☆☆四星级☆☆Economist Debate阅读写作分析－－energy crisis

ddcmj519UID: 176326

http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/131

About this debate

Conservationor innovation? Practising what we know or pushing the boundaries ofwhat we hope? Will the reduction of global energy consumption be enoughto sustain current fossil-fuel reserves? Or should all efforts bedirected towards discovering new technologies that broaden the world’senergy portfolio? Which option is the more important to support, in thenear term, by providing additional resources and enacting strongpublic-policy initiatives? Given that both efforts are currently beingexplored in parallel, where should the centre of gravity lie?

ddcmj519UID: 176326

1

ddcmj519UID: 176326

opening

Globalenergy crisis

概括：Thishouse believes that we can solveour energy problems withexisting technologiestoday, without theneed for breakthrough innovations.

Welcome to the latest Economistdebate. This round, we are taking up one of the thorniest（多刺的，棘手的=prickly,ticklish, knotty）topicsfacing humanity today: the interrelated tangles （困惑 perplexity bewilderment baffle muddle quandary ）ofenergy, climate change and innovation.

JosephRomm lays out the argument in favour of the proposition（赞同）forcefully. Hepoints to various evidence, including the work of the UN'sIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to conclude that aclimate crisis is looming（逼近approach drawnear drawup gainon impendover approximating）.This, he argues, means the world "must deploy（部署）staggering（惊人的）amounts oflow-carbon energy technology as rapidly as possible." This meansgovernment policy must not be distracted by the slow, if sexy（不懂。）,process of technology development. He insists that policy must focuson the speedy deployment of the many clean technologies we alreadyhave ready or close to commercialisation.

Takenat face value（根据外表判断）,the Con side does not disagree with the notion that a great deal oflow-carbon technology needs to be deployed. Peter Meisen opens hisargument by invoking President George Bush's famousline about theworld being "addicted to oil" andacknowledging the climate problem, and goes on to cite various formsof renewable energy that can help. He even appears to agree with theside opposite that the key is "scale and speed." However,he goes on to cite examples rangingfrom Iceland'sembrace of geothermal over coal generation to rural villagesleapfrogging to micro-wind and solar that make clear he believes inthe need for entirely new innovations. A "design sciencerevolution" is required, he insists, but it is possible nowbecause "emergencies help us focus."

Inshort, this is not merely a Luddite battling aTechno-Utopian（勒德分子是一个害怕或者厌恶技术的人，尤其是威胁现有工作的新技术的形式。在工业革命期间，英格兰的纺织工人主张模仿一个叫做NedLudd的人破坏工厂设备来抵制节省劳动力的技术带个工厂的改变。今天，术语勒德分子仍然指认为技术对社会产生的损害要多于益处的人。勒德主义的极端形式，包括肆意破坏技术，现在已经很少见了，尤其是在生活水平高的国家。通常保护着反对自动化或者威胁工作机会的技术进步的形式有磨洋工，装病或者罢工。有争议的是恶意的把病毒和蠕虫放入因特网是现代形式的勒德主义。）.We have a much more interesting battle of wits（智力）gettingunderway（起步）,one in which nuance（细微差别）andpassion seem likely to be interwoven交织with thethrust and parry（似乎是推敲的意思）.

Sowhat do you think? Judging from the intensity of the openingcomments, this promises to be the most thought-provoking andcertainly the most timely of our debates thus far. Please do jump inthe fray （加入辩论）andoffer your views on this great debate of the age.

ddcmj519UID: 176326

（为了不掉色用了下划线和粗体。。结果掉空格了 ＝ ＝。。）

Thebad news is we can't wait for breakthroughs to solve our energy problems. The good newsis we don't have to.

"Ifthere's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."1

Thoseare the words of Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last November after the release of the IPCC's definitive scientific synthesis report on the state of the site of the understanding of climate change.一串of。。

AndMr Pachauri is no alarmist. Indeed, the Bush administrationsuccessfully lobbiedto install theengineer and economist as IPCC chair in 2002 after forcingout the outspoken MrRobert Watson. But IPCC chairs aren't born alarmists—asober study of the facts makes them that way.

Afterignoring the increasingly direwarnings of thescientific community for nearly three decades, humanityhas simply run out oftime for dawdling onclimate change. According to the IPCC report—whose wording wasagreed to by every member government, including the Saudis, theChinese and the Bush administration—the earth is on an emissionspath headed towards more than 5°C warming from pre-industrial levelsthis century2. With such warming, the world faces multiple miseries,including:

全球变暖可能后果：海平面上升，沙漠化加剧冰川缩减，物种灭绝海洋酸化
*Sea level rise of 80 feet to 250 feet at a rate of six inches perdecade (or more).
*Desertification of one third the planet and drought over half theplanet, plus the loss of all inland glaciers.
*More than 70% of all species going extinct, plus extreme oceanacidification3.

How can we avoid this catastrophe? How can we keep total planetary warming below the 2°C level that the IPCC and other major scientific bodies say is the maximum we can risk if we want to avoid suffering catastrophic impacts and crossing tipping points that could lead to rapid warming?

The answer is we must deploy staggering amounts of low-carbon energy technology as rapidly as possible. How much, how fast? As I detailed in a recent online article in Nature 4, the "how much?" is illustrated by one possible set of solutions:

*Concentrated solar thermal electric: 1,600 gigawatts peak power
*Nuclear: 700 new gigawatt-sized plants (plus 300 replacement plants)
*Coal: 800 gigawatt-sizedplants with all the carbon captured and permanently sequestered
*Solar photovoltaics: 3,000 gigawatts peak power
*Efficient buildings: savings totalling 5 million gigawatt-hours
*Efficient industry: savings totalling 5 million gigawatt-hours,including co-generation and heat recovery
*Wind power: 1 million large wind turbines(2 megawatts peak power)
*Vehicle efficiency: all cars 60 miles per US gallon
*Wind for vehicles: 2,000 gigawatts wind, with most cars plug-inhybrid-electric vehicles or pure electric vehicles
*Cellulosic biofuels:using up to one-sixth of the world's cropland
*Forestry: end all tropical deforestation
由于c地表以上的循环的石油的开采和生物作用沉积的c总量问题。

Each of those so-called "stabilisation wedges" requires an astonishing level of effort5. For instance, the 800 GW of coal with carbon capture and storage represents a flow of CO2 into the ground equal to the current flow of oil out of the ground. It would require,by itself, re-creating the equivalent of the planet's entire oil delivery infrastructure.

How fast? The Princeton scientists who originally proposed the wedge sidea imagined they could be deployed over five decades. In fact, to keep total warming below 2°C, we would need to start deploying them almost immediately and finish them all within three decades, by 2040.

Nonetheless,the central conclusion of the Princeton analysis remains true:"Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century."Indeed, most of the technologies listed above are decades old, andthe others, like cellulosic biofuels and plug-in hybrids, are in the process of being commercialised now.
这段非常有意思。首先说了个理论，人性推动科技发展。然后说之前一些老的科技已经被当作商业用途了。科技类的题目都可以采用～

The latest IPCC assessment also concludes we don't need to count on the unexpected:

There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilisation levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of aportfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialised incoming decades.

Certainly different wedges可导致严重后果的小事情than the ones described above are possible. I suspect a second wedge ofconcentrated solar thermal, also known as base load solar, may be more plausible than the coal-with-carbon-storage wedge. One thing is clear though: Given the unprecedented scale and speed of the required low-carbon energydeployment, we just don't have time to wait for multiple technology breakthroughs that may never come.
之前一直在说背景问题，介绍全球变暖的状况，可解决方案等。这里才点明主题。创新来的太慢及不可确定性。

Technologiesthat are not commercial now or aren't expected to be commercial in the next few years simply have very little chance of being able to deliver enough low-carbon energy fasten ough to matter. As Royal Dutch/Shell explained in their 2001 scenarios for how energy use is likely to evolve over the next five decades:

"Typically it has taken 25 years after commercial introduction for a primary energy form to obtain a 1% share of the global market."6
新产品的在投入市场25年后才有可能占有1％的市场。

Note that this tiny toe hold comes 25 years after commercial introduction. The first transition from scientific breakthrough to commercial introduction may itself take decades. We still haven't seen the commercial introduction of a hydrogen-fuel-cell car and have barely seen any commercial fuel cells—over 160 years after they were first invented.
从投入市场开始就需要25年了。从科研变到投入市场就需要更久了。（why？）

This tells you two important things. First, new breakthrough energy technologies simply don't enter the market fast enough to have a bigimpact in the timeframe we care about.We need strategies that can get a 5-10% share—or more—of the global market for energy in a quarter century. Second, if you are inthe kind of hurry humanity is in, then you are going to have to take unusual measures to deploy technologies far more aggressively than has ever occurred historically.

