为什么德国如此执着于放弃核电，而法国却没有？（1）
正文翻译
Why is Germany so adamant about abandoning nuclear power, while France is not?
为什么德国如此执着于放弃核电，而法国却没有？
Why is Germany so adamant about abandoning nuclear power, while France is not?
为什么德国如此执着于放弃核电，而法国却没有？
评论翻译
Steve Jones
No, it is strictly accurate (perhaps you might point out which statement I’ve made that is wrong). If the nuclear power plants had remained in service to the end of their rated lifetime, then coal powered generation would have declined much faster and Germany would not have had one of the more carbon intensive electricity generation systems in the EU. Also, combining all the fossil fuels into one does not give a clear picture, as coal is much more damaging to the environment than gas in terms of both CO2 and other pollutants.
New German Government Adopts Coal Phase-Out in All But Name
It is also a simple fact that Germany has missed its climate targets.
Germany to widely miss 2030 climate target – draft govt report
I should add that Germany’s insistence on maintaining unlimited autobahn speed limits on most of the network isn’t a great example either.
不，它很严谨（也许你可以指出我的哪句话是错的）。如果核电站一直服役到其额定寿命结束，那么煤炭发电比的下降速度就会快得多，德国就不会拥有欧盟中碳密集度较高的发电系统之一了。此外，将所有的化石燃料混为一谈并不能说明问题，因为就二氧化碳和其他污染物而言，煤炭对环境的破坏要比天然气大得多。
德国新政府通过了名副其实的煤炭逐步淘汰计划（链接）
德国未能实现其气候目标也是一个简单的事实：
德国将广泛错过2030年气候目标--政府报告草案（链接）
我应该补充的是，德国坚持在大部分高速公路网络上保持不限速的政策也不是一个很好的做法。
Andy Duffell
The part that’s misleading is characterising Germany’s strategy as relying on coal to carry out their nuclear phase-out. It’s probably worth pointing out that coal use is also declining. The nuance that it’s declining more slowly than it otherwise might be isn’t obvious in your original answer.
你的回复中具有误导性的部分是将德国的战略描述为依靠煤炭发电来实现其淘汰核电的目标。因为值得指出的是，德国煤炭的使用率也在下降。在你原来的回答中，并没有明显地指出它的下降速度比其他情况下要慢的细微差别。
Steve Jones
, studied at Imperial College London
That is because, against some national stereotypes, the French are more rational than the Germans on this matter. When assessing the relative dangers of global warming and air pollution, the German government chose, not just to build no new nuclear plants, but to close existing ones down earlier and thus maintain more coal-based power stations.
By any rational analysis, coal-fired power stations have killed orders of magnitude more people than nuclear power stations and, in any normal year, put far more radiation into the atmosphere (due to radioactive nuclides in coal deposits). According to Statista, over 1,000 times more people were killed per thousand terrawatt hours using coal generation than nuclear in 2012.
Overall, the French appear to be a lot more comfortable with nuclear power than are Germans.
，曾就读于伦敦帝国学院
这是因为，与一些国家的刻板印象相反，法国人在这个问题上比德国人更理性。在评估全球变暖和空气污染的相对危险性时，德国政府不仅选择不建造新的核电站，而且选择提前关闭现有的核电站，从而需要维持更多的煤电站。
根据任何理性的分析，燃煤发电站所造成的死亡人数都比核电站多出几个数量级，而且在任何正常年份，向大气中投放的辐射都比核电站要多得多（由于煤层中的放射性核素）。根据Statista的数据，2012年，每千兆瓦时使用煤炭发电所造成的死亡人数是核能的1000多倍。
总的来说，法国人看来比德国人更喜欢使用核电。
, studied at Imperial College London
That is because, against some national stereotypes, the French are more rational than the Germans on this matter. When assessing the relative dangers of global warming and air pollution, the German government chose, not just to build no new nuclear plants, but to close existing ones down earlier and thus maintain more coal-based power stations.
By any rational analysis, coal-fired power stations have killed orders of magnitude more people than nuclear power stations and, in any normal year, put far more radiation into the atmosphere (due to radioactive nuclides in coal deposits). According to Statista, over 1,000 times more people were killed per thousand terrawatt hours using coal generation than nuclear in 2012.
Overall, the French appear to be a lot more comfortable with nuclear power than are Germans.
，曾就读于伦敦帝国学院
这是因为，与一些国家的刻板印象相反，法国人在这个问题上比德国人更理性。在评估全球变暖和空气污染的相对危险性时，德国政府不仅选择不建造新的核电站，而且选择提前关闭现有的核电站，从而需要维持更多的煤电站。
根据任何理性的分析，燃煤发电站所造成的死亡人数都比核电站多出几个数量级，而且在任何正常年份，向大气中投放的辐射都比核电站要多得多（由于煤层中的放射性核素）。根据Statista的数据，2012年，每千兆瓦时使用煤炭发电所造成的死亡人数是核能的1000多倍。
总的来说，法国人看来比德国人更喜欢使用核电。
Andy Duffell
That’s not strictly accurate. The run-down of nuclear power in Germany did result in some coal plants being given a temporary stay of execution to bridge the gap, but overall both nuclear and fossil fuel production have been declining:
这种说法并不严谨。德国核电的减少确实导致一些煤电厂的淘汰被暂时搁置，以弥补电力缺口，但总体而言，核电和化石燃料的产量都在下降：
That’s not strictly accurate. The run-down of nuclear power in Germany did result in some coal plants being given a temporary stay of execution to bridge the gap, but overall both nuclear and fossil fuel production have been declining:
这种说法并不严谨。德国核电的减少确实导致一些煤电厂的淘汰被暂时搁置，以弥补电力缺口，但总体而言，核电和化石燃料的产量都在下降：
Steve Jones
No, it is strictly accurate (perhaps you might point out which statement I’ve made that is wrong). If the nuclear power plants had remained in service to the end of their rated lifetime, then coal powered generation would have declined much faster and Germany would not have had one of the more carbon intensive electricity generation systems in the EU. Also, combining all the fossil fuels into one does not give a clear picture, as coal is much more damaging to the environment than gas in terms of both CO2 and other pollutants.
New German Government Adopts Coal Phase-Out in All But Name
It is also a simple fact that Germany has missed its climate targets.
Germany to widely miss 2030 climate target – draft govt report
I should add that Germany’s insistence on maintaining unlimited autobahn speed limits on most of the network isn’t a great example either.
