and before we have the debate i'd like to actually take a show of hands on balance right now are you for or against this so those who are yes raise your hand
okay hands down those who are against raise your hands
okay i'm reading that at about seventy five twenty five in favor at the start which means we're going to take a vote at the end and see how that shifts
so in favor of the proposition possibly shockingly is one of truly the founders of the environmental movement a long standing tedster the founder of the whole earth catalog someone we all know and love stewart brand
saying is that with climate those who know the most
with nuclear those who know the most are the least
hard over for nuclear power as are most climatologists who are engaging this issue seriously
this is the design situation a planet that is facing climate change and is now half urban
look at the client base for this five out of six of us live in the developing world
we are moving to cities we are moving up in the world
we are educating our kids having fewer kids basically good news all around but we move to cities toward the bright lights and one of the things that is there that we want besides jobs is electricity
this is one of the most desired things by poor people all over the world in the cities and in the countryside
and so far there are only three major sources of that
which in most places is maxed out and nuclear
i would love to have something in the fourth place here but in terms of constant clean scalable energy and wind and the other renewables aren't there yet because they're inconstant
nuclear is and has been for forty years
from an environmental standpoint
the main thing you want to look at is what happens to the waste
from nuclear and from coal
the two major sources of electricity
of coal
up to one hell of a lot of carbondioxide in a normal one gigawatt coal fired plant
then what happens to the waste the nuclear waste
typically goes into a dry cask storage out back of the parking lot at the reactor site because most places don't have undergroundstorage yet it's just as well
can stay where it is while the carbondioxide vast quantities of it
yet and where it is causing the problems that we're most concerned about
of these various energy sources
nuclear is down there with wind and hydro below solar and way below obviously all the fossil fuels
wonderful i love wind i love being around these
big wind generators
but one of the things we're discovering is that wind like solar is an actuallyrelatively dilute source of energy
and so it takes a very large footprint on the land a very large footprint in terms of materials five to ten times what you'd use for nuclear
in places like denmark and germany they've maxed out on wind already they've run out of good sites the power lines are getting overloaded and you peak out likewise with solar
an environmentalist we would rather that didn't happen
it's okay on frapped out agricultural land solar 's wonderful on rooftops
when you add all these things up
saul griffith did the numbers and figured out what it would take to get thirteen clean terawatts of energy
from wind solar and biofuels
that area would be roughly the size the united states an area he refers to as
guy who 's added all this up very well is david mackay a physicist in england and in his wonderful book sustainable energy among other things he says i 'm not trying to be pro nuclear i'm just pro arithmetic
in terms of weapons the best disarmament tool so far is nuclear energy we have been taking down the russian warheads turning it into electricity ten percent of american electricity comes from decommissioned warheads
we haven't even started the american stockpile
i think of most interest to a ted audience would be the new generation of reactors that are very small
down around ten to one hundred and twenty five megawatts
this is one from toshiba
and that would be very interesting in the developing world typically these things are put in the ground
referred to as nuclear batteries they're incredibly safe weapons proliferation proof and all the rest of it here is a commercialversion from new mexico called the hyperion
and another one from oregon called nuscale
babcock wilcox that make nuclear reactors here 's an integral fast reactor thorium reactor that nathan myhrvold 's involved in
the governments of the world are going to have to decide that coal needs to be made expensive and these will go ahead
at the nitty gritty heart of the energydebate and the climate change
two thousand he discovered that soot was probably the second leading cause of global warming after co two his team have been making detailed calculations
of the relative impacts of different energy sources his first time at ted possibly a disadvantage we shall see from stanford professor mark jacobson
my premise here is that nuclear energy puts out more carbondioxide puts out more air pollutants enhances mortality more and takes longer to put up than real renewable energy systems namely wind solar geothermal power hydro tidal wave power
and it also enhances nuclear weapons proliferation so let 's just start by looking at the co two emissions from the life cycle co two e emissions are equivalent emissions of all the greenhouse gases and particles that
cause warming and converted to co two and if you look wind and concentrated solar have the lowest co two emissions if you look at the graph nuclear there
bars here one is a low estimate and one is a high estimate the low estimate is the nuclear energy industry estimate of nuclear the high is the average of one hundred and three
scientific peer reviewed studies and this is just the co two from the life cycle if we look at the delays
it takes between ten and nineteen years to put up a nuclear power plant from planning to operation this includes about three and a half
to six years for a site permit and another two and a half to four years for a construction permit and issue and then four to nine years for actual construction
and in china right now they're putting up five gigawatts of nuclear and the average just for the construction time of these is seven point one years
top of any planning times while you're waiting around for your nuclear you have to run the regular electric power grid which is
to five years on average same as concentrated solar and photovoltaics so the difference is the opportunity cost of using nuclear versus wind
or something else so if you add these two together alone you can see a separation that nuclear puts out at least nine to seventeen times more co two equivalent emissions than wind energy
and so on the right you see gasoline emissions the death rates of two thousand and twenty if you go to corn or cellulosic ethanol you'd actually increase the death rate slightly
if you go to nuclear you do get a big reduction but it's not as much as with wind and or concentrated solar now if you consider the fact that nuclear
weapons proliferation is associated with nuclear energy proliferation because we know for example india and pakistan developed nuclear weapons secretly by enriching uranium in nuclear energy facilities
do a large scale expansion of nuclear energy across the world and as a result there was just one nuclear bomb created that was used to destroy a city such as mumbai or
ground for wind is by far the smallest of any energy source
in the world that because the footprint as you can see is just the
pole touching the ground and you can power the entire u s vehicle fleet with seventy three thousand to one hundred and forty five thousand five megawatt wind turbines
that would take between one and three sq km of footprint on the ground entirely the spacing is something else
be used for multiple purposes including agricultural land range land or
space over the ocean it's not even land now if we look at nuclear
with nuclear what do we have we have facilities around there you also have a buffer zone that's seventeen sq km and you have the uranium mining
that you have to deal with now if we go to the area lots is worse than nuclear or wind for example
from prairie grass here 's corn ethanol it's smaller this is based on ranges from data but if you look at nuclear it would be the size of rhode island to power the u s vehicle fleet for wind
looking at geothermal it's even smaller than both and solar is slightly larger than the nuclear spacing but it's still pretty small and this is
power the entire u s vehicle fleet to power the entire world with fifty percent wind you would need about one percent of world land matching the reliability
and it considers just using existing hydro to match the hour by hour power demand here are the world wind resources there's five to ten times more wind available
than we need for all the world so then the finally ranking and one last slide i just want to show this is the choice you can either have wind or nuclear if you use wind you guarantee ice will
so while they're having their comebacks on each other and yours is slightly short because you slightly overran i need two people from either side so if you're for this if you're for nuclear power
whatever
i think a point of difference we're having mark
has to do with weapons and energy
these diagrams that show that nuclear is somehow putting out a lot of greenhouse gases a lot of those studies will include well of course war will be inevitable and therefore we'll have cities burning and stuff like that which is kind of finessing it a little bit i think
the reality is that there 's what twenty one nations that have nuclear power of those seven have nuclear weapons in every case they got the weapons before they got the nuclear power
there are two nations north korea and israel that have nuclear weapons and don't have nuclear power at all
the places that we would most like to have really clean energy occur are china india europe north america
all of which have sorted out their situation in relation to nuclear weapons so that leaves a couple of places like iran maybe venezuela
that you would like to have very close
well we know india and pakistan had nuclear energy first and then they developed nuclear weapons secretly in the factories so the other thing is
we don't need nuclear energy there's plenty of solar and wind you can make it reliable as i showed with that diagram that's from real data and this is an ongoing research this is not rocket science
softly from a risk managementstandpoint agreeing that the risks of overheating the planet outweigh the risk of
that is we face a situation where it's carbon caps on this planet or die and
the propaganda from the industry has been very very strong and we have not had the other side of the argument fully aired so that people can draw their own conclusions be very aware of the propaganda secondly
think about this if we build all these nuclear power plants all that waste is going to be on hundreds if not thousands of trucks and trains moving through this country every day
tell me they're not going to have accidents tell me that those accidents aren't going to put material into the environment that is poisonous for hundreds of thousands of years
and then tell me that each and every one of those trucks and trains isn't a potential terrorist target ca thank you
hi i'm alex i just wanted to say i 'm first of all renewable energy 's biggest fan i've got solar pv on my roof i've got a hydro conversion
and i 'm you know very much pro that kind of stuff however there's a basic arithmetic problem here the capability of the sun shining the wind blowing
and the rain falling simply isn't enough to add up so if we want to keep the lights on we actually need a solution which is going to keep generating all of the time
i campaigned against nuclear weapons in the eighties and i continue to do so now but we've got an opportunity to recycle them into something more useful that enables us to get energy all of the time
the last person who was in favor made the premise that we don't have enough alternative renewable resources and our
is not possible i will also add one other thing ray kurzweil and all the other talks we know that the stick is going up exponentially so you can't look at state of the art technologies in renewables and say
all we have because five years from now it will blow you away what we'll actually have as alternatives to this horribledisastrous nuclear power
so each of you
has really just a couple sentences thirty seconds each
final pitch stewart sb i loved your it all balances out chart that you had there it was a sunny day and a windy night
just now in england they had a cold spell all of the wind in the entire country shut down for a week none of those things were stirring and as usual they had to buy nuclear power from france two gigawatts comes through the chunnel this keeps happening
i used to worry about the ten thousand year factor
and the fact is we're going to use the nuclear waste we have for fuel in the fourth generation of reactors that are coming along and especially the small reactors need to go forward i heard from nathan myhrvold and i think here 's the action point
take an act of congress to make the nuclear regulatory commission start moving quickly on these small reactors which we need very much here and in the world
so we've analyzed
now with regard to the resources we've developed the first wind map of the world from data alone at eighty meters we know what the resources are you can cover fifteen percent
okay so
so if you were in
palm springs
so people of the ted community i put it to you that what the world needs now is nuclear energy all those in favor raise your hands
and all those against ooooh now that is
my take on that just put up hands up people who changed their minds during the debate who voted differently those of you who changed your mind in favor of for put your hands
so here 's the read on it both people won supporters but on my count the
shifted from about seventy five twenty five to about sixty five thirty five in favor
in favor you both won i congratulate both of you
生词表: