間,維持一般電網運行的排放量差異。風力發電廠平均建造時間大約是2到5年,和聚光式太陽能及太陽能光電廠相同,因此這是核能或其他能源相對於風力的機會成本差異。因此,僅綜合以上兩項因素,即可看出其中差異:核能產生的CO2排放當量至少為風力的9至17倍。這甚至還沒考慮土地佔用面積。

 

如果觀察空氣污染對健康的影響,這是2020年僅由汽車廢氣導致的死亡人數。假設我們將全美的車輛都換成電動車、氫燃料電池車,或使用E85(生物酒精汽油)的彈性燃料車。好,目前美國每年有5到10萬人死於空氣污染,其中大約有2萬5千人死於汽車廢氣污染。到了2020年,因為交通工具的改善,這個數字將下降到1萬5千人。因此在圖表右邊,你可以看見2020年因汽油燃燒之廢氣造成的死亡率。如果使用玉米或纖維素乙醇燃料,事實上死亡率會稍微增加;如果使用核能,確實會使死亡率大幅下降,但下降幅度不及使用風力和聚光式太陽能。

 

現在,如果考慮核武擴張與核能使用擴張息息相關這個事實-因為我們知道,例如,印度和巴基斯坦藉由核能設施所提煉的濃縮鈾秘密發展核武;北韓在某種程度上這麼做;伊朗目前正採取這種做法;如果委內瑞拉開始建造核能設施,也會如法炮製。如果世界各地極力擴張核能設施,結果是,只要製造一個核彈,用來摧毀如孟買或其他人口超過百萬的大型城市,以美國總人口來說,30年當中,因核彈爆炸增加的平均死亡率將會是這樣。所以,我們真的需要核能嗎?

 

下一個問題是:佔地面積情況?Stewart提到佔地面積。事實上,目前世上各種電力來源當中,風力發電所佔面積最小。因為你們可以看到,它所佔面積只是插在地上的桿子。你可以藉由73000至145000座5 MW的風力渦輪機滿足全美交通工具的能源需求,總共只需要1至3平方公里佔地面積。佔據空間是另一回事。因為人們總是對佔地面積有所混淆,人們將佔地面積與佔據空間混為一談。你們可以從這些圖片看出,風力發電機之間的空間可作許多用途,包括農地、牧地或遊憩用地,如果建在海上,甚至不須佔用土地。現在,反觀核能-(笑聲)以核能來說,我們需要什麼?需要眾多設施和17平方公里的緩衝區,還必須處理鈾礦開採問題。

 

現在,如果討論佔地問題,還有許多比核能或風力更糟的情況。例如,滿足全美交通工具能源所需的纖維素乙醇需要這麼大的種植面積,這種纖維素是從牧草提煉的第二代生物燃料。這是玉米,所需面積較小,這是根據多種資料計算得來。但如果以核能來看,提供全美國交通工具所需能源,需要佔用一個羅德島的面積。以風力來說,所需空間較大,但佔地面積小得多。當然,以風力來說,你可以將它全都設置在東海岸,理論上來說可設置於海岸外,或分散設置。現在,如果回頭討論地熱發電,所需面積甚至比前兩者更小。太陽能佔地面積稍大於核電廠,但依然很小。這是指滿足全美交通工具所需能源。如果以風力發電提供全球50 % 能源需求,大約需要佔用全世界1 %的土地。

 

至於可靠性,事實上基本負載電力與此無關。我們希望隨時滿足供電需求,你可藉由合併使用各種再生能源達到這個目的。這是來自加州的實際數據。請看風力和太陽能的數據,顯示僅使用現有水力即可隨時滿足供電需求。這是全球風力資源分佈圖。全球風力可提供的能源為全世界所需能源的5到10倍。這是最後的總排名。以下是我要展示的最後一張投影片。這是我們擁有的選擇:風力或核能。如果使用風力,可保證冰山繼續長存;如果選擇核能,隨著時間流逝,北極冰層將逐漸融化,其他地方則更加嚴重。我們可以擁有一片乾淨的藍天,或在核能的陰影下,擁有一個不確定的未來。

 

(掌聲)

 

CA:好。當他們進行互辯時-你的時間會稍微短一些,因為你剛剛有點超時-我需要雙方各推派兩人。如果你是贊成方,如果你支持核能,請舉雙手;如果你是反對方,請舉單手。請給雙方支持者麥克風。現在你們兩人有-你有一分鐘時間反駁他,針對他所說的某個論點進行挑戰,什麼都行。

 

