How Much Clean Electricity Do We Really Need? | Solomon Goldstein-Rose | TED Countdown

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

Hello, how is everyone feeling?

哈囉，大家好嗎？

(Cheers)

（歡呼聲）

Are you ready to solve climate change?

你們準備好解決 氣候變遷了嗎？（歡呼聲）

(Cheers)

Good.

很好。

Do you know what a pettawat hour is?

你們知道「拍瓦時」是什麼嗎？

Yeah, it's a unit of energy like kilowatt hour or megawatt hour.

是的，它是能量的單位， 就像

千瓦時或兆瓦時。

I've been a climate activist since age 11

我從十一歲時就成為氣候活動家，

我讀的是工程，

and I studied engineering,

and so I was familiar with those terms.

所以我對那些詞很熟悉。

Kilowatt, megawatt, even gigawatt and terawatt.

千瓦、兆瓦，

甚至吉瓦、太瓦。

But I had never heard of a petawatt hour

但我從來沒有聽過拍瓦時，

until I wrote a book on climate change solutions.

直到我寫了一本關於 氣候變遷解決方案的書。

That's because it's so big.

因為這個單位真的很大。

But that's the scale I want to talk about.

但那就是我想要談的規模。

A petawatt hour is a trillion kilowatt hours.

一拍瓦時等於一兆千瓦時。

現在，全世界能產生約

And today the world generates about 25 trillion kilowatt hours

每年二十五兆千瓦時的電力。

of electricity each year.

Most of that is from fossil-fuel power plants,

大部分是來自化石燃料發電廠。

and the dominant mindset is that we have to change

目前的主流心態是：我們 必須改變目前的電力系統，

the current electricity system

by replacing those fossil-fuel plants

把那些化石燃料發電廠換掉，

with clean generation by 2050.

在 2050 年前都換為乾淨的發電。

Well, over one third of our electricity generation is already clean,

目前的發電有三分之一 以上已經是乾淨的了，

mostly from hydro and nuclear,

主要來自水力和核能發電， 還有風力和太陽能，

along with wind and solar,

and clean generation is growing.

乾淨的發電越來越多。

Projections based on current policies around the world show

根據世界各地目前政策所做的預測

that we are on track to have about 25 petawatt hours

指出我們目前的方向， 可以在 2050 年達成

of clean electricity generation in 2050.

二十五拍瓦時的乾淨能源。

That's two and a half times today's amount of clean generation

那是現今乾淨電力的兩倍半，

and equal to today's total generation.

且等同於現今的總發電量。

So this is great.

這很棒。

We can replace all our fossil fuel plants,

我們可以把所有 化石燃料發電廠換掉，

have a clean version of today's world,

擁有現今世界的乾淨版，

walk away, we've solved climate change.

氣候變遷已解決，退場。非常謝謝。

Thank you very much.

喔，但我忘了說一個小細節。

Oh, but I did forget one tiny little detail.

We actually need five times that much.

我們需要的量是那個量的五倍。

To be clear, we need and we're on track to have

清楚來說，我們需要 且我們正在努力做到

two and a half times today's amount of clean generation

兩倍半的現有乾淨電力，

to switch to a clean version of our current electricity system.

才能換到目前電力系統的乾淨版本。

But changing the current system isn't enough.

但改變目前的系統還不夠。

We need five times that,

必須有目前總電量的五倍 是乾淨發電，

all of it clean,

or 12 times today's clean electricity production,

或者現今乾淨電力量的十二倍，

to actually avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

才能真正避免氣候變遷 最糟糕的衝擊。

Can I repeat that?

我能重覆一遍嗎？

To avoid the worst impacts of climate change,

要避免氣候變遷最糟糕的衝擊，

我們必須要把現今的 乾淨電力變成十二倍。

we have to multiply today's clean electricity production by 12 times.

There are four main reasons we need that much.

需要這麼多電力的主要原因有四。

First, let’s keep in mind scientists’ goalpost for addressing climate change:

第一，別忘了科學家為了 處理氣候變遷設定的目標：

achieving net-negative emissions globally by around 2050.

在 2050 年左右達成 全球淨負零排放。

Most of us know that to do so,

大部分人知道，若要達標， 我們得要電氣化全系列的車輛、

we'll have to electrify a whole range of vehicles,

heating systems and some industrial processes.

暖氣系統，以及一些工業流程。

Electric equipment is more efficient than fuel-based equipment.

用電的設備比用 燃料的設備更有效益。

So electrification actually lowers total global energy demand,

所以，電氣化其實會讓 全球的能源需求下降，

but it increases electricity generation needed.

但需要產出更多的電力。

In our current energy world,

在目前的能源世界裡，

electrifying 60 percent, which is ambitious,

若能實現六成電氣化的野心，

would add enough demand

因此增加的需求

that we would need roughly 40 petawatt hours

會需要我們在 2050 年時能

生產出約四十拍瓦時的電力。

of total electricity generation by 2050.

Second, it's not OK to simply replace today's world with a clean version.