不，它很严谨（也许你可以指出我的哪句话是错的）。如果核电站一直服役到其额定寿命结束，那么煤炭发电比的下降速度就会快得多，德国就不会拥有欧盟中碳密集度较高的发电系统之一了。此外，将所有的化石燃料混为一谈并不能说明问题，因为就二氧化碳和其他污染物而言，煤炭对环境的破坏要比天然气大得多。
德国新政府通过了名副其实的煤炭逐步淘汰计划（链接）
德国未能实现其气候目标也是一个简单的事实：
德国将广泛错过2030年气候目标--政府报告草案（链接）
我应该补充的是，德国坚持在大部分高速公路网络上保持不限速的政策也不是一个很好的做法。
Andy Duffell
The part that’s misleading is characterising Germany’s strategy as relying on coal to carry out their nuclear phase-out. It’s probably worth pointing out that coal use is also declining. The nuance that it’s declining more slowly than it otherwise might be isn’t obvious in your original answer.
你的回复中具有误导性的部分是将德国的战略描述为依靠煤炭发电来实现其淘汰核电的目标。因为值得指出的是，德国煤炭的使用率也在下降。在你原来的回答中，并没有明显地指出它的下降速度比其他情况下要慢的细微差别。
Steve Jones
It’s not a nuance, it’s an extremely important element that coal based power generation is now considerably higher than it would have been. This report estimates that the early closure of the nuclear power stations has cost $12bn a year, which some might conclude is just a price worth paying. However, the kicker is that 70% of this cost is “from the increased mortality risk associated with exposure to the local air pollution emitted when burning fossil fuels”.
It is also true that it did rely on increase fossil fuel usage, and especially coal, in order to fill in the gap. Coal powered generation would have reduced a lot quicker if the nuclear power stations had been retained.
The Private and External Costs of Germany's Nuclear Phase-Out
Bear in mind that some of this power has also come from importing even dirtier electricity from Poland (the latter subject to court action in the EU).
这不是一个细微的差别，这是一个极其重要的因素，以煤为基础的发电量现在大大高于它本来的水平。这份报告估计，提前关闭核电站每年花费120亿美元，一些人可能会得出结论，说这是一个值得付出的代价。然而，最重要的是，这个成本的70%是"来自于暴露于燃烧化石燃料时排放的当地空气污染而增加的死亡风险"。
这也是事实，它确实依靠增加化石燃料的使用，特别是煤炭，以填补电力缺口。如果保留核电站，煤炭发电量会更快地减少。
德国淘汰核电的私人和外部成本（链接）
请记住，其中一些电力还来自于从波兰进口更脏的电力（后者在欧盟受到法院的起诉）。
It’s not a nuance, it’s an extremely important element that coal based power generation is now considerably higher than it would have been. This report estimates that the early closure of the nuclear power stations has cost $12bn a year, which some might conclude is just a price worth paying. However, the kicker is that 70% of this cost is “from the increased mortality risk associated with exposure to the local air pollution emitted when burning fossil fuels”.
It is also true that it did rely on increase fossil fuel usage, and especially coal, in order to fill in the gap. Coal powered generation would have reduced a lot quicker if the nuclear power stations had been retained.
The Private and External Costs of Germany's Nuclear Phase-Out
Bear in mind that some of this power has also come from importing even dirtier electricity from Poland (the latter subject to court action in the EU).
这不是一个细微的差别，这是一个极其重要的因素，以煤为基础的发电量现在大大高于它本来的水平。这份报告估计，提前关闭核电站每年花费120亿美元，一些人可能会得出结论，说这是一个值得付出的代价。然而，最重要的是，这个成本的70%是"来自于暴露于燃烧化石燃料时排放的当地空气污染而增加的死亡风险"。
这也是事实，它确实依靠增加化石燃料的使用，特别是煤炭，以填补电力缺口。如果保留核电站，煤炭发电量会更快地减少。
德国淘汰核电的私人和外部成本（链接）
请记住，其中一些电力还来自于从波兰进口更脏的电力（后者在欧盟受到法院的起诉）。
Tim Slater
> Coal powered generation would have reduced a lot quicker if the nuclear power stations had been retained.
No, it wouldn’t: coal-fired generation is the cheapest and most profitable at present, which is why such plants are still being authorized…
> 如果保留核电站，煤电发电量会减少得更快。
不，它不会：燃煤发电是目前最便宜和最有利可图的，这就是为什么这种工厂仍然被授权使用......
> Coal powered generation would have reduced a lot quicker if the nuclear power stations had been retained.
No, it wouldn’t: coal-fired generation is the cheapest and most profitable at present, which is why such plants are still being authorized…
> 如果保留核电站，煤电发电量会减少得更快。
不，它不会：燃煤发电是目前最便宜和最有利可图的，这就是为什么这种工厂仍然被授权使用......
Aryadeep Chakraborty
Overall establishment of nuclear power has more of a political agenda than coal or any renewable source. Nuclear power is the longest sustaining green energy which can withstand seasonal load changes without the need to store energy (like renewables do with batteries).
The risk of accidents and long term environmental and human damage are far lower than coal power plants - the upfront commissioning cost is higher than renewables but electricity cost per kwh is far cheaper than renewable energy, which wins over the lifetime of a power plant. The modern breeder reactors are even capable of generating more fuel than what is fed into the reactor.
The political agenda of banning nuclear power based on nuclear waste disposal, decommissioning of the containment or some ghost fear of the unknown (based on the Fukushima accident) is a serious damage to the nuclear community and knowledge in Germany!
I did my PhD in nuclear safety in Germany and have worked in Japan and France; never have I once met a single nuclear engineer designing safety features for power plants who said yes nuclear power is evil. Nuclear safety today (re: EPR 4) is unprecedented, there are safer and much more stable ways of waste disposal which will make nuclear energy a much better alternative energy source than renewables. With the right policies in place nuclear energy can be the safest, cleanest and cheapest energy - yet science has to bend to half baked political will of illiterate masses.
And no nuclear power in Germany is not like nuclear power in Iran - nobody is raising weapons grade plutonium without IAEA’s knowledge in this country.
