Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?

譯者: Lin Su-Wei(林書暐) 審譯者: Geoff Chen

Chris Anderson: We're having a debate.

我們有一場辯論

The debate is over the proposition:

這場辯論的主題是：

"What the world needs now

「這個世界需要核能--

is nuclear energy." True or false?

是對還是錯？」

And before we have the debate,

在辯論開始之前

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

我想讓現場各位簡單表決一下

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

總體來說，目前你是站在那一方?

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

贊成核能的人，請舉手

Okay, hands down.

好的，請把手放下

Those who are against, raise your hands.

反對核能的人，請舉手

Okay, I'm reading that at about

嗯，從舉手的數量來看

75 to 25 in favor at the start.

目前贊成與反對的比例大約是75:25

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

辯論完後，我們會再作一次統計

and see how that shifts, if at all.

看是不是有所改變

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

現在說明規則：雙方各有6分鐘

and then after one little, quick exchange between them,

一方說完馬上換另一方

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

我會從現場觀眾挑出2位支持者跟反對者

to have 30 seconds

這4位有30秒

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

表達支持論點的理由

So, in favor of the proposition, possibly shockingly,

有點不可思議，今天的辯論正方

is one of, truly, the founders of the

他是環保運動的

environmental movement,

創始者之一

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

他參加 TED 多年 也是《Whole Earth Catalog》雜誌的創辦人

someone we all know and love, Stewart Brand.

我們熟悉且敬愛的，史都華特-布蘭德

Stewart Brand: Whoa.

哇嗚

(Applause)

(掌聲)

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

說到氣候，瞭解氣候的專家

are the most worried.

一定都非常擔心氣候問題

With nuclear, those who know the most

但是講到核能，最瞭解它的專家

are the least worried.

卻一點都不擔心它

A classic example is James Hansen,

一個典型的例子就是，詹姆斯-漢森

a NASA climatologist

他是NASA的氣候學家

pushing for 350 parts per million

並極力呼籲將大氣中的二氧化碳

carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

降到 350PPM 以下 （註：可抵抗暖化的濃度）

He came out with a wonderful book recently

他最近推出了一本書

called "Storms of My Grandchildren."

書名《子孫的風暴》

And Hansen is hard over for nuclear power,

漢森致力研究核能

as are most climatologists

就像許多氣候學家

who are engaging this issue seriously.

正專注這個問題

This is the design situation:

現在的情況是

a planet that is facing climate change

地球正在面對氣候改變

and is now half urban.

都市面積幾乎佔了陸地的一半

Look at the client base for this.

在這種情況下

Five out of six of us

有6分之5的人（83%）

live in the developing world.

居住在開發中國家

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

我們會往城市集中 尋找更適合生活的地方

And we are educating our kids,

我們會給予下一代教育

having fewer kids,

生育率下降

basically good news all around.

這些，基本上都是不錯的消息

But we move to cities, toward the bright lights,

我們會往城市光亮的地方聚集

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

在城市裡，除了工作 另一個我們要的東西

is electricity.

就是電力

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

如果電力不易取得，我們會用偷的

This is one of the most desired things

對於全世界

by poor people all over the world,

住在城市和鄉間的窮人

in the cities and in the countryside.

電力是他們迫切需求的必需品之一

Electricity for cities, at its best,

一個城市所需的電力

is what's called baseload electricity.

我們稱之為基本負載電力

That's where it is on

基本負載電力是指

all the time.

能維繫生活所需的基本電力

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

至今我們主要用 3 種發電方式

coal and gas, hydro-electric,

煤氣發電、水力發電

which in most places is maxed-out --

這二者佔了大部分

and nuclear.

還有一項是核能發電

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

我希望這張圖表還能加上第4項

but in terms of constant, clean,

這一項是穩定、乾淨、

scalable energy,

可擴展的能源

[solar] and wind and the other renewables

太陽能、風力、以及其他再生能源

aren't there yet because they're inconstant.

都還不算是這種能源 因為他們都不夠穩定

Nuclear is and has been for 40 years.

迄今，核能的發展已 40 年了

Now, from an environmental standpoint,

目前，站在環境保護的立場來看

the main thing you want to look at

你會特別注意

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

我們在核能發電和煤炭發電上

the two major sources of electricity.

消耗了哪些東西，產生了哪些東西

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

如果你一輩子所用的電力都來自核能

the waste from that lifetime of electricity

為了產生這些發電量所造成的廢棄物

would go in a Coke can --

大概只有一個可樂罐大小

a pretty heavy Coke can, about two pounds.

有點重的可樂罐，大約 2 磅

But one day of coal

不過在一個

adds up to one hell of a lot

發電量十億瓦特的煤炭發電廠

of carbon dioxide

發電一天所產生的二氧化碳

in a normal one-gigawatt coal-fired plant.

會多到嚇死人

Then what happens to the waste?

這些廢棄物會到哪裡去?

The nuclear waste typically goes into

從反應爐取出來的核廢料

a dry cask storage

一般會儲存在一個乾燥桶裡

out back of the parking lot at the reactor site

然後放在反應爐附近的空地

because most places don't have underground storage yet.

目前還沒有太多的地下儲存廠

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

但也無傷大雅，至少這些廢料不會亂跑

While the carbon dioxide,

當超多的二氧化碳

vast quantities of it, gigatons,

達到數10億噸的份量

goes into the atmosphere

跑到我們的大氣層

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

我們就沒辦法再將它們回收

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

這將引起許多我們迫切關心的問題

So when you add up the greenhouse gases

當用不同發電方式產生你一生的用電

in the lifetime of these various energy sources,

然後計算這過程所排放的溫室氣體

nuclear is down there with wind and hydro,

核能產生的溫室氣體，低於風力和水力

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

低於太陽能，也低於所有化石燃料

Wind is wonderful; I love wind.

風力發電是很棒的，我很愛風力

I love being around these

我也喜歡那些

big wind generators.

巨大的風力發電機

But one of the things we're discovering is that

不過我們發現一件事

wind, like solar, is an actually relatively

風力，就像太陽能一樣

dilute source of energy.

發電過程都會稀釋功率，浪費能量

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

風力發電需要很大的土地面積

a very large footprint in terms of materials,

建造這些高塔也需要許多資源

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

大概是核能發電所需的5到10倍

and typically to get one gigawatt of electricity

一般而言，要獲取十億瓦特的發電量

is on the order of 250 square miles

風力發電大概需要

of wind farm.

250平方英哩的土地（約2.5個台北市）

In places like Denmark and Germany,

有些國家，像是丹麥和德國

they've maxed out on wind already.

他們幾乎都用風力發電

They've run out of good sites.

他們幾乎把可能的地點都用盡了

The power lines are getting overloaded.

電力網已經超出負荷

And you peak out.

達到巔峰

Likewise, with solar,

還有，太陽能

especially here in California,

在加州

we're discovering that the 80 solar farm

我們發現在南方沙漠

schemes that are going forward

當地為了建造

want to basically bulldoze

80座太陽能發電廠

1,000 square miles of southern California desert.

用推土機剷出1000平方英里的土地

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

嗯，作為一個環保人士 我們不希望這種事情發生

It's okay on frapped-out agricultural land.

這個地方還可以開發成農業區

Solar's wonderful on rooftops.

太陽能電版可以放在屋頂上

But out in the landscape,

若在平地上

one gigawatt is on the order of 50 square miles

蓋十億瓦特的太陽能電廠

of bulldozed desert.

就需要剷平50平方英里的沙漠

When you add all these things up --

把這些成本加一加

Saul Griffith did the numbers and figured out

薩羅·格里菲斯做了一些統計

what would it take

如果想要

to get 13 clean

產生13太瓦（1太瓦=10兆瓦）

terawatts of energy

的潔淨能源

from wind, solar and biofuels,

像是來自風、太陽能、或是生質燃料

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

大概需要一整個美國的土地面積

an area he refers to as "Renewistan."

這種地區叫「再生能源區」

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

有個叫大衛·麥凱的人，細算出這些成本

a physicist in England,

來自英格蘭的物理學家

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

在他的暢銷著作《永續能源》中

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

裡面提到「我不是支持核能，我只是喜歡算術」

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

In terms of weapons,

如果談到武器方面

the best disarmament tool so far is nuclear energy.

最棒的裁軍方式就是核能發電了

We have been taking down

我們已經拆除了許多

the Russian warheads,

俄國的核子彈頭

turning it into electricity.