SB:Mark,我想我們相異的觀點在於武器和能源。這些圖表顯示,因為種種原因,核能釋放許多溫室氣體。許多研究闡述:「當然,我們將無法避免戰爭,因此城市將遭受焚毀或發生類似情況。」我認為這種說法有點詭辯。我們需要考慮的事實是:擁有核能的21個國家是那些?其中7個擁有核武,這7個國家擁有核電之前已擁有核武。其中2個國家,北韓和以色列,他們擁有核武,但根本沒有核電。一些傾向於使用真正潔淨能源的地區,例如中國、印度、歐洲、北美,全都表達了不擴張核武的立場。至於其餘國家,例如伊朗,也許還有委內瑞拉,我們可嚴格監督任何核分裂產物。推廣核能意味著我們將確實知道所有核分裂產物去向,一旦我們知道這一點,將可邁向零核武時代。

 

CA:Mark,你有30秒時間反駁Stewart所說的任何觀點。

 

MJ:我們知道,印度和巴基斯坦先擁有核能,然後在工廠裡秘密製造核武。此外,核能並非必要。我們擁有豐富的太陽能和風力,你可以仰賴它們,如剛剛的圖表所示,它來自於真實數據,是正在進行的研究,並非什麼高深學問。我們可以解決這個世界性問題,如果你確實下定決心使用潔淨、可再生的能源。我們根本不需要核能。

 

(掌聲)

 

CA:我們需要一位正方支持者。

 

Rod Beckstrom:謝謝Chris。我是Rod Beckstrom,ICANN(網際網路名稱與號碼指配組織)執行長。我從1994年加入環境保衛基金會董事會後,開始參與全球暖化政策,它是京都議定書的推手之一。我支持Stewart Brand的立場。近十年來,我的觀點逐漸改變。我曾經反對核能,現在我支持Stewart Brand的立場。以風險管理角度來看,我同意地球過度暖化的風險大於核意外風險。這確實是具有可能性及真實存在的問題,然而,我認為或許存在雙贏的解決之道,讓雙方都贏得這場辯論。那就是:我們面臨的處境是:讓地球戴上一頂二氧化碳帽或死亡。在美國參議院,我們需要來自兩黨的支持,只要一兩張選票,就能將全球暖化議題送入參議院討論,房間裡的各位都能盡一份心力。因此,如果我們成功,Mark就能著手解決這些問題。謝謝Chris。

 

CA:謝謝Rod Beckstrom。反方支持者。

 

David Fanton:嗨,我是David Fanton,我想簡短闡述幾個觀點。第一,注意宣傳的影響。來自業界的鼓吹一向十分有力,相對觀點不曾充分傳播,使人們能夠自行判斷。必須十分注意宣傳的影響。第二,思考一下,如果我們建造這些核電廠,所有核廢料將藉著成千上百的卡車和火車,每天在國內四處奔馳。請告訴我不會有意外發生;請告訴我這些意外不會導致核廢料外洩到環境中,遺害萬年;請告訴我這些卡車和火車不會成為恐怖份子的潛在攻擊目標。

 

CA:謝謝。(掌聲)正方支持者。另一位正方支持者?請說。

 

Alex:嗨,我是Alex,我想說的是,首先,我是再生能源忠實粉絲,我家屋頂上有太陽能面板,我的水車磨坊有水力轉換裝置,我十分支持這些再生能源。然而,其中存在一個基本的算術問題:陽光、風力和雨水的產能總和根本無法滿足能源需求。因此,如果希望燈光永不熄滅,我們確實需要一個解決方案,使能源供應永不間斷。我於80年代從事反核武運動,目前依然如此,但現在我們有機會將回收的核武轉變成某種更有用的東西,使我們持續獲得能源供應。總之,這個算術問題不會消失,我們依然無法僅藉由再生能源獲得足夠能量,我們需要一個永續的解決方案。如果我們希望燈光永不熄滅,核能正是解決之道。

 

CA:謝謝。(掌聲)另一位反方支持者?

 

反方支持者:上一位正方支持者提出,我們無法藉由再生能源獲得足夠的替代電力。反方主辯十分清楚地說明我們確實能做到這一點,因此我們需要核能的說法是一項謬論。我們甚至可以做個時間表,證明這個論點毫無意義。我還要補充一點:Ray Kurzweil和其他演講都曾提到,我們知道科技進步將呈指數增長,因此你不能著眼於目前最先進的再生能源技術,然後說,「這是我們的極限。」因為五年後,你會驚訝地發現,我們可用何種再生能源取代可怕而糟糕的核能。

 

CA:十分明確的論點,謝謝。(掌聲)現在請兩位用簡單幾句話-各使用30秒時間進行總結。你最後的一擊,Stewart。

 