总的来说，建立核电比煤炭或任何可再生资源更有政治目的。核电是持续时间最长的绿色能源，它可以承受季节性负载变化而无需储存能量（就像可再生能源使用电池一样）。
事故风险以及长期的环境和人类损害远远低于煤电厂 - 前期调试成本高于可再生能源，但每千瓦时的电费远远低于可再生能源，这在发电厂的生命周期中是得分点。现代增殖反应堆甚至能够产生比输入反应堆更多的燃料。
基于核废料处理、安全壳退役或一些对未知的幽灵般的恐惧（基于福岛事故）而禁止核电的政治议程是对德国的核社区和知识的严重损害
我在德国获得了核安全博士学位，并在日本和法国工作过；我从来没有遇到过一个为电厂设计安全设施的核工程师说核电是邪恶的。今天的核安全（关于EPR 4）是前所未有的，有更安全和更稳定的废物处理方式，这将使核能成为比可再生能源更好的替代能源。有了正确的政策，核能可以成为最安全、最清洁和最便宜的能源--但科学却不得不屈从于文盲群众一知半解的政治意愿。
而且，德国的核电与伊朗的核电不同--在这个国家，没有人在国际原子能机构不知情的情况下提取武器级钚。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Overall establishment of nuclear power has more of a political agenda than coal or any renewable source. Nuclear power is the longest sustaining green energy which can withstand seasonal load changes without the need to store energy (like renewables do with batteries).
The risk of accidents and long term environmental and human damage are far lower than coal power plants - the upfront commissioning cost is higher than renewables but electricity cost per kwh is far cheaper than renewable energy, which wins over the lifetime of a power plant. The modern breeder reactors are even capable of generating more fuel than what is fed into the reactor.
The political agenda of banning nuclear power based on nuclear waste disposal, decommissioning of the containment or some ghost fear of the unknown (based on the Fukushima accident) is a serious damage to the nuclear community and knowledge in Germany!
I did my PhD in nuclear safety in Germany and have worked in Japan and France; never have I once met a single nuclear engineer designing safety features for power plants who said yes nuclear power is evil. Nuclear safety today (re: EPR 4) is unprecedented, there are safer and much more stable ways of waste disposal which will make nuclear energy a much better alternative energy source than renewables. With the right policies in place nuclear energy can be the safest, cleanest and cheapest energy - yet science has to bend to half baked political will of illiterate masses.
And no nuclear power in Germany is not like nuclear power in Iran - nobody is raising weapons grade plutonium without IAEA’s knowledge in this country.
总的来说，建立核电比煤炭或任何可再生资源更有政治目的。核电是持续时间最长的绿色能源，它可以承受季节性负载变化而无需储存能量（就像可再生能源使用电池一样）。
事故风险以及长期的环境和人类损害远远低于煤电厂 - 前期调试成本高于可再生能源，但每千瓦时的电费远远低于可再生能源，这在发电厂的生命周期中是得分点。现代增殖反应堆甚至能够产生比输入反应堆更多的燃料。
基于核废料处理、安全壳退役或一些对未知的幽灵般的恐惧（基于福岛事故）而禁止核电的政治议程是对德国的核社区和知识的严重损害
我在德国获得了核安全博士学位，并在日本和法国工作过；我从来没有遇到过一个为电厂设计安全设施的核工程师说核电是邪恶的。今天的核安全（关于EPR 4）是前所未有的，有更安全和更稳定的废物处理方式，这将使核能成为比可再生能源更好的替代能源。有了正确的政策，核能可以成为最安全、最清洁和最便宜的能源--但科学却不得不屈从于文盲群众一知半解的政治意愿。
而且，德国的核电与伊朗的核电不同--在这个国家，没有人在国际原子能机构不知情的情况下提取武器级钚。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Peter Petermann
What's your solution to nuclear waste? Because if it is to put the waste into the ground and hope nothing happens over the ages, or someone in the future solving it, there is no way to call this green.
你对核废料有什么解决办法？因为如果是把废物放进地下，希望就此万事大吉，或者未来有人解决它，这就没有办法称之为绿色。
What's your solution to nuclear waste? Because if it is to put the waste into the ground and hope nothing happens over the ages, or someone in the future solving it, there is no way to call this green.
你对核废料有什么解决办法？因为如果是把废物放进地下，希望就此万事大吉，或者未来有人解决它，这就没有办法称之为绿色。
Stephen Hope
There is (or was) a natural nuclear reactor in Gabon.
Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia
No special containment or anything - but the thing was pretty hard to detect after 2 billion years.
So yes - the waste is difficult to handle, but it is still temporary…
The other aspect to look at is waste volume
fission is very efficient in turning the input isotopes into energy
so there is much less waste to manage
Finally - we have run 100s of reactors for decades, so we already have a nuclear waste management problem that isn’t going away.
So the argument should not be about “no nuclear waste” - because that ship sailed in the 1950s.
The current nuclear waste issue is “is managing more waste a big deal with the problem we have to handle anyway”.
在加蓬有（或曾经有）一个天然核反应堆。
天然核裂变反应堆 - 维基百科
没有特殊的封闭装置或任何东西--但那东西在20亿年后已经很难被发现了。
所以是的--废物很难处理，但它仍然只是暂时的...
另一个要看的方面是废物量
裂变在将输入的同位素转化为能量方面非常有效
所以需要管理的废物要少得多
最后--我们已经运行了100多个反应堆几十年，所以我们已经有了一个不会消失的核废料管理问题。
因此，争论的焦点不应该是"没有核废料"--因为这艘船已经在20世纪50年代起航了。
目前的核废料问题是"管理更多的废料与我们必须处理的问题相比是否是一个大问题"。
There is (or was) a natural nuclear reactor in Gabon.
Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia
No special containment or anything - but the thing was pretty hard to detect after 2 billion years.
So yes - the waste is difficult to handle, but it is still temporary…
The other aspect to look at is waste volume
fission is very efficient in turning the input isotopes into energy
so there is much less waste to manage
Finally - we have run 100s of reactors for decades, so we already have a nuclear waste management problem that isn’t going away.
So the argument should not be about “no nuclear waste” - because that ship sailed in the 1950s.
The current nuclear waste issue is “is managing more waste a big deal with the problem we have to handle anyway”.
在加蓬有（或曾经有）一个天然核反应堆。
天然核裂变反应堆 - 维基百科
没有特殊的封闭装置或任何东西--但那东西在20亿年后已经很难被发现了。
所以是的--废物很难处理，但它仍然只是暂时的...
