Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?

翻译人员: franky zhang 校对人员: WenZheng Xu

Chris Anderson: We're having a debate.

克里斯。安德森：我们将举行一场辩论

The debate is over the proposition:

这个辩论的命题是：

"What the world needs now

这个世界现在到底需不需要

is nuclear energy." True or false?

核能

And before we have the debate,

在我们进行辩论之前

I'd like to actually take a show of hands --

让我们先进行一轮举手投票

on balance, right now, are you for or against this?

总的看看现在有多少人赞成或者反对这个观点：

So those who are "yes," raise your hand. "For."

赞成的人现在请举手！

Okay, hands down.

好的，手放下

Those who are against, raise your hands.

现在反对的人请举手

Okay, I'm reading that at about

好的，我大概了解了

75 to 25 in favor at the start.

开始的时候赞成和反对的人分别为75%和25%

Which means we're going to take a vote at the end

我们在辩论结束后还会进行一次投票

and see how that shifts, if at all.

看一看到时候比例是不是会发生变化

So here's the format: They're going to have six minutes each,

今天采取这样的形式：双方首先各有六分钟的陈述

and then after one little, quick exchange between them,

之后两位辩手会有一个简短的互辩

I want two people on each side of this debate in the audience

然后双方的支持者中各出两位观众

to have 30 seconds

在30秒钟内

to make one short, crisp, pungent, powerful point.

阐述一个简短，干脆，犀利而有力的观点

So, in favor of the proposition, possibly shockingly,

现在，支持使用核能的人，也许有些出人意料

is one of, truly, the founders of the

是一位环保运动的奠基人

environmental movement,

一位ted网的长期演讲者

a long-standing TEDster, the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog,

《全球目录》的创办人

someone we all know and love, Stewart Brand.

深受我们爱戴的知名人士——Stewart Brand

Stewart Brand: Whoa.

Stewart Brand:哇喔~~

(Applause)

掌声

The saying is that with climate, those who know the most

有一个关于天气的谚语：最了解天气的人

are the most worried.

担心的也最多

With nuclear, those who know the most

但是关于核能：最了解核能的人

are the least worried.

担心的最少

A classic example is James Hansen,

James Hansen就是一个经典的例子

a NASA climatologist

这是美国国家航天局的气候学家

pushing for 350 parts per million

希望能够把二氧化碳的排放量控制在

carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

0.035%

He came out with a wonderful book recently

最近，他还出版了一本名字《孙辈的风暴》的书

called "Storms of My Grandchildren."

一本好书。

And Hansen is hard over for nuclear power,

Hansen是核能的支持者

as are most climatologists

同其他气候学家一样

who are engaging this issue seriously.

被这个问题深深的吸引。

This is the design situation:

在现今的情况下

a planet that is facing climate change

地球正面临着气象上的变化

and is now half urban.

并且一半的地球已被城市所覆盖

Look at the client base for this.

我们先看一下我们的能源需求人群：

Five out of six of us

有5/6的人口

live in the developing world.

居住在发展中国家

We are moving to cities. We are moving up in the world.

他们正在向城市转移，寻求更好的生活

And we are educating our kids,

我们给孩子更好的教育

having fewer kids,

人口出生率下降

basically good news all around.

这些都是好消息

But we move to cities, toward the bright lights,

但是我们向城市转移，走向光明。

and one of the things that is there that we want, besides jobs,

除了工作，我们还需要另外一样东西

is electricity.

就是电力。

And if it isn't easily gotten, we'll go ahead and steal it.

如果电力不能轻易获得，我们会通过偷窃所获取

This is one of the most desired things

这是全世界的贫穷人口

by poor people all over the world,

最希望获得的东西。

in the cities and in the countryside.

不论在城市还是乡村，

Electricity for cities, at its best,

城市的电力，充其量，

is what's called baseload electricity.

也就是基本负载电力

That's where it is on

也就是不间断

all the time.

供给的电力

And so far there are only three major sources of that --

迄今为止，我们只知道三种主要的电力来源

coal and gas, hydro-electric,

煤、天然气和水力发电

which in most places is maxed-out --

以上是大多数地区所使用并且趋于饱和的，

and nuclear.

另一个就是核能。

I would love to have something in the fourth place here,

我在这里还会加入另一种方式：

but in terms of constant, clean,

一种持久的，清洁的

scalable energy,

可持续发展的能源

[solar] and wind and the other renewables

太阳能，风能或其他可再生能源。

aren't there yet because they're inconstant.

但现阶段这些可再生资源并不能提供持久的电力

Nuclear is and has been for 40 years.

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,

现在，从环境学的立场上讲：

the main thing you want to look at

我们主要关心的是：

is what happens to the waste from nuclear and from coal,

电力的两种主要来源：

the two major sources of electricity.

核能和煤资源所产生的废料问题。

If all of your electricity in your lifetime came from nuclear,

如果我们一生中所使用的电力都来自核能，

the waste from that lifetime of electricity

那么在你一生中因为用电所产生的核废料

would go in a Coke can --

大概可以装满一个可乐罐

a pretty heavy Coke can, about two pounds.

一个挺重的可乐罐，大约两磅

But one day of coal

在一个普通的10亿瓦特的发电厂中

adds up to one hell of a lot

一天所用的煤炭

of carbon dioxide

就会产生

in a normal one-gigawatt coal-fired plant.

超级多的二氧化碳

Then what happens to the waste?

那么怎么处理这些废料呢？

The nuclear waste typically goes into

核废料将会被储存在

a dry cask storage

干燥的储存桶中

out back of the parking lot at the reactor site

放置在核反应堆后面的堆物场上，

because most places don't have underground storage yet.

因为大多数地方并没有地下的储物场。

It's just as well, because it can stay where it is.

这样也没有问题，因为核废料不会自己跑到到其他地方去。

While the carbon dioxide,

然而，大量的二氧化碳

vast quantities of it, gigatons,

数十亿吨的二氧化碳

goes into the atmosphere

会释放到大气之中，

where we can't get it back -- yet --

而且，我们永远无法将他们收回。

and where it is causing the problems that we're most concerned about.

这些二氧化碳会在大气中一直制造让我们担忧的问题。

So when you add up the greenhouse gases

所以当你把一辈子用的各种能源

in the lifetime of these various energy sources,

所产生的温室气体加以考虑，你会发现

nuclear is down there with wind and hydro,

风能，水能还有核能的温室气体产量最低，

below solar and way below, obviously, all the fossil fuels.

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.

风能非常好，我喜欢风能

I love being around these

我希望能够多一些

big wind generators.

巨大的风能发电机

But one of the things we're discovering is that

但我们发现

wind, like solar, is an actually relatively

风能，就像太阳能一样

dilute source of energy.

是一种相对来说利用效率不高的能量。

And so it takes a very large footprint on the land,

它需要在地面上占用大量的面积

a very large footprint in terms of materials,

巨大的面积也就意味着巨大的物质消耗

five to 10 times what you'd use for nuclear,

所占用的面积是我们用于核能的5 至10 倍，

and typically to get one gigawatt of electricity

尤其是，为取得10亿瓦特的电力

is on the order of 250 square miles

我们需要250平方英里

of wind farm.

的风力电厂。

In places like Denmark and Germany,

在德国和丹麦

they've maxed out on wind already.

他们主要靠风能发电

They've run out of good sites.

合适的风力发电地理位置已经不够了

The power lines are getting overloaded.

电力网不堪重负

And you peak out.

而你还在雪上加霜。

Likewise, with solar,

类似的还有太阳能

especially here in California,

尤其在这里，加利弗里亚

we're discovering that the 80 solar farm

我们发现原来的80个

schemes that are going forward

太阳能发电厂的规划

want to basically bulldoze

已经占用了加利弗里亚南部沙漠里

1,000 square miles of southern California desert.

1000平方英里的地了

Well, as an environmentalist, we would rather that didn't happen.

作为一个环境学家，我们并不希望这样的情况发生。

It's okay on frapped-out agricultural land.

在闲置的农业用地上也许没问题

Solar's wonderful on rooftops.

放在屋顶上，太阳能非常好，

But out in the landscape,

但是在地面上，

one gigawatt is on the order of 50 square miles

用50平方英里的沙漠面积

of bulldozed desert.

换取10亿瓦特的电力。

When you add all these things up --

算算成本

Saul Griffith did the numbers and figured out

Saul Griffith 算过后发现：

what would it take

要从风能，太阳能或生物燃料中

to get 13 clean

获得

terawatts of energy

13太瓦的电力

from wind, solar and biofuels,

就要

and that area would be roughly the size of the United States,

一个和美国差不多大的地方

an area he refers to as "Renewistan."

这个地方被他称为“Renewistan”（一块奉献给可再生能源的土地）

A guy who's added it up all this very well is David Mackay,

有个叫“David Mackay‘的人将这些总结的很好

a physicist in England,

一个英国的物理学家

and in his wonderful book, "Sustainable Energy," among other things,

在他的著作“绿色能源”中，

he says, "I'm not trying to be pro-nuclear. I'm just pro-arithmetic."

提到：我并不是喜欢核能，我只是喜欢计算

(Laughter)

笑声

In terms of weapons,

就武器方面而言，

the best disarmament tool so far is nuclear energy.

至今为止，核能是最好的裁军工具

We have been taking down

我们卸下了

the Russian warheads,

苏联的核弹头

turning it into electricity.

将其转化为电能，

Ten percent of American electricity

10%的美国电力

comes from decommissioned warheads.

来源于退役的核弹头。

We haven't even started the American stockpile.

而我们还没开始动用美国的储备。

I think of most interest to a TED audience

我想TED的观众们感兴趣的是

would be the new generation of reactors

新一代的反应堆

that are very small,

非常之小，

down around 10

大约10到125

to 125 megawatts.

兆瓦

This is one from Toshiba.

这个由东芝公司出品。

Here's one the Russians are already building that floats on a barge.

这个是俄罗斯在游艇上安装的。

And that would be very interesting in the developing world.

发展中国家对这个小型的反应堆将会很有趣

Typically, these things are put in the ground.

尤其是把这些东西埋入地下，

They're referred to as nuclear batteries.

他们就像是核能电池，

They're incredibly safe,

他们非常的安全，

weapons proliferation-proof and all the rest of it.

而且还有防止核武器扩散等其他优点。

Here is a commercial version from New Mexico

这是一个新墨西哥州的商业样本，

called the Hyperion,

被称为亥伯龙神号

and another one from Oregon called NuScale.

还有来自俄勒冈州的NuScale

Babcock & Wilcox that make nuclear reactors,

核反应堆的制造公司Babcock@Wilcox

here's an integral fast reactor.

这是一个完整的快中子裂变反应堆

Thorium reactor that Nathan Myhrvold's involved in.

Nathan Myhrvold参与制造的钍反应堆

The governments of the world are going to have to decide

世界各国政府即将不得不做出决定：

that coals need to be made expensive, and these will go ahead.

是让煤炭的价格持续的不停上涨，

And here's the future.

还是选择一个核能的未来。

(Applause)

掌声

CA: Okay. Okay.

ca：好的，好的

(Applause)

掌声

So arguing against,

下面是反方：

a man who's been at the nitty, gritty heart

一个细心、坚韧不拔地进行了多年

of the energy debate and the climate change debate for years.

关于能源和气象变化辩论的人，

In 2000, he discovered that soot

2000年，他发现煤烟可能是

was probably the second leading cause of global warming, after CO2.

在二氧化碳之后的第二大温室气体。

His team have been making detailed calculations

他的团队一直在致力于计算

of the relative impacts

不同的能源资源

of different energy sources.

的对气候的相对影响。

His first time at TED, possibly a disadvantage -- we shall see --

这是他第一次来到TED，也许是个劣势

from Stanford,

我们将要看到的是：

Professor Mark Jacobson. Good luck.

来自斯坦福大学的Mark Jacobson教授，祝您好运。

Mark Jacobson: Thank you.

Mark Jacobson:谢谢。

(Applause)

掌声

So my premise here is that nuclear energy

那么我的观点是核能

puts out more carbon dioxide,

其实会产生更多的二氧化碳

puts out more air pollutants,

更多的空气污染物

enhances mortality more and takes longer to put up

导致更高的死亡率

than real renewable energy systems,

比那些真正的可再生能源系统，

namely wind, solar,

如风能，太阳能

geothermal power, hydro-tidal wave power.

地热能源，潮汐能源，需要更长的时间进行设施建设。

And it also enhances nuclear weapons proliferation.

况且，核能还会增强核武器的扩散。

So let's start just by looking at the

首先让我们看一下

CO2 emissions from the life cycle.

各种能源在其使用周期内的二氧化碳排放量

CO2e emissions are equivalent emissions

这里的二氧化碳排放量是一个等效量

of all the greenhouse gases and particles

也就是说所有温室气体和微粒

that cause warming

对温室效应的影响都会

and converted to CO2.

转换为相对应体积的二氧化碳对温室效应的影响来计算。

And if you look, wind and concentrated solar

让我们再来看一下，风能和紧凑太阳能

have the lowest CO2 emissions, if you look at the graph.

二氧化碳的排放量最少，我们来看这个图表：

Nuclear -- there are two bars here.

核能——这里有两个数据。

One is a low estimate, and one is a high estimate.

一个低一个高。

The low estimate is the nuclear energy industry

低的这个统计数据是核工业体系

estimate of nuclear.

统计的，

The high is the average of 103

而高的这个，平均值103的这个

scientific, peer-reviewed studies.

是科研机构经过反复论证而来的。

And this is just the

而这才仅仅是

CO2 from the life cycle.

在其使用周期内二氧化碳的排放量。

If we look at the delays,

如果你把前期影响也算进去，

it takes between 10 and 19 years

我们需要10到19年的时间

to put up a nuclear power plant

去规划和运行

from planning to operation.

一个核能发电站。

This includes about three and a half to six years

需要大约3年半到6年的时间。

for a site permit.

准备地址许可，

and another two and a half to four years

另外两年半到四年的时间

for a construction permit and issue,

申请建筑许可

and then four to nine years for actual construction.

然后是4到9年的时间进行真正的建造。

And in China, right now,

现在在中国，

they're putting up five gigawatts of nuclear.

有5个发电量10亿瓦特的核电站，

And the average, just for the construction time of these,

平均下来，他们的建筑周期是

is 7.1 years

7.1年。

on top of any planning times.

在这些准备和建造的过程中，

While you're waiting around for your nuclear,

当我们在等待核能发电的时间里，

you have to run the regular electric power grid,

我们不得不维持常规电网的运行。

which is mostly coal in the United States and around the world.

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。

And the chart here shows the difference between

这个图表显示了

the emissions from the regular grid,

使用核能，或者相似能源，

resulting if you use nuclear, or anything else,

与使用风能，CSP或光电能，

versus wind, CSP or photovoltaics.

用来维持常规电网运行时二氧化碳排放量的差异。

Wind takes about two to five years on average,

风能发电站平均需要两到五年的时间

same as concentrated solar and photovoltaics.

紧凑太阳能或光电能发电站也差不多

So the difference is the opportunity cost

所以差别在于，使用核能，与使用风能或其他能源

of using nuclear versus wind, or something else.

相比，机会成本是不一样的。

So if you add these two together, alone,

因此综合考虑以上两者，

you can see a separation

比较之下便可以发现区别。

that nuclear puts out at least nine to 17 times

相较于风能，核能会产生至少9至17倍

more CO2 equivalent emissions than wind energy.

以上的二氧化碳当量的排放。

And this doesn't even account

而这还不算

for the footprint on the ground.

地面覆盖面积。

If you look at the air pollution health effects,

如果考虑到空气污染对健康的影响，

this is the number of deaths per year in 2020

这个是2020年由

just from vehicle exhaust.

汽车尾气所导致的死亡人数。

Let's say we converted all the vehicles in the United States

让我们假设我们可以将美国所有的交通工具

to battery electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles

都换成电池或氢燃料电池驱动，

or flex fuel vehicles run on E85.

或者都换成多燃料驱动交通工具。

Well, right now in the United States,

好了，现在在美国

50 to 100,000 people die per year from air pollution,

每年有5到10万人死于空气污染。

and vehicles are about 25,000 of those.

而其中大约2万5000人死于汽车尾气

In 2020, the number will go down to 15,000

而到了2020年，因为技术的改进，

due to improvements.

这个数字将下降到15000人。

And so, on the right, you see gasoline emissions,

现在，在右边，你可以看到汽油的污染物排放所造成的

the death rates of 2020.

在2020的死亡率。

If you go to corn or cellulosic ethanol,

如果你使用由玉米或其他植物纤维所产生的乙醇，

you'd actually increase the death rate slightly.

实际上，你会使死亡率稍稍有所提高。

If you go to nuclear,

如果你使用核能，

you do get a big reduction,

你会使死亡率大大降低，

but it's not as much as with wind and concentrated solar.

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

而且考虑到

that nuclear weapons proliferation

核武器的扩散

is associated with nuclear energy proliferation,

会伴随着核能使用的扩散，

because we know for example,

众所周知，

India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons secretly

印度和巴基斯坦秘密的发展了核武器，

by enriching uranium

通过使用生产核能的设备

in nuclear energy facilities.

积累铀元素。

North Korea did that to some extent.

朝鲜也曾经干过这种事情，

Iran is doing that right now.

而伊朗正在进行这种行为。

And Venezuela would be doing it

而委内瑞拉也会效仿而行。

if they started with their nuclear energy facilities.

如果他们都开始建造他们的核能设备，

If you do a large scale expansion

如果我们在世界范围内

of nuclear energy across the world,

大面积的发展核能的使用，

and as a result there was just one

而结果将是哪怕只有一个核爆炸，

nuclear bomb created

那么也会将

that was used to destroy a city

比如孟买，或

such as Mumbai or some other big city, megacity,

类似的大城市，巨型城市摧毁。

the additional death rates due to this

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。

averaged over 30 years and then scaled to the population of the U.S.

美国超过30年以上的可测量污染

would be this.

也不过如此。

So, do we need this?

所以，我们真的需要这样么？

The next thing is: What about the footprint? Stewart mentioned the footprint.

下一个问题是：占地面积又是怎么一回事。Stewart提到占地面积。

Actually, the footprint on the ground for wind

实际上，风力发电所需要的占地面积

is by far the smallest of any energy source in the world.

比其他任何电力来源都要小。

That, because the footprint, as you can see,

大家可以发现，所谓的占地面积

is just the pole touching the ground.

不过只是一些插在地面上的杆子。

And you can power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet

通过73000到145000个5兆瓦特的

with 73,000 to 145,000

风力涡轮发电机

five-megawatt wind turbines.

你就可以满足整个美国交通工具的能量需求。

That would take between one and three square kilometers

而这总共才需要1到3平方千米

of footprint on the ground, entirely.

的占地面积。

The spacing is something else.

所需空间和占地面积其实不是一回事，

That's the footprint that is always being confused.

而这一点总是让人摸不着头脑。

People confuse footprint with spacing.

人们总认为占地面积就是所需空间，

As you can see from these pictures,

当你看到这些照片的时候，

the spacing between can be used for multiple purposes

你就会明白两个柱体之间的空间可以用于多种用途，

including agricultural land,

包括农田，

range land or open space.

山脉，或开阔地。

Over the ocean, it's not even land.

如果建在海洋上，那甚至都谈不上对陆地的占用。

Now if we look at nuclear -- (Laughter)

反观核能（笑声）

With nuclear, what do we have?

我们又需要什么呢？

We have facilities around there. You also have a buffer zone

需要相应的设备，还需要缓冲地带

that's 17 square kilometers.

这就是17平方千米。

And you have the uranium mining

你还需要铀矿

that you have to deal with.

这是必须考虑的

Now if we go to the area,

现在，如果我们继续讨论面积，

lots is worse than nuclear or wind.

还有更多比核能和风能还要糟糕的。

For example, cellulosic ethanol, to power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet,

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

this is how much land you would need.

所需要的陆地面积。

That's cellulosic, second generation

这是第二代纤维素乙醇

biofuels from prairie grass.

从牧草中产生的生物燃料

Here's corn ethanol. It's smaller.

这是用玉米产生乙醇所需的面积，稍稍小一点。

This is based on ranges from data,

这都是通过数据换算的。

but if you look at nuclear,

如果使用核能，

it would be the size of Rhode Island to power the U.S. vehicle fleet.

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。

For wind, there's a larger area,

风能需要的空间要大一些，

but much smaller footprint.

但占地面积则会小得多。

And of course, with wind,

而且使用风能的话

you could put it all over the East Coast,

当然我们就可以把它放在东海岸

offshore theoretically, or you can split it up.

的海面上，从理论上讲，或者你可以把这些面积分散。

And now, if you go back to

现在，我们回到地热能源，

looking at geothermal, it's even smaller than both,

他甚至比前两者都小。

and solar is slightly larger than the nuclear spacing,

而太阳能所需的面积则比核能稍大，

but it's still pretty small.

但还是很小。

And this is to power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet.

这是能够满足美国交通所需能源的统计，

To power the entire world with 50 percent wind,

那么如果用50%的风能来满足全世界所需，

you would need about one percent of world land.

我们大约需要占世界面积1%的土地。

Matching the reliability, base load is actually irrelevant.

至于可靠性，基础负荷其实与此并不相干。

We want to match the hour-by-hour power supply.

我们希望随时满足电力的供给，

You can do that by combining renewables.

这可以通过综合使用不同的可再生能源来达到目的。

This is from real data in California,

这是来自加利弗里亚的真实数据。

looking at wind data and solar data.

请看风能和太阳能的数据统计，

And it considers just using existing hydro

并且它认为即使只用水力发电，

to match the hour-by-hour power demand.

也能够随时满足电力供给的要求。

Here are the world wind resources.

这是全球风能资源的统计：

There's five to 10 times more wind available worldwide

世界范围内，风能可提供的电力资源

than we need for all the world.

是我们全世界所需资源的5到10倍。

So then here's the final ranking.

这是最有效的资源。

And one last slide I just want to show. This is the choice:

这是我想展示的最后一张幻灯片：选择在我们手中，

You can either have wind or nuclear.

你可以选择风能或核能，

If you use wind,

如果你选择风能，

you guarantee ice will last.

我们的冰川就不会融化，

Nuclear, the time lag alone

如果你选择核能，随着时间的流逝，

will allow the Arctic to melt and other places to melt more.

北极将逐渐融化，而其他地域冰川的融化将更加严重。

And we can guarantee a clean, blue sky

问题在于，你是希望有一个天空明净，富有保障的未来，

or an uncertain future with nuclear power.

还是一个核能当道，前途未知的未来。

(Applause)

掌声。

CA: All right.

CA: 好的。

So while they're having their comebacks on each other --

当你们进行下一轮互辩的时候，

and yours is slightly short because you slightly overran --

你的时间会稍短一些，因为这一轮你有点拖拉了。

I need two people from either side.

我需要双方各出两个人，

So if you're for this,

如果你觉得世界需要核能，

if you're for nuclear power, put up two hands.

请举双手，

If you're against, put up one.

如果你反对世界需要核能，举单手。

And I want two of each for the mics.

我希望一边出两个人一会互辩。

Now then, you guys have --

现在，你们俩，

you have a minute comeback on him

你有一分钟的时间反驳他，

to pick up a point he said, challenge it,

在他的论调中找一个点，挑战他

whatever.

什么点都行。

SB: I think a point of difference we're having, Mark,

SB:Mark,我想我们的一个不同观点是

has to do with weapons

有关武器

and energy.

和能源。

These diagrams that show that nuclear is somehow

这个统计表显示因为某种原因，

putting out a lot of greenhouse gases --

核能释放出很多温室气体。

a lot of those studies include, "Well of course war will be inevitable

很多研究都表明了这一点。 当然，战争也是不可避免的，

and therefore we'll have cities burning and stuff like that,"

因此，也会有城市被焚毁或类似的事情发生。

which is kind of finessing it

这种说法有些诡辩，

a little bit, I think.

我认为。

The reality is that there's, what,

事实情况是:

21 nations that have nuclear power?

21个拥有核电力的国家，

Of those, seven have nuclear weapons.

其中的7个拥有核武器。

In every case, they got the weapons

这7个国家都是在他们拥有核电力

before they got the nuclear power.

之前就已经拥有核武器的。

There are two nations, North Korea and Israel,

还有另外两个国家，北朝鲜和以色列，

that have nuclear weapons

他们拥有核武器，

and don't have nuclear power at all.

但是根本没有核电力。

The places that we would most like to have

而那些更有条件拥有

really clean energy occur

真正的清洁能源的地方，

are China, India, Europe, North America,

像中国，印度，欧洲，北美，

all of which have sorted out their situation

他们都选择了核能

in relation to nuclear weapons.

来解决他们的能源问题。

So that leaves a couple of places like Iran,

至于剩下的一些国家，如伊朗

maybe Venezuela,

也许再加上委内瑞拉，

that you would like to have very close

我们只需要非常严格的

surveillance of anything

监督任何与

that goes on with fissile stuff.

可裂变物质有关的行为就可以了。

Pushing ahead with nuclear power will mean we

推广核能可以让我们清楚的知道

really know where all of the fissile material is,

所有的可裂变物质的去向。

and we can move toward

甚至可以更进一步的说：

zero weapons left, once we know all that.

一旦我们知道这一点，就不会再有核武器留下来了。

CA: Mark,

CA：Mark.

30 seconds, either on that or on anything Stewart said.

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,

MJ：我们都知道印度和巴基斯坦拥有核能在前，

and then they developed nuclear weapons secretly in the factories.

然后他们在工厂里偷偷的制造了核武器。

So the other thing is, we don't need nuclear energy.

另一个我们不需要核能的原因是

There's plenty of solar and wind.

我们有大量的风能和太阳能。

You can make it reliable, as I showed with that diagram.

我们可以让他们变得可靠，就像我在图表中显示的那样。

That's from real data.

这个是真实数据，

And this is an ongoing research. This is not rocket science.

这个是正在进行的研究。 这个不是火箭科学。

Solving the world's problems can be done,

这个世界性问题是可以解决的。

if you really put your mind to it and use clean, renewable energy.

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

There's absolutely no need for nuclear power.

我们根本不需要核能

(Applause)

掌声

CA: We need someone for.

CA：现在我们需要一名支持正方的观众。

Rod Beckstrom: Thank you Chris. I'm Rod Beckstrom, CEO of ICANN.

Rod Beckstrom: 谢谢你， Chris.我是Rod Beckstrom,ICANN的 CEO

I've been involved in global warming policy

自从1994年开始，

since 1994,

我就受到全球变暖政策的影响。

when I joined the board of Environmental Defense Fund

我曾今参加过美国环保基金会

that was one of the crafters of the Kyoto Protocol.

关于京都协议草案的会议。

And I want to support Stewart Brand's position.

我愿意支Stewart Brand的立场。

I've come around in the last 10 years.

我犹豫了近10年，

I used to be against nuclear power.

也曾今反对过核能的使用。

I'm now supporting Stewart's position,

现在我站在支持Stewart Brand的立场上

softly, from a risk-management standpoint,

从一个风险控制的角度上

agreeing that

我同意

the risks of overheating the planet

地球过渡暖化的风险

outweigh the risk of nuclear incident,

要大于核意外的风险。

which certainly is possible and is a very real problem.

当然，核意外的可能性是真实存在的。

However, I think there may be a win-win solution here

然而，我认为可能会有一个双赢的局面，

where both parties can win this debate,

辩论双方都可以赢得这个辩论。

and that is, we face a situation

那就是：我们面临着一个选择，

where it's carbon caps on this planet

是要这个星球戴上一顶二氧化碳的帽子，

or die.

还是死亡。

And in the United States Senate,

在美国参议院

we need bipartisan support --

我们需要两党连立的支持

only one or two votes are needed --

只需要一到两票，

to move global warming through the Senate,

我们就可以把此事送到参议院，

and this room can help.

这个房间里的每一位都可以提供帮助

So if we get that through, then Mark will solve these problems. Thanks Chris.

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.

David Fanton: 大家好，我是 David Fanton。 我想简短的说几件事

The first is: be aware of the propaganda.

第一是注意宣传

The propaganda from the industry

工业的宣传

has been very, very strong.

一直非常，非常有力。

And we have not had

我们并没有

the other side of the argument fully aired

让不同的声音充分的体现。

so that people can draw their own conclusions.

所以人们非常容易得下出结论.

Be very aware of the propaganda.

所以，一定要注意宣传的影响。

Secondly, think about this.

第二，大家想一想

If we build all these nuclear power plants,

如果我们建立这些核电站，

all that waste

那么所有的核废料

is going to be on hundreds, if not thousands,

都需要通过数以百计甚至数以千计的

of trucks and trains,

卡车和火车

moving through this country every day.

进行运输，每天都要。

Tell me they're not going to have accidents.

请告诉我不会有意外发生，

Tell me that those accidents aren't going to

请告诉我这些意外不会

put material into the environment

让核材料泄露到环境中去，

that is poisonous for hundreds of thousands of years.

不会对环境造成成千上万年的毒害。

And then tell me that each and every one of those trucks and trains

最后请告诉我这些运输核废料的卡车和火车

isn't a potential terrorist target.

不会成为恐怖分子潜在的攻击目标。

CA: Thank you.

CA:谢谢。

For.

支持者。

Anyone else for? Go.

有谁支持正方的，有请。

Alex: Hi, I'm Alex. I just wanted to say,

大家好，我是Alex.我想说的是

I'm, first of all, renewable energy's biggest fan.

首先，我是清洁能源的忠实粉丝。

I've got solar PV on my roof.

我的屋顶上有太阳能的接收板，

I've got a hydro conversion

在我拥有的水车上

at a watermill that I own.

装有水力转换器。

And I'm, you know, very much "pro" that kind of stuff.

所以，我很支持这些清洁能源的使用。

However, there's a basic arithmetic problem here.

但是这里有一个基本的算术问题。

The capability of

阳光，风力，雨水

the sun shining, the wind blowing and the rain falling,

的能力加起来，

simply isn't enough to add up.

也不能满足人类所需。

So if we want to keep the lights on,

如果我们还想让家里的电灯继续亮下去的话

we actually need a solution

我们需要一个真正的解决方案

which is going to keep generating all of the time.

一个在任何时候都可以依靠的解决方案。

I campaigned against nuclear weapons in the '80s,

80年代，我是反对核武器的，

and I continue to do so now.

现在也一样。

But we've got an opportunity

但如果我们有一个机会，

to recycle them into something more useful

能把核武器变成其他更有用的东西

that enables us to get energy all of the time.

能够让我们始终获得电力的东西。

And, ultimately, the arithmetic problem isn't going to go away.

总而言之，这个算术问题不会消失，

We're not going to get enough energy from renewables alone.

我们不可能从清洁能源那里获得足够的电力，

We need a solution that generates all of the time.

我们需要一个彻底的解决方案。

If we're going to keep the lights on,

如果我们还希望灯继续亮着，

nuclear is that solution.

核能就是问题的答案。

CA: Thank you.

CA:谢谢。

Anyone else against?

有人反对么？

Man: The last person who was in favor made the premise

上个正方支持者认为我们

that we don't have enough

不可能从清洁能源那里

alternative renewable resources.

得到足够的电力。

And our "against" proponent up here

我们反方阵营明确表示

made it very clear that we actually do.

我们可以做到这一点。

And so the fallacy

所以我们需要核能这个观点

that we need this resource

根本是一个谬论。

and we can actually make it in a time frame

我们甚至可以做一个时间表

that is meaningful is not possible.