SB:我喜歡你那張「最終選擇」的圖表:陽光普照的白晝和風暴的夜晚。目前英國正值寒流期,全國風力整整停擺一週,沒有任何風力裝置能夠運作。如往常般,他們必須向法國購買核電,藉由英法海底隧道輸送20億瓦電力。這種情況層出不窮,重點是-我曾經擔心那些遺害萬年的廢料,事實上,我們將利用核廢料作為即將面世的第四代反應爐燃料。我們尤其必須推廣小型反應爐。我從Nathan Myhrvold那裡聽說-我認為這是決策點-這將使國會採取行動,使核管會盡速核可這種我們迫切需要的小型反應爐,無論我國或全世界。

 

(掌聲)

 

MJ:我們分析過持續供電需求和供給情形,看過加州的太陽能及風力使用數據,它幾乎能滿足全年無休的供電需求。現在,以資源來說,我們以80公尺高空的數據率先描繪出全球風力分佈圖,我們知道風力資源分佈情況,它涵蓋15 % 的地區,全美15 % 的地區擁有足夠快速的風力,相當具有成本競爭力,太陽能甚至比風力更加豐富。資源相當豐富,足以仰賴。

 

CA:好-(掌聲)謝謝Mark。(掌聲)所以,如果你住在棕櫚泉市(加州城市)-

 

(輻射示警標誌)

 

(笑聲)(掌聲)

 

CA:真是不知羞恥哈哈。(掌聲)好,TED聽眾們,現在我讓你們決定世界是否需要核能。贊成者請舉手。(歡呼)反對者請舉手。哇…好,現在-我這麼問好了,聽過這場辯論後改變主意的人請舉手,改變立場的人,轉為支持核能的人請舉手。好,結果如下:雙方都贏得新的支持者,但根據我的統計,支持與反對的TED聽眾比例從75:25變成65:35。支持者較多,支持者較多。

 

雙方都是贏家。恭喜兩位。謝謝兩位的參與。

 

(掌聲)

 

以下為系統擷取之英文原文

 About this talk

Nuclear power: the energy crisis has even die-hard environmentalists reconsidering it. In this first-ever TED debate, Stewart Brand and Mark Z. Jacobson square off over the pros and cons. A discussion that'll make you think -- and might even change your mind.

About these speakers

Since the counterculture '60s, Stewart Brand has been creating our internet-worked world. Now, with biotech accelerating four times faster than digital technology, Stewart Brand has a bold new plan ... Full bio »

At Stanford, Mark Z. Jacobson uses numerical models to study the effects of energy systems and vehicles on climate and air pollution, and to analyze renewable energy resources. Full bio »

About transcript

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.

So, in favor of the proposition, possibly shockingly, is one of, truly, the founders of theenvironmental movement, a long-standing TEDster, the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog,someone we all know and love, Stewart Brand.

Stewart Brand: Whoa. (Applause) The saying is that with climate, those who know the mostare 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 millioncarbon 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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

(Laughter)

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.

(Applause)

CA: Okay. Okay. (Applause) So arguing against, a man who's been at the nitty, gritty heartof 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.

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 industryestimate of nuclear. The high is the average of 103 scientific, peer-reviewed studies. And this is just the CO2 from the life cycle.

If we look at the delays, it takes between 10 and 19 years to put up a nuclear power plantfrom 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.

If you look at the air pollution health effects, this is the number of deaths per year in 2020just 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.

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?

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 zonethat's 17 square kilometers. And you have the uranium mining that you have to deal with.

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.

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 skyor an uncertain future with nuclear power.

(Applause)

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.

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.

CA: Mark, 30 seconds, either on that or on anything Stewart said.

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.

(Applause)

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: Thank you Rod Beckstrom. Against.

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.

CA: Thank you. For. Anyone else for? Go.

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.

CA: Thank you. Anyone else against?

Man: The last person who was in favor made the premise that we don't have enoughalternative 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.

CA: Point well made. Thank you.

(Applause)

So each of you has really just a couple sentences -- 30 seconds each to sum up. Your final pitch, 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.

(Applause)

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.

CA: Okay. So, thank you, Mark. (Applause) So if you were in Palm Springs ... (Laughter)(Applause) Shameless. Shameless. Shameless. (Applause)

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.

You both won. I congratulate both of you. Thank you for that.


留下您對本課程的評論
標題:
您目前為非會員,留言名稱將顯示「匿名非會員」
只能進行20字留言

留言內容:

驗證碼請輸入4 + 1 =

標籤

現有標籤:1
新增標籤:


有關本課程的討論

課程討論
1

Anonymous, 2015-11-08 16:40:54
課程討論
1
Anonymous, 2015-11-08 16:40:53
課程討論
1
Anonymous, 2015-10-20 20:34:32
課程討論
1
Anonymous, 2015-10-20 20:34:31
課程討論
1
Anonymous, 2015-10-20 20:34:26
課程討論
非常有意思的辯論
Anonymous, 2013-10-13 01:46:14

Creative Commons授權條款 本站一切著作係採用 Creative Commons 授權條款授權。
協助推廣單位: