听力课堂TED音频栏目主要包括TED演讲的音频MP3及中英双语文稿，供各位英语爱好者学习使用。本文主要内容为演讲MP3+双语文稿:人类究竟需要多少清洁电力？，希望你会喜欢！

【主讲人】Solomon Goldstein-Rose
气候作家，著有《100%解决方案：解决气候变化的计划》一书，该书列出了为扭转全球变暖而必须实际实现的目标。

【演讲主题】How much clean electricity do we really need?
许多人说，为了应对气候变化，我们需要通过用清洁发电取代化石燃料发电厂来清理全球电力系统。然而演讲者认为我们应该做的远不止这些。他认为需要发展一个新的全球系统，能够生产我们今天所产生的12倍的清洁电力。

【中英文稿】
Hello, how is everyone feeling?
哈啰，大家好吗？

Are you ready to solve climate change?
你们准备好解决气候变化的问题了吗？

Good.
很好。

Do you know what a pettawat hour is? Yeah, it's a unit of energy like kilowatt hour or megawatt hour. I've been a climate activist since age 11 and I studied engineering, and so I was familiar with those terms. Kilowatt, megawatt, even gigawatt and terawatt. But I had never heard of a petawatt hour until I wrote a book on climate change solutions. That's because it's so big. But that's the scale I want to talk about.
你们知道「拍瓦时」是什么吗？是的，它是能量的单位，就像千瓦时或兆瓦时。我从十一岁时就成为气候活动家，我读的是工程，所以我对那些词很熟悉。千瓦、兆瓦，甚至吉瓦、太瓦。但我从来没有听过拍瓦时，直到我写了一本关于气候变迁解决方案的书。因为这个单位真的很大。但那就是我想要谈的规模。

A petawatt hour is a trillion kilowatt hours. And today the world generates about 25 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity each year. Most of that is from fossil-fuel power plants, and the dominant mindset is that we have to change the current electricity system by replacing those fossil-fuel plants with clean generation by 2050.
一拍瓦时等于一兆千瓦时。现在，全世界能产生约每年二十五兆千瓦时的电力。大部分是来自化石燃料发电厂。目前的主流心态是：我们必须改变目前的电力系统，把那些化石燃料发电厂换掉，在2050年前都换为干净的发电。

Well, over one third of our electricity generation is already clean, mostly from hydro and nuclear, along with wind and solar, and clean generation is growing. Projections based on current policies around the world show that we are on track to have about 25 petawatt hours of clean electricity generation in 2050. That's two and a half times today's amount of clean generation and equal to today's total generation.
目前的发电有三分之一以上已经是干净的了，主要来自水力和核能发电，还有风力和太阳能， 干净的发电越来越多。根据世界各地目前政策所做的预测指出我们目前的方向，可以在2050年达成二十五拍瓦时的干净能源。那是现今干净电力的两倍半，且等同于现今的总发电量。

So this is great. We can replace all our fossil fuel plants, have a clean version of today's world, walk away, we've solved climate change. Thank you very much.
这很棒。我们可以把所有化石燃料发电厂换掉，拥有现今世界的干净版，气候变迁已解决，退场。非常感谢。

Oh, but I did forget one tiny little detail. We actually need five times that much. To be clear, we need and we're on track to have two and a half times today's amount of clean generation to switch to a clean version of our current electricity system. But changing the current system isn't enough.
喔，但我忘了说一个小细节。我们需要的量是那个量的五倍。清楚来说，我们需要且我们正在努力做到两倍半的现有干净电力，才能换到目前电力系统的干净版本。但改变目前的系统还不够。

We need five times that, all of it clean, or 12 times today's clean electricity production, to actually avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Can I repeat that? To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we have to multiply today's clean electricity production by 12 times.
必须有目前总电量的五倍是干净发电，或者现今干净电力量的十二倍，才能真正避免气候变迁最糟糕的冲击。我能重复一遍吗？要避免气候变迁最糟糕的冲击，我们必须要把现今的 干净电力变成十二倍。

There are four main reasons we need that much. First, let’s keep in mind scientists’ goalpost for addressing climate change: achieving net-negative emissions globally by around 2050. Most of us know that to do so, we'll have to electrify a whole range of vehicles, heating systems and some industrial processes. Electric equipment is more efficient than fuel-based equipment. So electrification actually lowers total global energy demand, but it increases electricity generation needed. In our current energy world, electrifying 60 percent, which is ambitious, would add enough demand that we would need roughly 40 petawatt hours of total electricity generation by 2050.
需要这么多电力的主要原因有四。第一，别忘了科学家为了处理气候变迁设定的目标：在2050年左右达成全球净负零排放。大部分人知道，若要达标，我们得要电气化全系列的车辆、暖气系统，以及一些工业流程。用电的设备比用燃料的设备更有效益。所以，电气化其实会让全球的能源需求下降，但需要产出更多的电力。在目前的能源世界里，若能实现六成电气化的野心，因此增加的需求会需要我们在2050年时能生产出约四十拍瓦时的电力。

Second, it's not OK to simply replace today's world with a clean version. In today's world, over 700 million people don't have access to electricity. Billions more have access only to small amounts or to unreliable supply that often cuts out. Energy demand in rich industrialized countries will grow more slowly over the next few decades with increased efficiency. But energy demand in developing countries will continue to grow dramatically, especially if we can make electricity cheaper. This is good. Energy access is lifting people out of poverty, driving access to education, commerce, health care and lower birth rates. Both for moral and practical reasons, those of us in richer countries need to realize that addressing climate change will necessarily center on a massive expansion of energy access in developing countries. So electricity generation will have to grow even more and get cheaper to accommodate global economic development. Based on projections of global development by 2050, generation needed rises to 60 petawatt hours per year.
第二，单纯把现今的世界换成干净版本是不行的。在现今的世界，超过七亿人无法取得电力。 还有数十亿人只能取得少量电力， 或者电力供应不可靠，常会断电。 在富裕的工业化国家， 能源需求的成长在接下来几十年会比较缓慢，因为效益增加了。但在开发中国家的能源需求 会持续剧烈成长，若我们能让电力更便宜，就会越严重。这是好事。能取得能源，是脱离贫穷的路，能带动教育的普及、商业、健康照护，以及降低生育率。基于道德及实际的理由， 身在较富裕国家的我们必须要知道，处理气候变迁势必会着重大量扩展开发中国家的能源普及。所以发电量必须要再增加且变更便宜，才能配合全球的经济发展。根据到2050年的全球发展预测，电力需求提升到每年六十拍瓦时。

The third reason is a bit more debatable, but it needs to be talked about more in public discourse. It has to do with the fact that not everything can be electrified by 2050. Long-range airplanes, for instance, are still going to need the energy density of a liquid fuel. Similar for some industrial processes. Now, many models waive this issue away with two overoptimistic assumptions: that all those factories continue burning fossil fuels but use carbon capture, which costs extra and will only happen where governments mandate it, and that all those long-range vehicles use sustainable biofuel, which is only sustainable if every supplying country, and its local governments, fully enforces strict standards for biomass to avoid deforestation and other impacts that could increase emissions from agriculture. Some amount of carbon capture at factories and sustainable bioenergy will absolutely be part of the picture. But I’ve been in politics, and I am sure that we should plan for imperfect policy. And that means we need to plan for building even more electricity generation. We can use this additional generation to synthesize fuels that are truly carbon neutral or entirely carbon free: hydrogen, ammonia, synthetic jet fuel and others. This is a much rougher estimate, but to be confident of minimizing climate change impacts, we should aim to push our line up to around 90 petawatt hours per year.
第三个理由比较有争议，但更需要在公共论述中去谈它。这个理由是到2050年时不是什么都能电气化。比如，长程飞机仍然需要液体燃料的能源密度。有些工业流程也是如此。许多模型靠着两个过度乐观的假设把这个议题踢开：所有持续燃烧化石燃料的工厂会采用碳捕捉，不过那要额外成本，只有政府强制要求才有可能实现；而长程交通工具会用永续的生物燃料，生物燃料要能永续，前提是所有的供应国以及当地的政府能确实实施严格的生物量标准，以避免森林砍伐以及其他可能会增加农业排放的影响。一些工厂的碳捕捉及永续的生物能源绝对会是远景的一部分。但我待过政治圈，我很确定我们应该为不完美的政策做计划。 那就表示我们需要规划更多的发电。我们可以用额外的电力来合成燃料，真正碳中性或完全无碳的燃料：氢、氨、合成喷射机燃料等等。这估计更粗糙，但若要很有信心能将气候变迁的冲击减至最低，我们应该把目标向上推到大约每年九十拍瓦时。

Finally, the fourth reason is that we need not only net-zero but net-negative emissions in 2050. There will be some non-energy emissions that remain, especially from agriculture. And we'll have to pull CO2 from the atmosphere to make up for those. But we also need to use all our possible carbon-removal methods at their maximum capacity to remove more CO2 each year, getting as far as possible into net-negative emissions, drawing down levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to eventually restore a stable climate. One of the carbon-removal methods we’ll have to use is direct air-capture: arrays of fans filtering CO2 from the air. And doing enough of this to restore safe temperatures within decades, not centuries, will require yet more electricity generation. Again, the exact amount depends on quite how ambitious we're able to be. But for a comfortable rate of carbon removal, we would need perhaps 120 petawatt hours per year total.
最后，第四个理由是，到 2050 年，我们不仅要达到净零，还要达到净负排放。到时仍然会有一些非能源的排放，特别是来自农业。我们得把二氧化碳从大气中移除才能弥补。但，我们也得把所有可能用得上的除碳方法发挥到极限，每年除去更多二氧化碳。尽可能做到净负排放，让大气中的温室气体减少，终于才能恢复稳定的气候。我们必须要使用的其中一种除碳方法是直接空气捕捉：用大量风扇从空气中过滤出二氧化碳。要做到足以在数十年内，而非数世纪内，恢复安全气温，就需要更多的电力。确切的量，也是要看我们能有多大的野心了。但，要把除碳做到舒适的程度，总共可能会需要每年一百二十拍瓦时。

So roughly five times today's total global electricity system, 12 times today's clean electricity production, and that can actually achieve net-negative emissions globally.
所以大约是现今全球总电力系统的五倍，现今干净电力的十二倍，那就能达到全球净负排放的目标。

And there's a bonus reason to consider. Because clean electricity is going to power so much of the rest of the transition: electrification, global development, synthesized fuels and sequestration, to achieve net-negative emissions by 2050, we should really build as much as possible of that new electricity generation at the beginning of the transition, starting now. This will make sure that clean electricity is abundant and cheap soon enough to still leave time for all of the other transitions that rely on it to fully roll out by 2050.
还有一个额外的理由要考虑。因为转型剩下的部分也几乎都要用到干净电力：电气化、全球发展、合成燃料，以及碳封存，要在2050年达成净负排放，我们应该要在转型之初，也就是从现在开始，就尽可能去做这些新的发电计划。这样就能确保能尽快达到充裕且便宜的干净电力，还能留下足够时间，让其他仰赖它的转型计划能在2050年全面推出。

And when we talk about abundant and cheap electricity, we're talking about eliminating poverty faster, powering access to water desalination, strengthening medical supply chains, so much more. Decarbonizing and scaling electricity generation will also be the biggest global development project ever.
当有充裕且便宜的电力，就能更快消除贫困，协助海水淡化普及，强化医疗供应链，还有很多很多。除碳以及扩大发电规模也会是史上最大的全球发展计划。

So if we want to avoid the worst of climate change, we need to discard that dominant mindset about merely replacing fossil fuel generation. My point is, that misses the scale. Our project is not changing the current global electricity system. Our project is building a new global electricity system. Political action that tinkers around within the current system will never get us where we need to be by 2050. Arguments over which sources of clean electricity we should use are unhelpful. We need all of them: hydro, solar, wind, nuclear, advanced nuclear, advanced geothermal, mandates for carbon capture on remaining fossil plants. If you look at the potential rates of addition for each of these, you'll see we need everything as much as possible and we may still fall short.
所以，如果我们想要避免气候变迁最糟的结果，我们得要抛弃那种主流心态，也就是只把化石燃料发电换掉即可。我要说的是，那种想法没考虑到规模。我们的计划不是改变目前的全球电力系统。我们的计划是建造一个新的全球电力系统。在目前系统中做些小修改的政治行动永远不可能让我们达成2050年的目标。争论我们应该用哪些干净电力来源并没有帮助。 所有的来源都需要：氢、太阳能、风力、核能、先进核能、先进地热，强制剩余化石燃料发电厂进行碳捕捉的规定。如果去看每一项可能增加多少电力，就会知道我们会需要它们全部，越多越好，可能还不够呢。

It's not changing the electricity system. It's building a new electricity system. One five times bigger than today's total system and 100 percent clean.
重点不是要改变电力系统。是要建造新的电力系统。比现今总体的电力系统大五倍，且100%干净。

As fellow youth activists often say, the project is much more comparable to the World War II-era manufacturing boom than anything the world has done since. Building new things that we've barely ever built before, in massive amounts, to create a new system entirely.
青年活动家伙伴们常说，这个计划更像是二次大战时期的制造业迅速发展，自此之后就没有比得上的现象了。建造我们以前几乎没有建造过的新东西，且量非常大，是完全创造一个新系统。

In fact, this mindset goes beyond electricity-generation itself. Many people are wary of ambitious climate action because they see the project as changing the familiar current world. That's not it. Addressing climate change means building a new world. A world in which energy is healthier, doesn't pollute the air we breathe and where it's cheaper and everyone globally has access to it. A world with higher incomes, longer and better lives, greater equality. A better world.
事实上，这种心态不限于发电本身。许多人对于有野心的气候行动会小心翼翼，因为他们认为这个计划是在改变目前他们熟悉的世界。不是这样的。处理气候变迁意味着建造新世界。 在这个新世界里，能源更健康，不会污染我们呼吸的空气，且能源更便宜，全世界每个人都能取得。在这个新世界里，收入更高，更长寿，更好的生活，更平等。更好的世界。

Thank you, and let's make it happen.
谢谢。咱们让它成真吧。