另一个要看的方面是废物量
裂变在将输入的同位素转化为能量方面非常有效
所以需要管理的废物要少得多
最后--我们已经运行了100多个反应堆几十年，所以我们已经有了一个不会消失的核废料管理问题。
因此，争论的焦点不应该是"没有核废料"--因为这艘船已经在20世纪50年代起航了。
目前的核废料问题是"管理更多的废料与我们必须处理的问题相比是否是一个大问题"。
Peter Petermann
“temporary” for lengths of times that are longer than human existance.
fission has less nuclear waste to manage compared to what now?
your argument is really “we already have a big problem, lets pile more on it!”? seriously?
你所谓"暂时"的时间长度比人类存在的整个时间都要长。
与现在相比，裂变有更少的核废料需要管理？
你的论点真的是"我们已经有一个大问题了，让我们把它搞得更大吧！"？认真的？
“temporary” for lengths of times that are longer than human existance.
fission has less nuclear waste to manage compared to what now?
your argument is really “we already have a big problem, lets pile more on it!”? seriously?
你所谓"暂时"的时间长度比人类存在的整个时间都要长。
与现在相比，裂变有更少的核废料需要管理？
你的论点真的是"我们已经有一个大问题了，让我们把它搞得更大吧！"？认真的？
Stephen Hope
Not quite.
My argument is that we have a problem we have to solve already.
A lot of the comments on this discussion are about “we cannot use nuclear because the waste is an impossible problem”.
Sorry - but that is not where we are.
If you have or build a waste disposal system to “burn” waste in a reactor, or decide to put it somewhere suitable to store it for 10,000 years - the argument needs to change to:
“if we have solved the waste problem we have now - does the solution scale up, so more nuclear power makes sense?”
不完全是。
我的论点是，我们已经有一个必须解决的问题。
这个讨论中的很多评论是关于"我们不能使用核电，因为废物是一个不可能解决的问题"。
对不起 - 但这不是我们的现状。
如果你已经有了或建造了一个废物处理系统来在反应堆中“燃烧”废物，或者决定将其放置在适合将其储存10000 年的地方 - 论点需要改为：
"如果我们已经解决了现在的废物问题--该解决方案是否可以扩大规模，从而使更多的核电的存在有意义？"
Not quite.
My argument is that we have a problem we have to solve already.
A lot of the comments on this discussion are about “we cannot use nuclear because the waste is an impossible problem”.
Sorry - but that is not where we are.
If you have or build a waste disposal system to “burn” waste in a reactor, or decide to put it somewhere suitable to store it for 10,000 years - the argument needs to change to:
“if we have solved the waste problem we have now - does the solution scale up, so more nuclear power makes sense?”
不完全是。
我的论点是，我们已经有一个必须解决的问题。
这个讨论中的很多评论是关于"我们不能使用核电，因为废物是一个不可能解决的问题"。
对不起 - 但这不是我们的现状。
如果你已经有了或建造了一个废物处理系统来在反应堆中“燃烧”废物，或者决定将其放置在适合将其储存10000 年的地方 - 论点需要改为：
"如果我们已经解决了现在的废物问题--该解决方案是否可以扩大规模，从而使更多的核电的存在有意义？"
Peter Petermann
you are counting chickens before they hatch. as long as there is no solution to nuclear waste, there is no solution to nuclear waste that can or can not scale. operating under the assumption that one will be found at some point is a gamble, and the likeliness gets less the more waste you have to deal with, as the concerns like transport, storage etc just become worse.
你是在未孵化前就数有多少只鸡。只要没有解决核废料问题的办法，就没有可以或不可以扩大规模的核废料解决方案。在假设会在某个时候找到一个解决方案的前提下进行操作是一场赌博，而且你要处理的废料越多，解决这个问题的可能性就越小，因为运输、储存等问题会变得更糟。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
you are counting chickens before they hatch. as long as there is no solution to nuclear waste, there is no solution to nuclear waste that can or can not scale. operating under the assumption that one will be found at some point is a gamble, and the likeliness gets less the more waste you have to deal with, as the concerns like transport, storage etc just become worse.
你是在未孵化前就数有多少只鸡。只要没有解决核废料问题的办法，就没有可以或不可以扩大规模的核废料解决方案。在假设会在某个时候找到一个解决方案的前提下进行操作是一场赌博，而且你要处理的废料越多，解决这个问题的可能性就越小，因为运输、储存等问题会变得更糟。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
James Olsen
But there is a solution to nuclear waste: the fast breeder. It works, but it’s too expensive right now. Why do you think that reactor technology will stagnate for 10,000 years?
但是有一个解决核废料的办法：快中子增殖反应堆。它是有效的，但现在它太昂贵了。为什么你认为反应堆技术会停滞不前一万年？
But there is a solution to nuclear waste: the fast breeder. It works, but it’s too expensive right now. Why do you think that reactor technology will stagnate for 10,000 years?
但是有一个解决核废料的办法：快中子增殖反应堆。它是有效的，但现在它太昂贵了。为什么你认为反应堆技术会停滞不前一万年？
Peter Petermann
Except fast breeders only exist in experimental states, are not considered safe and would contribute to proliferation, as they can breed weapons grade materials.
It's kinda pointless to argue about 10k years, when waste is already an issue, and it's counting chickens before they hatch to go with “someone will solve this in the future”.
然而快中子增殖反应堆只存在于实验状态，不被认为是安全的，并且会助长扩散，因为它们可以繁殖出武器级材料。
争论一万年是没有意义的，因为浪费已经是一个问题了，而且"将来会有人解决这个问题"这是在鸡孵化之前就数有多少只。
Except fast breeders only exist in experimental states, are not considered safe and would contribute to proliferation, as they can breed weapons grade materials.
It's kinda pointless to argue about 10k years, when waste is already an issue, and it's counting chickens before they hatch to go with “someone will solve this in the future”.
然而快中子增殖反应堆只存在于实验状态，不被认为是安全的，并且会助长扩散，因为它们可以繁殖出武器级材料。
争论一万年是没有意义的，因为浪费已经是一个问题了，而且"将来会有人解决这个问题"这是在鸡孵化之前就数有多少只。
James Olsen
But people argue about 10,000 years as a matter of course. The standard anti-nuke argument is that waste must be stored for 10,000 years because that’s the only possible way to make it safe. But the chickens have already hatched. We have means of dealing with nuclear waste now, and it’s fatuous to assert that the safety and proliferation issues cannot be solved in the future because they have not been solved already.
但人们争论一万年是理所当然的。标准的反核论点是，废物必须储存一万年，因为这是唯一可能使其安全的方法。但鸡已经孵化了。我们现在有处理核废料的方法，只因为它们目前还没有被解决，就断言安全和扩散问题在未来也无法解决，这是愚蠢的。
But people argue about 10,000 years as a matter of course. The standard anti-nuke argument is that waste must be stored for 10,000 years because that’s the only possible way to make it safe. But the chickens have already hatched. We have means of dealing with nuclear waste now, and it’s fatuous to assert that the safety and proliferation issues cannot be solved in the future because they have not been solved already.
但人们争论一万年是理所当然的。标准的反核论点是，废物必须储存一万年，因为这是唯一可能使其安全的方法。但鸡已经孵化了。我们现在有处理核废料的方法，只因为它们目前还没有被解决，就断言安全和扩散问题在未来也无法解决，这是愚蠢的。
Regis Louis Bruant
And what is the solution for the climate change? To continue using fossil fuel? This is your choice. Between two evils you should choose the lesser.
那么解决气候变化的办法是什么呢？继续使用化石燃料吗？这是你的选择。在两种邪恶之间，你应该选择较小的那一种。
And what is the solution for the climate change? To continue using fossil fuel? This is your choice. Between two evils you should choose the lesser.
那么解决气候变化的办法是什么呢？继续使用化石燃料吗？这是你的选择。在两种邪恶之间，你应该选择较小的那一种。
Peter Petermann
Or you chose solar and wind, and be more conscious of wasted energy (for example: train instead of plane, and maybe not use an ac at home 24/7), cause what's the point of stopping climate change if you are still killing the planet?
或者你可以选择太阳能和风能，并更加注意能源的浪费（例如：用火车代替飞机，也许不在家里24小时使用空调），因为如果你仍然在杀害地球，那么阻止气候变化的意义何在？
Or you chose solar and wind, and be more conscious of wasted energy (for example: train instead of plane, and maybe not use an ac at home 24/7), cause what's the point of stopping climate change if you are still killing the planet?
或者你可以选择太阳能和风能，并更加注意能源的浪费（例如：用火车代替飞机，也许不在家里24小时使用空调），因为如果你仍然在杀害地球，那么阻止气候变化的意义何在？
Regis Louis Bruant
Since when nucleal kill the planet. Nonsense. Fossil kill the planet, this is 100% sure. How many people died because of nucleat plant accident?
Solar + wind are for dreamer, can’t replace base load power plant.
从什么时候开始，核子会杀死这个星球。简直是胡说八道。化石会杀死地球，这是 100% 确定的。但是有多少人死于核电站事故？
太阳能+风能是为梦想家准备的，不能取代基本负载功率发电厂。
Since when nucleal kill the planet. Nonsense. Fossil kill the planet, this is 100% sure. How many people died because of nucleat plant accident?
Solar + wind are for dreamer, can’t replace base load power plant.
从什么时候开始，核子会杀死这个星球。简直是胡说八道。化石会杀死地球，这是 100% 确定的。但是有多少人死于核电站事故？
太阳能+风能是为梦想家准备的，不能取代基本负载功率发电厂。
Tom Ruthemann
Oh dear that completely outdated and truly obsolete argument about ‘base load power’ creeping up again. Was waiting for it …
哦，天哪，关于“基本负载功率”的完全过时且真正过时的论点再次出现了。一直在等着它……
Oh dear that completely outdated and truly obsolete argument about ‘base load power’ creeping up again. Was waiting for it …
哦，天哪，关于“基本负载功率”的完全过时且真正过时的论点再次出现了。一直在等着它……
Regis Louis Bruant
Why Germany keep their fossil fuel in service? Just try to answer this question.
为什么德国要让他们的化石燃料电厂继续服役？试着回答这个问题吧。
Why Germany keep their fossil fuel in service? Just try to answer this question.
为什么德国要让他们的化石燃料电厂继续服役？试着回答这个问题吧。
Tom Ruthemann
You really cannot answer that yourself?
OK, I give you a hint: You cannot build a complete infrastructure of renewables in a couple years.
你真的不能自己回答这个问题？
好吧，我给你一个提示：你不可能在几年内建立一个完整的可再生能源的基础设施。
You really cannot answer that yourself?
OK, I give you a hint: You cannot build a complete infrastructure of renewables in a couple years.
你真的不能自己回答这个问题？
好吧，我给你一个提示：你不可能在几年内建立一个完整的可再生能源的基础设施。
Regis Louis Bruant
Why shuting down nuclear plant while keeping the fossil plant in service? Global warming is second to nuclear in term of risk?
为什么要关闭核电站，同时让化石工厂继续运行？就风险而言，全球变暖不次于核能？
Why shuting down nuclear plant while keeping the fossil plant in service? Global warming is second to nuclear in term of risk?
为什么要关闭核电站，同时让化石工厂继续运行？就风险而言，全球变暖不次于核能？
Paul Duffin
I think the Germans also had a much more vocal anti-war demographic, driven largely by a combination of guilt, bad memories and the knowledge that if the Cold War went hot that it was Germany that was going to get crapped on. That anti-war attitude was focused on nuclear weapons and nuclear power is inextricably lixed to that.
France on the other hand had nuclear weapons, liked their nuclear weapons, leveraged their possession of nuclear weapons to increase their influence internationally and most importantly knew that Germany didn’t have them.
Germany gave into their anti-war demographic and nuclear power was a casualty of that.
France beat the crap out of their anti-war demographic, kept their nuclear weapons and kept their nuclear power plants.
我认为德国人的反战人口的嗓音也更加大，这在很大程度上是由内疚、糟糕的记忆和知道如果冷战变得激烈，德国就会陷入困境。这种反战态度集中在核武器上，而这又与核电密不可分。
另一方面，法国拥有核武器，喜欢他们的核武器，利用他们拥有的核武器来增加其在国际上的影响力，最重要的是知道德国没有核武器。
德国屈服于他们的反战人口，而核能是其中的牺牲品。
法国击败了他们的反战人口中的垃圾言论，保留了他们的核武器并保留了他们的核电站。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I think the Germans also had a much more vocal anti-war demographic, driven largely by a combination of guilt, bad memories and the knowledge that if the Cold War went hot that it was Germany that was going to get crapped on. That anti-war attitude was focused on nuclear weapons and nuclear power is inextricably lixed to that.
France on the other hand had nuclear weapons, liked their nuclear weapons, leveraged their possession of nuclear weapons to increase their influence internationally and most importantly knew that Germany didn’t have them.
Germany gave into their anti-war demographic and nuclear power was a casualty of that.
France beat the crap out of their anti-war demographic, kept their nuclear weapons and kept their nuclear power plants.