然後把它轉為發電用

Ten percent of American electricity

美國有10%的發電量

comes from decommissioned warheads.

就是來自這些俄國的核子武器

We haven't even started the American stockpile.

我們甚至還沒使用自己的退役核子彈頭

I think of most interest to a TED audience

我想在場的聽眾都應該有興趣

would be the new generation of reactors

見證新一代的核子反應爐

that are very small,

它非常小

down around 10

可以產生10兆瓦特

to 125 megawatts.

到125兆瓦特的電量

This is one from Toshiba.

這是東芝研發的（Toshiba）

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

俄國人利用它來作為貨運船的動力來源

And that would be very interesting in the developing world.

這對開發中國家來說，是很有意思的

Typically, these things are put in the ground.

一般而言，這種設備用在陸地上比較多

They're referred to as nuclear batteries.

這就像核能電池

They're incredibly safe,

它非常安全

weapons proliferation-proof and all the rest of it.

核武器的擴散會因此得到緩和

Here is a commercial version from New Mexico

這是一個商業化的核能電池

called the Hyperion,

由新墨西哥州的 Hyperion 企業所研發

and another one from Oregon called NuScale.

這個是由奧勒崗州的 NuScale 企業所研發

Babcock & Wilcox that make nuclear reactors,

Babcock & Wilcox 是製作核子反應爐的公司

here's an integral fast reactor.

這是一個快速反應器

Thorium reactor that Nathan Myhrvold's involved in.

前微軟技術長 內森·麥沃爾德也投資發展釷反應器

The governments of the world are going to have to decide

這世界上的一些政府都必須決定

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

要讓煤炭越來越貴，還是發展核能

And here's the future.

這將是未來值得關注的地方

(Applause)

(掌聲)

CA: Okay. Okay.

很好，很好

(Applause)

(掌聲)

So arguing against,

接下來，反方辯士

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

他總是陳述事實真相，擁有堅毅的心

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

這幾年來，他參與了許多 能源與氣候變遷議題的討論

In 2000, he discovered that soot

在2000年時，他發現了煤煙（soot）

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

可能是僅次於二氧化碳的暖化元兇之一

His team have been making detailed calculations

他的研究團隊

of the relative impacts

針對各種發電方式的環境影響

of different energy sources.

做了詳細的計算

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

這是他第一次出席 TED 大會 也許比較吃虧，看他表現如何

from Stanford,

來自史丹佛大學的

Professor Mark Jacobson. Good luck.

馬克·雅各布森教授。祝好運

Mark Jacobson: Thank you.

謝謝

(Applause)

(掌聲)

So my premise here is that nuclear energy

我的認定是，核能

puts out more carbon dioxide,

會製造更多二氧化碳

puts out more air pollutants,

更多的空氣污染

enhances mortality more and takes longer to put up

增加死亡率，而且相較於風力、太陽能

than real renewable energy systems,

地熱能、潮汐能等等再生能源

namely wind, solar,

核能需要更長的

geothermal power, hydro-tidal wave power.

建造時間

And it also enhances nuclear weapons proliferation.

核能發電也會增加核子武器的擴散

So let's start just by looking at the

讓我們先來觀察

CO2 emissions from the life cycle.

各種發電廠生命周期的二氧化碳排放量

CO2e emissions are equivalent emissions

CO2e是指（註：CO2e = 二氧化碳等價量）

of all the greenhouse gases and particles

那些會造成地球暖化的

that cause warming

溫室氣體、微粒（註：溫室氣體有6～7種）

and converted to CO2.

把它們轉換成等效的CO2排放量

And if you look, wind and concentrated solar

你能發現，風力和太陽能

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

擁有最低的二氧化碳排放量

Nuclear -- there are two bars here.

看到核能的那處，顯示2個直條圖

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

一條是估計最低排放量，另一個是最高估計量

The low estimate is the nuclear energy industry

最低估計量是

estimate of nuclear.

核能產業人員計算的

The high is the average of 103

最高的估計量是來自

scientific, peer-reviewed studies.

103個科學研究報告的平均數值

And this is just the

這裡只計算

CO2 from the life cycle.

發電廠從使用到廢棄所產生的二氧化碳

If we look at the delays,

建造一座核能電廠，如果有點延誤的話

it takes between 10 and 19 years

從營運的事前規劃

to put up a nuclear power plant

到電廠的建造完成

from planning to operation.

大概需要10到19年

This includes about three and a half to six years

取得土地的許可

for a site permit.

大概就要 3.5 年到 6 年

and another two and a half to four years

還要再花 2.5 年到 4 年

for a construction permit and issue,

去取得建造許可

and then four to nine years for actual construction.

然後再花 4 到 9 年去真正動工建造

And in China, right now,

現在在中國

they're putting up five gigawatts of nuclear.

有5個十億瓦特的核能發電廠

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

平均建造這些核能發電廠所需時間

is 7.1 years

大約是 7.1 年

on top of any planning times.

是整個過程中最漫長的部分

While you're waiting around for your nuclear,

當你在等待使用核能電力時

you have to run the regular electric power grid,

這段過渡期還是要使用一般的電路線

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

這表示要繼續使用煤炭發電

And the chart here shows the difference between

這張圖表顯示了如果建造核能，或是其他電廠

the emissions from the regular grid,

像是風力、集光式太陽能、光電太陽能

resulting if you use nuclear, or anything else,

使用前的建造時間所產生的

versus wind, CSP or photovoltaics.

溫室氣體排放量

Wind takes about two to five years on average,

風力發電平均需要 2 到 5 年的建造時間

same as concentrated solar and photovoltaics.

跟集光式太陽能和光電太陽能一樣

So the difference is the opportunity cost

所以這種機會成本，就是使用核能與

of using nuclear versus wind, or something else.

其他發電方式的差異之處

So if you add these two together, alone,

把使用核能跟風力的機會成本相比，

you can see a separation

甚至把任 2 種的機會成本加起來

that nuclear puts out at least nine to 17 times

核能發電所造成的二氧化碳排放量

more CO2 equivalent emissions than wind energy.

都至少比風力高達 9 倍到 17 倍

And this doesn't even account

這些甚至還沒計算

for the footprint on the ground.

核能電廠所要佔據的土地面積

If you look at the air pollution health effects,

若你想看看空氣污染對人體健康的影響

this is the number of deaths per year in 2020

這張圖顯示到2020年時

just from vehicle exhaust.

每年因汽車排放物致死的人數

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

假設我們將全美的汽車

to battery electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles

都換成電池動力、氫燃料電池車

or flex fuel vehicles run on E85.

或是混合燃料等等不同燃料來驅動

Well, right now in the United States,

在美國，每年因空污死亡的人數

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

隨空汙來源的不同 死亡人數有50人到10萬人不等

and vehicles are about 25,000 of those.

汽車的空污大約會導致2萬5千人喪命

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

不過到了2020年，因為交通工具的改善

due to improvements.

這個數字會降到1萬5千人

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

圖表最右邊，是到2020年

the death rates of 2020.

用石油當汽車燃料所導致的平均每年死亡數

If you go to corn or cellulosic ethanol,

如果使用的是玉米 或是纖維乙醇燃料（註：右2右3）

you'd actually increase the death rate slightly.

死亡數會稍微增加

If you go to nuclear,

如果使用核能當汽車燃料

you do get a big reduction,

這死亡數會大大削減（註：右5）

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

但是削減的數量完全比不過風力和太陽能

Now if you consider the fact

你會考慮到

that nuclear weapons proliferation

核子武器的擴展

is associated with nuclear energy proliferation,

是跟我們使用核能發電的擴展有正相關

because we know for example,

因為我們都知道

India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons secretly

印度和巴基斯坦都偷偷地從

by enriching uranium

核能發電廠煉出的濃縮鈾

in nuclear energy facilities.

來發展核子武器

North Korea did that to some extent.

北韓就是用這種方式發展核子武器

Iran is doing that right now.

伊朗正在這麼做

And Venezuela would be doing it

若委內瑞拉啟動核能電廠

if they started with their nuclear energy facilities.

他們也會循此方式製造核子武器

If you do a large scale expansion

如果世界各地

of nuclear energy across the world,

都大肆擴展核子發電

and as a result there was just one

那麼，結果就是

nuclear bomb created

將會製造出

that was used to destroy a city

可以摧毀像孟買或其他百萬人口城市的

such as Mumbai or some other big city, megacity,

核子炸彈

the additional death rates due to this

因核子彈所炸死的死亡數

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

超過過去30年美國空污

would be this.

所導致的死亡數

So, do we need this?

我們真的需要核能嗎?

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

電廠佔地面積的又怎麼說? 剛剛史都華特提到的

Actually, the footprint on the ground for wind

事實上，風力發電場佔地面積

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

是低於全世界任何一種發電方式

That, because the footprint, as you can see,

因為你看圖就可以發現

is just the pole touching the ground.

風力發電機接觸到地面的只有那根水泥柱

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

你可以用這些

with 73,000 to 145,000

7萬3千座到14萬5千座 5百萬瓦特風力渦輪

five-megawatt wind turbines.

用以驅使全美的汽車

That would take between one and three square kilometers

把這些風力發電的水泥柱占地面積相加

of footprint on the ground, entirely.

也不過大概1到3平方公里

The spacing is something else.

電廠的佔據空間又是另一回事

That's the footprint that is always being confused.

電廠佔地面積總是被佔據空間所搞混

People confuse footprint with spacing.

人們總是把佔地面積與佔據空間混為一談

As you can see from these pictures,

你們可以看看這些圖片

the spacing between can be used for multiple purposes

會發現風力發電機之間的空間 可以有許多用途

including agricultural land,

像是作為農業用地

range land or open space.

或是牧場、遊憩用地

Over the ocean, it's not even land.

如果建在海上，更沒有這個問題

Now if we look at nuclear -- (Laughter)

如果你看看核能發電

With nuclear, what do we have?

要蓋核能電廠，我們需要什麼?

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

所需的設施會蓋得滿滿，周圍還需要

that's 17 square kilometers.

17平方公里的緩衝區

And you have the uranium mining

你還必須處理

that you have to deal with.

鈾礦的開採問題

Now if we go to the area,

如果說到面積問題

lots is worse than nuclear or wind.

還有很多東西是比核能和風力還糟的

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

舉例來說，要產生能驅動全美汽車的纖維乙醇

this is how much land you would need.

需要這麼大的種植面積

That's cellulosic, second generation

這是種植第二代的纖維乙醇所需面積

biofuels from prairie grass.

從牧草提煉的

Here's corn ethanol. It's smaller.

這是種植玉米纖維乙醇所需面積，就稍微小了點

This is based on ranges from data,

這些都是根據詳細資料計算的

but if you look at nuclear,

但倘若你反過頭來看核能

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

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）

For wind, there's a larger area,

風力發電也是需要不小的土地

but much smaller footprint.

不過覆蓋面積要小太多了

And of course, with wind,

不過

you could put it all over the East Coast,

你可以把風力發電都移到東岸

offshore theoretically, or you can split it up.

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

And now, if you go back to

回頭看看地熱發電

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

它所需面積比風力和核能都小

and solar is slightly larger than the nuclear spacing,

太陽能的所需面積比核能電廠稍大

but it's still pretty small.

但它也實在夠小了

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

以上是為了驅動全美汽車的各電廠所需面積

To power the entire world with 50 percent wind,

若想完全利用全球50%的風力

you would need about one percent of world land.

你必須使用1%的陸地

Matching the reliability, base load is actually irrelevant.

風力發電的確可靠，但這種方式是不切實際的

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

我們想要一天24小時都有穩定的電力供給

You can do that by combining renewables.

把各種再生能源合併運用也是可以的

This is from real data in California,

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）

looking at wind data and solar data.

看看風力(綠色)和太陽能(橘色)的那部份

And it considers just using existing hydro

從圖中可以發現

to match the hour-by-hour power demand.

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）

Here are the world wind resources.

這張是全球的風力資源配置圖

There's five to 10 times more wind available worldwide

全球可被利用的風力

than we need for all the world.

比我們所需要的還多上5到10倍

So then here's the final ranking.

最後我們來個總排名

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

這最後一張投影片，透漏了我們應該要的選擇

You can either have wind or nuclear.

風力或核能你只能2選1

If you use wind,

若選擇風力

you guarantee ice will last.

則保證冰山不會融化

Nuclear, the time lag alone

核能，光是那建造的前置時間

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

就能讓北極或是其他的地方的冰山融化更多

And we can guarantee a clean, blue sky

我們可以擁有更乾淨、更清澈的藍色天空

or an uncertain future with nuclear power.

或是，擁有一個不確定的核子年代

(Applause)

(掌聲)

CA: All right.

很棒的說明

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

等會，你們開始質詢對方的時候要控制時間

and yours is slightly short because you slightly overran --

因為剛剛有一點超過時間了

I need two people from either side.

等會我需要聽眾的意見

So if you're for this,

如果你是支持核能的

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

請舉起雙手

If you're against, put up one.

若你是反對的，請舉一隻手

And I want two of each for the mics.

請給這些聽眾麥克風

Now then, you guys have --

好的，那台上這2位先生

you have a minute comeback on him

你有1分鐘的時間

to pick up a point he said, challenge it,

質詢他剛剛的論點

whatever.

內容不拘

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

馬克，我對於武器和能源方面

has to do with weapons

跟你相比

and energy.

有著不同觀點

These diagrams that show that nuclear is somehow

剛剛的圖表都沒有顯示

putting out a lot of greenhouse gases --

核能是如何釋放出溫室氣體的

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

有許多研究這樣陳述： 「如果城市繼續使用核能

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

那戰爭就無法避免」

which is kind of finessing it

我認為

a little bit, I think.

這句話有語病

The reality is that there's, what,

實際上，應該要問

21 nations that have nuclear power?

是哪 21 個國家擁有核能電廠?

Of those, seven have nuclear weapons.

而這21個國家裡，只有7個持有核子武器

In every case, they got the weapons

這7個國家，在建造核能電廠之前

before they got the nuclear power.

就已經有核子武器了

There are two nations, North Korea and Israel,

其中的兩個國家，北韓跟以色列

that have nuclear weapons

雖然擁有核子武器

and don't have nuclear power at all.

但是沒有核能電廠

The places that we would most like to have

有一些

really clean energy occur

希望使用潔淨能源的地區

are China, India, Europe, North America,

像是中國、印度、歐洲、北美

all of which have sorted out their situation

這些國家

in relation to nuclear weapons.

已經在處理核子武器的問題了

So that leaves a couple of places like Iran,

還有一些國家像伊朗

maybe Venezuela,

或許還有委內瑞拉

that you would like to have very close

我們也在密切的監視

surveillance of anything

這些國家

that goes on with fissile stuff.

使用任何核分裂的相關設備

Pushing ahead with nuclear power will mean we

核能發電的推動就表示

really know where all of the fissile material is,

我們會知道核分裂原料的去向

and we can move toward

同時就能

zero weapons left, once we know all that.

推動零核武的世界

CA: Mark,

馬克

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

你有30秒，回應史都華特的質詢

MJ: Well we know India and Pakistan had nuclear energy first,

我們都知道印度與巴基斯坦擁有核能電廠

and then they developed nuclear weapons secretly in the factories.

而同時他們也在電廠裡秘密研究核子武器

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

另外，我們根本不需要核能發電

There's plenty of solar and wind.

我們有豐沛的太陽能與風力

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

剛剛我拿出來的圖表顯示 我們可以依賴這二種發電

That's from real data.

這些都是真實的數據

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

這項研究正不斷進步，也不是什麼高深學問

Solving the world's problems can be done,

這可以解決全世界的用電問題

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

如果你下定決心要使用乾淨、再生的能源

There's absolutely no need for nuclear power.

那根本就不需要核能

(Applause)

(掌聲)

CA: We need someone for.

接下來是觀眾質詢

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

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）

I've been involved in global warming policy

自從1994年

since 1994,

我加入環境保衛基金會的董事會後

when I joined the board of Environmental Defense Fund

這基金會是京都議定書的推手之一

that was one of the crafters of the Kyoto Protocol.

從那時候開始我就涉入了許多暖化的政策

And I want to support Stewart Brand's position.

我支持史都華特-布蘭德的論點

I've come around in the last 10 years.

我關注這個議題至少10年

I used to be against nuclear power.

我過去是反對核能發電

I'm now supporting Stewart's position,

但是我現在站在史都華特這邊

softly, from a risk-management standpoint,

從風險管理的立場來看

agreeing that

同意的要點在於

the risks of overheating the planet

讓地球過熱的風險

outweigh the risk of nuclear incident,

遠遠超過核子意外的風險

which certainly is possible and is a very real problem.

這是很有可能發生的 而且是個非常實際的問題

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

然而，我認為應該有一個

where both parties can win this debate,

可以讓正反二辯雙贏的方法

and that is, we face a situation

我們要作決定

where it's carbon caps on this planet

是設定碳排放上限?

or die.

或是讓地球滅亡?

And in the United States Senate,

在美國參議院裡

we need bipartisan support --

我們需要來自兩個政黨的支持

only one or two votes are needed --

只需要一兩張選票

to move global warming through the Senate,

就可以在參議院通過有關暖化的議案

and this room can help.

在那個小房間就能決定這一切

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

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

CA: Thank you Rod Beckstrom. Against.

謝謝你。接下來換反方的聽眾

David Fanton: Hi, I'm David Fanton. I just want to say a couple quick things.

嗨，我叫大衛-芬頓。我很快地說幾件事情

The first is: be aware of the propaganda.

第一，請留意宣傳伎倆

The propaganda from the industry

來自核能業界的鼓吹運作

has been very, very strong.

一直非常強勁

And we have not had

反對的聲音

the other side of the argument fully aired

卻被壓抑，沒有傳播開來

so that people can draw their own conclusions.

我們應該要勇於表達我們自己的意見

Be very aware of the propaganda.

不要被業界所蒙蔽了

Secondly, think about this.

第二，仔細思考

If we build all these nuclear power plants,

如果我們建造核能電廠

all that waste

所有的核廢料

is going to be on hundreds, if not thousands,

都將被數以百計的

of trucks and trains,

卡車和火車運送

moving through this country every day.

每天從這個國家來來去去

Tell me they're not going to have accidents.

然後告訴我們說這一切都會很好 不會發生意外

Tell me that those accidents aren't going to

說這些將會毒害環境數萬年的

put material into the environment

核廢料

that is poisonous for hundreds of thousands of years.

永遠不會有事

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

說這些負責運送的每一輛卡車跟貨車

isn't a potential terrorist target.

永遠不會被恐怖份子盯上

CA: Thank you.

謝謝你

For.

支持聽眾...

Anyone else for? Go.

另一位支持聽眾呢?開始吧

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

嗨，我叫艾力克斯，我只是想要講...

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

首先，我得承認我是再生能源的擁護者

I've got solar PV on my roof.

我家屋頂有安裝太陽光電模板

I've got a hydro conversion

我在水車磨坊上裝了

at a watermill that I own.

水電轉換裝置

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

我非常喜歡這些再生能源

However, there's a basic arithmetic problem here.

但是，算術問題出現了

The capability of

太陽能發電

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

只要遇到起風的陰天 甚至下雨天就完全沒用

simply isn't enough to add up.

老實說根本不夠用

So if we want to keep the lights on,

如果我想讓燈持續開著

we actually need a solution

我就需要一個好方法

which is going to keep generating all of the time.

讓電的供應能夠穩定不斷

I campaigned against nuclear weapons in the '80s,

我從80年代就開始抗議核子武器的發展

and I continue to do so now.

而且會一直這麼做

But we've got an opportunity

但是我們現在有機會

to recycle them into something more useful

去回收這些核子彈頭

that enables us to get energy all of the time.

然後再利用來發電

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

但算術問題終究存在

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

目前我們沒辦法單從再生能源 取得足夠的能量

We need a solution that generates all of the time.

我們還需要一個完整的解決方案

If we're going to keep the lights on,

照目前看來，如果我們想把燈點著

nuclear is that solution.

核能似乎是目前最好的方案

CA: Thank you.

謝謝你

Anyone else against?

另一位反方?

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

我贊成馬克的觀點

that we don't have enough

我們的確還沒有足夠的

alternative renewable resources.

可替代性的再生能源

And our "against" proponent up here

而馬克清楚闡述了

made it very clear that we actually do.

我們這些反核人士的立場

And so the fallacy

說我們需要核能

that we need this resource

說這個時代

and we can actually make it in a time frame

核能的使用是很重要的

that is meaningful is not possible.

這根本是大錯特錯

I will also add one other thing.

再跟各位分享另一件事

Ray Kurzweil and all the other talks --

雷·庫茲威爾和其餘類似演講都曾提到

we know that the stick is going up exponentially.

人類科技未來將呈指數增長

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

你不能指著目前最先進的再生能源技術

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

然後說：這大概就是我們僅有的

Because five years from now, it will blow you away

也許再過5年

what we'll actually have as alternatives

就會出現令人驚訝的再生能源科技

to this horrible, disastrous nuclear power.

完全取代可怕又糟糕的核能

CA: Point well made. Thank you.

很好的論點，謝謝你

(Applause)

(掌聲)

So each of you has really just a couple sentences --

現在請你們二位

30 seconds each

用30秒的時間

to sum up.

做一個總結

Your final pitch, Stewart.

你的最後機會了，史都華特

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

我喜歡你剛剛播放的

that you had there.

那些長條圖

It was a sunny day and a windy night.

不過，天氣是不穩定而且變化很快的

And just now in England

英格蘭地區

they had a cold spell.

剛剛才度過寒流期

All of the wind in the entire country

他們整個國家的風力發電

shut down for a week.

停機了一個星期

None of those things were stirring.

葉片根本轉不動

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

如同慣例，他們會跟法國買核能電力

Two gigawatts comes through the Chunnel.

從英法海底隧道輸送20億瓦的電力

This keeps happening.

這種事一直發生

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

我也曾經擔心那些會遺害萬年的廢料

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

不過實際上，隨科技的發展

in the fourth generation of reactors that are coming along.

未來我們能把第四代核反應爐 產生的廢料，回收利用

And especially the small reactors need to go forward.

還有那種小型反應爐的發展

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

我聽說內森·麥沃爾德（前微軟技術長）

it'll take an act of Congress

他將在國會採取行動

to make the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

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）

start moving quickly on these small reactors,

這將是我們未來迫切需要的

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

我認為這才是有用、具體的行動方案

(Applause)

(掌聲)

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

我們剛剛分析過

power demand and supply,

每一小時所供給、所需求的電量

looking at solar, wind, using data for California.

也看到太陽能、風力在加州的使用情形

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

你可以發現再生能源可以滿足每一小時的需求量

for the whole year almost.

甚至滿足一整年的需求量

Now, with regard to the resources,

講到資源

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

我們已經描繪出

from data alone, at 80 meters.

離地表 80 公尺高上空的地球風向圖

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

我們瞭解了這項資源，我們能利用15%的風力來發電

Fifteen percent of the entire U.S.

全美 15% 的風力資源

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

是很有成本優勢的

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

而且我們還有許多的太陽能

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

這些資源是相當的豐沛，你可以依賴這些資源

CA: Okay. So, thank you, Mark.

好的，謝謝你，馬克

(Applause)

(掌聲)

So if you were in Palm Springs ...

如果你身在棕櫚泉市...（註：位於加州的城市）

(Laughter)

(危險核能)

(Applause)

(笑聲)

Shameless. Shameless. Shameless.

你是站在哪一邊的啊

(Applause)

(掌聲)

So, people of the TED community,

嗯，現在在場的各位 TED 聽眾

I put it to you that what the world needs now

我說，現在世界上需要的

is nuclear energy.

是核能

All those in favor, raise your hands.

認同此論點的人，請舉手

(Shouts)

(歡呼)

And all those against.

反對核能的人

Ooooh.

哇喔...

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

那麼現在...我問

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

聽過這場辯論後改變立場的人

who voted differently.

請舉手

Those of you who changed your mind

這些改變立場的聽眾

in favor of "for"

你是轉為支持核能的人

put your hands up.

請繼續舉手

Okay. So here's the read on it.

好，目前情況

Both people won supporters,

兩位都有各自的支持聽眾

but on my count,

就我剛剛稍微計算一下

the mood of the TED community shifted

支持與反對的聽眾比例

from about 75 to 25

從剛剛的75-25

to about 65 to 35

變成了65-35

in favor, in favor.

你們各有千秋

You both won. I congratulate both of you.

你們二方都是贏家，恭喜你們

Thank you for that.

也謝謝你們今天的參與

(Applause)

(掌聲)