第二，

單純把現今的世界 換成乾淨版本是不行的。

In today's world,

在現今的世界，

超過七億人無法取得電力。

over 700 million people don't have access to electricity.

Billions more have access only to small amounts

還有數十億人只能取得少量電力，

或者電力供應不可靠，常會斷電。

or to unreliable supply that often cuts out.

Energy demand in rich industrialized countries will grow more slowly

在富裕的工業化國家， 能源需求的成長

在接下來幾十年會比較緩慢， 因為效益增加了。

over the next few decades with increased efficiency.

But energy demand in developing countries will continue to grow dramatically,

但在開發中國家的能源需求

會持續劇烈成長，

若我們能讓電力 更便宜，就會越嚴重。

especially if we can make electricity cheaper.

This is good.

這是好事。

Energy access is lifting people out of poverty,

能取得能源，是脫離貧窮的路，

driving access to education,

能帶動教育的普及、

商業、健康照護，以及降低生育率。

commerce, health care and lower birth rates.

Both for moral and practical reasons,

基於道德及實際的理由，

those of us in richer countries need to realize that addressing climate change

身在較富裕國家的我們 必須要知道，處理氣候變遷

will necessarily center

勢必會著重大量擴展

on a massive expansion of energy access in developing countries.

開發中國家的能源普及。

So electricity generation will have to grow even more

所以發電量必須要再增加

and get cheaper

且變更便宜，才能配合 全球的經濟發展。

to accommodate global economic development.

Based on projections of global development by 2050,

根據到 2050 年的全球發展預測，

generation needed rises to 60 petawatt hours per year.

電力需求提升到每年六十拍瓦時。

The third reason is a bit more debatable,

第三個理由比較有爭議，

but it needs to be talked about more in public discourse.

但更需要在公共論述中去談它。

It has to do with the fact

這個理由是到 2050 年時 不是什麼都能電氣化。

that not everything can be electrified by 2050.

Long-range airplanes, for instance,

比如，長程飛機仍然需要 液體燃料的能源密度。

are still going to need the energy density of a liquid fuel.

Similar for some industrial processes.

有些工業流程也是如此。

Now, many models waive this issue away with two overoptimistic assumptions:

許多模型靠著兩個過度樂觀的 假設把這個議題踢開：

that all those factories continue burning fossil fuels but use carbon capture,

所有持續燃燒化石燃料的 工廠會採用碳捕捉，

不過那要額外成本，只有 政府強制要求才有可能實現；

which costs extra and will only happen where governments mandate it,

and that all those long-range vehicles use sustainable biofuel,

而長程交通工具會用 永續的生物燃料，

which is only sustainable if every supplying country,

生物燃料要能永續， 前提是所有的供應國

and its local governments,

以及當地的政府

fully enforces strict standards for biomass

能確實實施嚴格的生物量標準

to avoid deforestation and other impacts

以避免森林砍伐

that could increase emissions from agriculture.

以及其他可能會增加 農業排放的影響。

Some amount of carbon capture at factories and sustainable bioenergy

一些工廠的碳捕捉及永續的生物能源

will absolutely be part of the picture.

絕對會是遠景的一部分。

But I’ve been in politics,

但我待過政治圈，

and I am sure that we should plan for imperfect policy.

我很確定我們應該為 不完美的政策做計畫。

And that means we need to plan

那就表示我們需要規劃更多的發電。

for building even more electricity generation.

We can use this additional generation to synthesize fuels

我們可以用額外的電力來合成燃料，

that are truly carbon neutral or entirely carbon free:

真正碳中性或完全無碳的燃料：

hydrogen, ammonia, synthetic jet fuel and others.

氫、氨、合成噴射機燃料等等。

This is a much rougher estimate,

這估計更粗糙，

but to be confident of minimizing climate change impacts,

但若要很有信心能將 氣候變遷的衝擊減至最低，

我們應該把目標向上推到 大約每年九十拍瓦時。

we should aim to push our line up to around 90 petawatt hours per year.

Finally, the fourth reason is that we need not only net-zero

最後，第四個理由是，到 2050 年，

我們不僅要達到淨零， 還要達到淨負排放。

but net-negative emissions in 2050.

There will be some non-energy emissions that remain, especially from agriculture.

到時仍然會有一些非能源的 排放，特別是來自農業。

And we'll have to pull CO2 from the atmosphere

我們得把二氧化碳 從大氣中移除才能彌補。

to make up for those.

But we also need to use all our possible carbon-removal methods

但，我們也得把所有 可能用得上的除碳方法

at their maximum capacity

發揮到極限，

to remove more CO2 each year,

每年除去更多二氧化碳。

getting as far as possible into net-negative emissions,

盡可能做到淨負排放，

drawing down levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

讓大氣中的溫室氣體減少，

to eventually restore a stable climate.

終於才能恢復穩定的氣候。

One of the carbon-removal methods we’ll have to use is direct air-capture:

我們必須要使用的其中一種除碳方法

是直接空氣捕捉：

arrays of fans filtering CO2 from the air.

用大量風扇從空氣中 過濾出二氧化碳。

And doing enough of this to restore safe temperatures within decades,

要做到足以在數十年內， 而非數世紀內，恢復安全氣溫，

not centuries,

will require yet more electricity generation.

就需要更多的電力。

Again, the exact amount depends on quite how ambitious we're able to be.

確切的量，也是要看 我們能有多大的野心了。

But for a comfortable rate of carbon removal,

但，要把除碳做到舒適的程度，

we would need perhaps 120 petawatt hours per year total.

總共可能會需要 每年一百二十拍瓦時。

So roughly five times today's total global electricity system,

所以大約是現今 全球總電力系統的五倍，

12 times today's clean electricity production,

現今乾淨電力的十二倍，

and that can actually achieve net-negative emissions globally.

那就能達到全球淨負排放的目標。

And there's a bonus reason to consider.

還有一個額外的理由要考量。

Because clean electricity is going to power so much

因為轉型剩下的部分 也幾乎都要用到乾淨電力：

of the rest of the transition: electrification, global development,

電氣化、全球發展、

synthesized fuels and sequestration,

合成燃料，以及碳封存，

to achieve net-negative emissions by 2050,

要在 2050 年達成淨負排放，

we should really build as much as possible

我們應該要在轉型之初， 也就是從現在開始，

of that new electricity generation

就盡可能去做這些新的發電計畫。

at the beginning of the transition, starting now.

This will make sure that clean electricity is abundant

這樣就能確保能盡快達到 充裕且便宜的乾淨電力，

and cheap soon enough

to still leave time for all of the other transitions that rely on it

還能留下足夠時間， 讓其他仰賴它的轉型計畫

to fully roll out by 2050.

能在 2050 年全面推出。

And when we talk about abundant and cheap electricity,

當有充裕且便宜的電力，

就能更快消除貧困，

we're talking about eliminating poverty faster,

powering access to water desalination,

協助海水淡化普及，

strengthening medical supply chains,

強化醫療供應鏈，還有很多很多。

so much more.

Decarbonizing and scaling electricity generation

除碳以及擴大發電規模

will also be the biggest global development project ever.

也會是史上最大的全球發展計畫。

所以，如果我們想要避免 氣候變遷最糟的結果，

So if we want to avoid the worst of climate change,

we need to discard that dominant mindset

我們得要拋棄那種主流心態，

about merely replacing fossil fuel generation.

也就是只把化石燃料發電換掉即可。

My point is, that misses the scale.

我要說的是，那種想法 沒考量到規模。

Our project is not changing the current global electricity system.

我們的計畫不是改變

目前的全球電力系統。

Our project is building a new global electricity system.

我們的計畫是建造 一個新的全球電力系統。

Political action that tinkers around within the current system

在目前系統中做些小修改的政治行動

will never get us where we need to be by 2050.

永遠不可能讓我們達成 2050 年的目標。

Arguments over which sources of clean electricity we should use are unhelpful.

爭論我們應該用哪些 乾淨電力來源並沒有幫助。

We need all of them:

所有的來源都需要：

hydro, solar, wind, nuclear, advanced nuclear,

氫、太陽能、風力、核能、

先進核能、先進地熱，

advanced geothermal,

mandates for carbon capture on remaining fossil plants.

強制剩餘化石燃料發電廠 進行碳捕捉的規定。

If you look at the potential rates of addition for each of these,

如果去看每一項可能增加多少電力，

you'll see we need everything as much as possible

就會知道我們會需要 它們全部，越多越好，

and we may still fall short.

可能還不夠呢。

It's not changing the electricity system.

重點不是要改變電力系統。

It's building a new electricity system.

是要建造新的電力系統。

One five times bigger than today's total system

比現今總體的電力系統大五倍，

and 100 percent clean.

且 100% 乾淨。

As fellow youth activists often say,

青年活動家夥伴們常說，

the project is much more comparable

這個計畫更像是二次大戰時期的 製造業迅速發展，

to the World War II-era manufacturing boom

than anything the world has done since.

自此之後就沒有比得上的現象了。

Building new things that we've barely ever built before,

建造我們以前幾乎 沒有建造過的新東西，

in massive amounts, to create a new system entirely.

且量非常大，是完全 創造一個新系統。

In fact, this mindset goes beyond electricity-generation itself.

事實上，這種心態不限於發電本身。

Many people are wary of ambitious climate action

許多人對於有野心的 氣候行動會小心翼豼，

because they see the project as changing the familiar current world.

因為他們認為這個計畫是在 改變目前他們熟悉的世界。

That's not it.

不是這樣的。

Addressing climate change means building a new world.

處理氣候變遷意味著建造新世界。

A world in which energy is healthier,

在這個新世界裡，能源更健康，

doesn't pollute the air we breathe

不會污染我們呼吸的空氣，

and where it's cheaper and everyone globally has access to it.

且能源更便宜，全世界 每個人都能取得。

A world with higher incomes,

在這個新世界裡，收入更高，

longer and better lives,

更長壽，更好的生活，

greater equality.

更平等。

A better world.

更好的世界。

Thank you, and let's make it happen.

謝謝。咱們讓它成真吧。

(Applause)

（掌聲）