证明这是完全可行的。

I will also add one other thing.

我还要补充一点：

Ray Kurzweil and all the other talks --

Ray Kurzweil和其他的演讲

we know that the stick is going up exponentially.

我知道支持者在日益增加

So you can't look at state-of-the-art technologies in renewables

但是我们不能只看到清洁能源的实验室的应用

and say, "That's all we have."

就认为他们并没有实际用途

Because five years from now, it will blow you away

五年之后，他们将使你大开眼界

what we'll actually have as alternatives

它们才是我们的选择

to this horrible, disastrous nuclear power.

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 --

现在你们双方各有30秒，

30 seconds each

用简单的几句话

to sum up.

进行总结

Your final pitch, Stewart.

你最后的一搏，Stewart

SB: I loved your "It all balances out" chart

SB：我喜欢你的它们可以平衡使用的表格

that you had there.

就是你刚刚用的那个

It was a sunny day and a windy night.

那是白天阳光普照晚上清风徐徐的日子。

And just now in England

但现在在英国

they had a cold spell.

他们有一个春寒期

All of the wind in the entire country

整个国家的风力

shut down for a week.

整整停了一个星期

None of those things were stirring.

没有哪个风力发电机还在转动

And as usual, they had to buy nuclear power from France.

像往常一样，他们只好向法国购买核能发的电。

Two gigawatts comes through the Chunnel.

20亿瓦特的电量通过电网输入，

This keeps happening.

这样的情况不断的重复

I used to worry about the 10,000 year factor.

我曾经担心10000年后怎么办，

And the fact is, we're going to use the nuclear waste we have for fuel

但事实是，我们将会把这些核废料用作燃料，

in the fourth generation of reactors that are coming along.

即将到来的第四代核反应堆的燃料，

And especially the small reactors need to go forward.

尤其是那些即将推广的，较小的核反应堆的燃料。

I heard from Nathan Myhrvold -- and I think here's the action point --

我从Nathan Myhrvold那里听说，我认为个观点很可行

it'll take an act of Congress

他们将会在议会采取行动

to make the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

成立核能委员会

start moving quickly on these small reactors,

快速发展推广我们，这里和全世界

which we need very much, here and in the world.

都急需的小型核能反应堆

(Applause)

掌声。

MJ: So we've analyzed the hour-by-hour

MJ:我们对电力的供给

power demand and supply,

进行了精确到小时的统计。

looking at solar, wind, using data for California.

就说在加利弗里亚的数据，风能加太阳能

And you can match that demand, hour-by-hour,

可以满足几乎全年内每一小时

for the whole year almost.

的电力供给。

Now, with regard to the resources,

现在，为了更好的看清资源，

we've developed the first wind map of the world,

我们绘制了全球风能地图

from data alone, at 80 meters.

从数据本身，80米左右，

We know what the wind resources are. You can cover 15 percent.

我们知道资源是什么，你可以满足15%

Fifteen percent of the entire U.S.

全美15%的电力需求。

has wind at fast enough speeds to be cost-competitive.

足够快速的风力是很有成本竞争力的

And there's much more solar than there is wind.

何况还有更多太阳能。

There's plenty of resource. You can make it reliable.

如此多的资源我们可以让他变得可靠。

CA: Okay. So, thank you, Mark.

谢谢，Mark

(Applause)

掌声

So if you were in Palm Springs ...

如果你在Palm Spring

(Laughter)

笑声

(Applause)

掌声

Shameless. Shameless. Shameless.

丢人，丢人，丢人

(Applause)

掌声

So, people of the TED community,

TED观众朋友们。

I put it to you that what the world needs now

现在你们来决定

is nuclear energy.

世界是否需要核能

All those in favor, raise your hands.

支持正方的观众，请举手。

(Shouts)

吃惊得叫声

And all those against.

支持反方的，举手

Ooooh.

哇哦。

Now that is -- my take on that ...

好，现在，这样吧

Just put up ... Hands up, people who changed their minds during the debate,

听了辩论之后改变主意的人请举手

who voted differently.

谁改变了立场，

Those of you who changed your mind

谁改变主意开始

in favor of "for"

支持正方的观众

put your hands up.

请举手。

Okay. So here's the read on it.

好的，结果出来了

Both people won supporters,

两边都赢得了新的支持者

but on my count,

根据我的统计

the mood of the TED community shifted

TED 观众的支持率与反对率的比例

from about 75 to 25

从75 比25

to about 65 to 35

下降到65比35

in favor, in favor.

很好，很好。

You both won. I congratulate both of you.

一个双赢的局面。恭喜两位

Thank you for that.

谢谢你们的精彩辩论

(Applause)

掌声