我认为德国人的反战人口的嗓音也更加大，这在很大程度上是由内疚、糟糕的记忆和知道如果冷战变得激烈，德国就会陷入困境。这种反战态度集中在核武器上，而这又与核电密不可分。
另一方面，法国拥有核武器，喜欢他们的核武器，利用他们拥有的核武器来增加其在国际上的影响力，最重要的是知道德国没有核武器。
德国屈服于他们的反战人口，而核能是其中的牺牲品。
法国击败了他们的反战人口中的垃圾言论，保留了他们的核武器并保留了他们的核电站。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Steve Jones
If the Cold War had got hot, then Germany was certainly in the first line for the conventional war. However, if it had escalated to go nuclear, then it would not have been confined to Germany. However, West Germany did allow the USA to base tactical nuclear weapons in the country. The treaty that permitted the reunification of Germany bans nuclear weapons from being based in the former East Germany (or foreign troops for that matter).
The USA does maintain a stock of B61 nuclear bombs at Büchel Air Base specifically so they could be delivered by Luftwaffe Panavia Tornado based there, although this is highly controversial, and some think it violates the NPT.
That said, I’m sure you are right that it’s a much more sensitive subject in Germany than in France, but it’s not clear the relationship with nuclear weapons holds up in that the country has never used its reactors for producing weapons grade material and has a constitutional commitment not to do so.
It does seem to be the fallout, both literal and metaphorical from Chernobyl and Fukushima which has taken hold, even though the specific circumstances of both don’t apply to the country.
如果冷战进入白热化阶段，那么德国肯定是处于常规战争的第一线。然而，如果它升级为核战争，那么它就不会局限于德国。然而，西德确实允许美国在该国建立战术核武器基地。允许德国统一的条约禁止在前东德（或外国军队）部署核武器。
美国确实在比谢尔空军基地保留了一批B61核弹，专门用于由驻扎在那里的德国空军帕纳维亚"龙卷风"战斗机的投送，尽管这引起了很大争议，有人认为这违反了《不扩散条约》。
总而言之，我相信你的说法是对的，这在德国是一个比在法国更敏感的话题，但不清楚与核武器的关系是否成立，因为该国从未将其反应堆用于生产武器级材料，并有宪法承诺不这样做。
尽管切尔诺贝利和福岛事故的具体情况并不适用于德国，但它似乎是切尔诺贝利和福岛事故后果字面和隐喻上的影响。
If the Cold War had got hot, then Germany was certainly in the first line for the conventional war. However, if it had escalated to go nuclear, then it would not have been confined to Germany. However, West Germany did allow the USA to base tactical nuclear weapons in the country. The treaty that permitted the reunification of Germany bans nuclear weapons from being based in the former East Germany (or foreign troops for that matter).
The USA does maintain a stock of B61 nuclear bombs at Büchel Air Base specifically so they could be delivered by Luftwaffe Panavia Tornado based there, although this is highly controversial, and some think it violates the NPT.
That said, I’m sure you are right that it’s a much more sensitive subject in Germany than in France, but it’s not clear the relationship with nuclear weapons holds up in that the country has never used its reactors for producing weapons grade material and has a constitutional commitment not to do so.
It does seem to be the fallout, both literal and metaphorical from Chernobyl and Fukushima which has taken hold, even though the specific circumstances of both don’t apply to the country.
如果冷战进入白热化阶段，那么德国肯定是处于常规战争的第一线。然而，如果它升级为核战争，那么它就不会局限于德国。然而，西德确实允许美国在该国建立战术核武器基地。允许德国统一的条约禁止在前东德（或外国军队）部署核武器。
美国确实在比谢尔空军基地保留了一批B61核弹，专门用于由驻扎在那里的德国空军帕纳维亚"龙卷风"战斗机的投送，尽管这引起了很大争议，有人认为这违反了《不扩散条约》。
总而言之，我相信你的说法是对的，这在德国是一个比在法国更敏感的话题，但不清楚与核武器的关系是否成立，因为该国从未将其反应堆用于生产武器级材料，并有宪法承诺不这样做。
尽管切尔诺贝利和福岛事故的具体情况并不适用于德国，但它似乎是切尔诺贝利和福岛事故后果字面和隐喻上的影响。
Alain Vu
I think all of you forgot the ecology/green movement in Germany that is omni present since many decades ago. The ecologists wrongly believe that nuclear power plants are more dangerous than coal plants.
我想你们都忘记了德国的生态/绿色运动，它从几十年前就已经全面存在。生态学家们错误地认为，核电站比煤电厂更危险。
I think all of you forgot the ecology/green movement in Germany that is omni present since many decades ago. The ecologists wrongly believe that nuclear power plants are more dangerous than coal plants.
我想你们都忘记了德国的生态/绿色运动，它从几十年前就已经全面存在。生态学家们错误地认为，核电站比煤电厂更危险。
Marcelo Besser
Nuclear power has a military connotation. It’s never as simple as merely co2 vs. radioactive waste. Let them rationalize it any way they want. France is the legitimate nuclear powerhouse of the EU, on historical grounds, and the future Eurodeterrent is an expansion of the French nuclear military program - while German contrition is a key moral fundament the EU is built on. Separating military (Paris) and economic (Berlin) leadership balances the structure and makes a stable base.
核电具有军事内涵。它绝不仅仅是二氧化碳与放射性废物的对比那么简单。让他们以任何他们想要的方式合理化它吧。从历史角度看，法国是欧盟的合法核大国，未来的欧洲威慑力量是法国核军事计划的扩展——而德国的忏悔是欧盟赖以建立的关键道德基础。将军事（巴黎）和经济（柏林）的领导权分开，可以平衡结构，形成一个稳定的基础。
Nuclear power has a military connotation. It’s never as simple as merely co2 vs. radioactive waste. Let them rationalize it any way they want. France is the legitimate nuclear powerhouse of the EU, on historical grounds, and the future Eurodeterrent is an expansion of the French nuclear military program - while German contrition is a key moral fundament the EU is built on. Separating military (Paris) and economic (Berlin) leadership balances the structure and makes a stable base.
核电具有军事内涵。它绝不仅仅是二氧化碳与放射性废物的对比那么简单。让他们以任何他们想要的方式合理化它吧。从历史角度看，法国是欧盟的合法核大国，未来的欧洲威慑力量是法国核军事计划的扩展——而德国的忏悔是欧盟赖以建立的关键道德基础。将军事（巴黎）和经济（柏林）的领导权分开，可以平衡结构，形成一个稳定的基础。
Jim Rogers
You can't be serious with this.
Nuclear power generation has precisely nothing to do with the military.
You're kind of proving the answer's point about irrational responses to nuclear power.
Edited to add: To those whinging about how nuclear power has its roots in the military, you’re absolutely right. But I didn’t say Nuclear power never had anything to do with the military. I said nuclear power has precisely nothing to do with the military. And I stand by that point.
你不是认真的吧。
核能发电恰恰与军事没有关系。
你有点证明了答案中关于对核电存在的非理性反应的观点。
编辑补充：对于那些对核能如何起源于军事的人来说，你说得很对。但我没有说核电从未与军事有任何关系。我说核电恰恰与军事无关。而且我坚持这一观点。
You can't be serious with this.
Nuclear power generation has precisely nothing to do with the military.
You're kind of proving the answer's point about irrational responses to nuclear power.
Edited to add: To those whinging about how nuclear power has its roots in the military, you’re absolutely right. But I didn’t say Nuclear power never had anything to do with the military. I said nuclear power has precisely nothing to do with the military. And I stand by that point.
你不是认真的吧。
核能发电恰恰与军事没有关系。
你有点证明了答案中关于对核电存在的非理性反应的观点。
编辑补充：对于那些对核能如何起源于军事的人来说，你说得很对。但我没有说核电从未与军事有任何关系。我说核电恰恰与军事无关。而且我坚持这一观点。
Dmitry Rubinstein
Actually, his was the only answer I've seen here so far, that addresses the core issue: the difference between France and Germany on the issue of nuclear power. Note also that an answer about public perception needs not necessarily to be rational, because public perception rarely is.
实际上，到目前为止，他是我在这里看到的唯一解决了核心问题的答案：法国和德国在核电问题上的分歧。还要注意，关于公众认知的答案不一定是理性的，因为公众认知很少是理性的。
Actually, his was the only answer I've seen here so far, that addresses the core issue: the difference between France and Germany on the issue of nuclear power. Note also that an answer about public perception needs not necessarily to be rational, because public perception rarely is.
实际上，到目前为止，他是我在这里看到的唯一解决了核心问题的答案：法国和德国在核电问题上的分歧。还要注意，关于公众认知的答案不一定是理性的，因为公众认知很少是理性的。
Roger Phelps
Actually nuclear power has or did have a lot to do with the military. A civil nuclear program is a very convenient way of producing weapons grade plutonium. All that is required is to separate it from the waste stream. That is why plant like Sellafield were built
事实上，核电已经或确实与军事有很大关系。民用核项目是生产武器级钚的一个非常方便的途径。所需要的只是将其从废物流中分离出来。这就是像塞拉菲尔德这样的工厂被建造的原因。
Actually nuclear power has or did have a lot to do with the military. A civil nuclear program is a very convenient way of producing weapons grade plutonium. All that is required is to separate it from the waste stream. That is why plant like Sellafield were built
事实上，核电已经或确实与军事有很大关系。民用核项目是生产武器级钚的一个非常方便的途径。所需要的只是将其从废物流中分离出来。这就是像塞拉菲尔德这样的工厂被建造的原因。
Mark Wood
The US civilian nuclear programs put all their engineering and scientific efforts towards uranium power generation instead of exceptionally-safe thorium because uranium leads to plutonium whereas thorium does not.
The rest of the world either made the same choice or piggybacked off of what the USA developed.
A truly civilian nuclear programs *should* be using thorium predominantly if not exclusively.
美国的民用核项目将他们所有的工程和科学努力都放在了铀发电上，而不是特别安全的钍，因为铀会导致钚，而钍则不会。
世界上的其他国家要么做出同样的选择，要么就从美国的发展中搭便车。
一个真正的民用核项目*应该*主要使用钍，如果不是完全使用的话。
The US civilian nuclear programs put all their engineering and scientific efforts towards uranium power generation instead of exceptionally-safe thorium because uranium leads to plutonium whereas thorium does not.
The rest of the world either made the same choice or piggybacked off of what the USA developed.
A truly civilian nuclear programs *should* be using thorium predominantly if not exclusively.
美国的民用核项目将他们所有的工程和科学努力都放在了铀发电上，而不是特别安全的钍，因为铀会导致钚，而钍则不会。
世界上的其他国家要么做出同样的选择，要么就从美国的发展中搭便车。
一个真正的民用核项目*应该*主要使用钍，如果不是完全使用的话。
Alexander Ramsbottom
Well here is a case for nuclear power: It’s the only carbon-free energy source that can reliably deliver power day and night, through every season, almost anywhere on earth and has been proven to work on a large scale.
Renewables maybe trendy and all, but they have one massive problem: the problem of intermittence(ie. the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow.) Unless we develop batteries that can store city sized amounts of energy, renewables won’t be so fun as they will overwhelm our energy grids in summer and fail to produce enough energy to power our homes in winter. Worst of all is that unless we consider nuclear power, we’ll never fully ween our dependence on fossil fuels as we will need fossil fuels when renewables fail to provide enough energy in winter.
这是核电的一个例子：它是唯一一种无碳能源，可以在每个季节，几乎在地球上的任何地方，昼夜可靠地提供电力，并且已被证明可以大规模工作。
可再生能源也许很时髦，，但它们有一个大问题：间歇性问题（即太阳并不总是照耀，风也不总是吹拂）除非我们开发出可以储存城市大小的能量的电池，否则可再生能源不会那么有趣，因为它们会在夏天压倒我们的能源网，并且无法在冬天产生足够的能源来为我们的家庭供电。最糟糕的是，除非我们考虑核能，否则我们永远不会完全摆脱对化石燃料的依赖，因为当可再生能源在冬季无法提供足够的能源时，我们将需要化石燃料。
Well here is a case for nuclear power: It’s the only carbon-free energy source that can reliably deliver power day and night, through every season, almost anywhere on earth and has been proven to work on a large scale.
Renewables maybe trendy and all, but they have one massive problem: the problem of intermittence(ie. the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow.) Unless we develop batteries that can store city sized amounts of energy, renewables won’t be so fun as they will overwhelm our energy grids in summer and fail to produce enough energy to power our homes in winter. Worst of all is that unless we consider nuclear power, we’ll never fully ween our dependence on fossil fuels as we will need fossil fuels when renewables fail to provide enough energy in winter.
这是核电的一个例子：它是唯一一种无碳能源，可以在每个季节，几乎在地球上的任何地方，昼夜可靠地提供电力，并且已被证明可以大规模工作。
可再生能源也许很时髦，，但它们有一个大问题：间歇性问题（即太阳并不总是照耀，风也不总是吹拂）除非我们开发出可以储存城市大小的能量的电池，否则可再生能源不会那么有趣，因为它们会在夏天压倒我们的能源网，并且无法在冬天产生足够的能源来为我们的家庭供电。最糟糕的是，除非我们考虑核能，否则我们永远不会完全摆脱对化石燃料的依赖，因为当可再生能源在冬季无法提供足够的能源时，我们将需要化石燃料。
Jakub Judas
I wonder if this problem with renewables won’t be solved if we just have enough of them everywhere - at any time, either the wind will be blowing or the sun will be shining somewhere.
There are no doubt many engineering issues to be solved for this to be achievable, but it should be possible, shouldn’t it?
Unil then though, nuclear for the win. We just need to remember that the amount of radioactive fuel that we can mine is limited and it will run out at some point, so unfortunately nuclear energy is not sustainable.
我在想，如果我们到处都有足够的可再生能源--在任何时候，某处不是风在吹，就是太阳在照耀，那么这个问题是不是就会得到解决。
毫无疑问，要实现这一目标，有许多工程问题需要解决，但它应该是可能的，不是吗？
不过，直到那时，核电才是赢家。我们只需要记住，我们可以开采的放射性燃料的数量是有限的，它将在某个时候耗尽，所以不幸的是，核能是不可持续的。
I wonder if this problem with renewables won’t be solved if we just have enough of them everywhere - at any time, either the wind will be blowing or the sun will be shining somewhere.
There are no doubt many engineering issues to be solved for this to be achievable, but it should be possible, shouldn’t it?
Unil then though, nuclear for the win. We just need to remember that the amount of radioactive fuel that we can mine is limited and it will run out at some point, so unfortunately nuclear energy is not sustainable.
我在想，如果我们到处都有足够的可再生能源--在任何时候，某处不是风在吹，就是太阳在照耀，那么这个问题是不是就会得到解决。
毫无疑问，要实现这一目标，有许多工程问题需要解决，但它应该是可能的，不是吗？
不过，直到那时，核电才是赢家。我们只需要记住，我们可以开采的放射性燃料的数量是有限的，它将在某个时候耗尽，所以不幸的是，核能是不可持续的。
Alexander Ramsbottom
The problem with “building enough" renewables, is that it would involve plastering every nook and cranny of the countryside with wind turbines, solar farms and pylons. The areas with the highest amount of wind and sunshine aren't the areas where people live.
Take the US for example. Most Americans live on the east coast and west coasts. However, the sunniest states are thousands of kilometres away in states such as Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico. The windiest states are Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma. Energy produced in these states would have to be carried thousands of kilometres away to power cities like New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles. In the process, states such as Arkansas, Missouri, Missippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio and Virginia are likely to get plastered in pylons.
Think the urban-rural divide is bad now, imagine how bad it will be if the US tried to transition to renewables without addressing the problem of intermittence?
Plus, most of the energy produced in the south-east is likely to get lost in transmission when being transported to New York. There is a very good reason why most coal and oil power plants are built within tens of kilometres and not thousands of kilometres of big cities.
建设足够多的"可再生能源"的问题是，这将涉及到在农村的每个角落都放上风力涡轮机、太阳能发电站和铁塔。风力和阳光最充足的地区并不是人们居住的地区。
以美国为例。大多数美国人居住在东海岸和西海岸。然而，阳光最充足的州在数千公里之外，如亚利桑那、内华达和新墨西哥等州。风力最强的州是内布拉斯加州、堪萨斯州和俄克拉荷马州。在这些州生产的能源将不得不被运到数千公里之外，为纽约、波士顿、芝加哥、旧金山和洛杉矶等城市供电。在这个过程中，阿肯色州、密苏里州、密西西比州、肯塔基州、田纳西州、印第安纳州、俄亥俄州和弗吉尼亚州等州可能会被安上铁塔。
想想现在的城乡差距已经很严重了，想象一下，如果美国试图过渡到可再生能源又不解决间歇性问题，情况会有多糟？
此外，东南地区生产的大部分能源在运往纽约时可能会在传输中丢失。这是一个为什么大多数煤炭和石油发电厂都建在离大城市几十公里而不是几千公里的范围内的重要的理由。
The problem with “building enough" renewables, is that it would involve plastering every nook and cranny of the countryside with wind turbines, solar farms and pylons. The areas with the highest amount of wind and sunshine aren't the areas where people live.
Take the US for example. Most Americans live on the east coast and west coasts. However, the sunniest states are thousands of kilometres away in states such as Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico. The windiest states are Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma. Energy produced in these states would have to be carried thousands of kilometres away to power cities like New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles. In the process, states such as Arkansas, Missouri, Missippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio and Virginia are likely to get plastered in pylons.
Think the urban-rural divide is bad now, imagine how bad it will be if the US tried to transition to renewables without addressing the problem of intermittence?
Plus, most of the energy produced in the south-east is likely to get lost in transmission when being transported to New York. There is a very good reason why most coal and oil power plants are built within tens of kilometres and not thousands of kilometres of big cities.
建设足够多的"可再生能源"的问题是，这将涉及到在农村的每个角落都放上风力涡轮机、太阳能发电站和铁塔。风力和阳光最充足的地区并不是人们居住的地区。
以美国为例。大多数美国人居住在东海岸和西海岸。然而，阳光最充足的州在数千公里之外，如亚利桑那、内华达和新墨西哥等州。风力最强的州是内布拉斯加州、堪萨斯州和俄克拉荷马州。在这些州生产的能源将不得不被运到数千公里之外，为纽约、波士顿、芝加哥、旧金山和洛杉矶等城市供电。在这个过程中，阿肯色州、密苏里州、密西西比州、肯塔基州、田纳西州、印第安纳州、俄亥俄州和弗吉尼亚州等州可能会被安上铁塔。
想想现在的城乡差距已经很严重了，想象一下，如果美国试图过渡到可再生能源又不解决间歇性问题，情况会有多糟？
此外，东南地区生产的大部分能源在运往纽约时可能会在传输中丢失。这是一个为什么大多数煤炭和石油发电厂都建在离大城市几十公里而不是几千公里的范围内的重要的理由。
很赞 1
收藏