Bottom line: If we want to preserve the health and well-being of future generations, then focusing government policy and resources on speeding up existing technology deployment is far more important than focusing them on breakthrough technology development.
最后重申观点。

前面很长的背景式铺垫至最后的点题几笔。难道这就是老外的写作？还是这就只是个debate，所做的就只是为了后面铺垫？

ddcmj519UID: 176326

                                BuckminsterFuller, visionary engineer of the 20th century, would challenge hisaudiences: "There'sno energy shortage; there's no energy crisis; there's a crisis ofignorance."

Withoil at more than $100 a barrel, carbon dioxide at 383 parts permillion (ppm) and rising, China adding a coal-fired plant every week,and continuing Middle East tensions, Bucky's statement seems almostflippant.We will argue that he was right.

Abit of history frames the discussion.Mankind has had access to electricity for only 130 years. In justover a century, we have extended transmission lines, providingrefrigeration and lighting to 5 billion people around the world. Thisextraordinary featelevatedthree-quarters of humanity out of the daily toil experienced bypre-Edison generations. NASA's "Earth at Night" maphighlights this world of prosperity, yet 24% of humanity still livesin the dark. More than one and a half billion people spend their daysin repetitive labourand subsistence farming,fetching water and wood every day simply to survive. There are twoworlds—the fortunate who have electrical energy, and the poor whodo not.

Ironically,the choices we made to achieve our unprecedented prosperity may bringabout our downfall. In1950, there were 2.5 billion people and a global economy of $7trillion. In just 6 decades, we are now 6.7 billion with a $66trillion gross world product. The burning of fossil fuels in thefirst half of the 20th century had a relatively small ecologicalfootprint. Today, the consequences of energy use arefelt in everywallet, oneach continent, coastline and in our shared atmosphere.

Weare addicted to fossil fuels.前面两段主要论述Coal and naturalgas fire two-thirds of all power production and nearly alltransportation uses petroleum. Nature isn't making any more oil, gasor coal, while the IEA forecasts energy demand will increase 50% by2030. Business-as-usual is arecipe for disaster表示原因—forthe global economy and our environment.

Whenasked about solving difficult societal problems, Bucky Fuller wouldseek new tools that makethe old problem obsolete 表消除.Regarding energy issues, he posed a more expansive question: How canwe provide the quality-of-life needs for everyone ina manner 表目的thatis environmentally sustainable for our planet? The premier strategyfrom this investigation: clean electricity for all. Sounds good, butis it possible?

Scarcityof energy is a myththat persists in society, because our fixation remains on fossilfuels. Yet the resource potentials of solar, wind, hydro, geothermal,biomass and ocean energies are abundant far beyond our needs. Thewinds of the American plains are sufficient to power all theelectrical demand of the United States, and solar radiation from just3% of the world's deserts could power all global demand. Thereis no shortage of renewable energy on our planet!中心之一，呼应前文Whileannual growth rates of 20-40% for geothermal, wind and solar arepromising, their share of theenergy pie形象说明remains less than3%.

Criticsstate that renewable energies are intermittent—the sun isn't alwaysshining and the winds don't always blow—and we need reliableelectricity every second. The critical infrastructurethat solves this is high-voltage transmission. The interconnectedgrid acts as thefreeway比喻for electricityfrom generator to user, and it is already built throughout thedeveloped world. Today, bulk transmission can deliver power farbeyond political boundaries, with over 100 nations tradingelectricity for mutual benefit. Interconnected grids enable loadlevelling, economic exchange of power, system reliability andemergency back-up options. Long-distance transmission allows us totap remote renewable energy resources, sometimes located inneighbouring nations, and to feed clean electricity throughout thenetwork.简述现有资源可方便提供renewableresources

Icelandoffers a microcosm for the global transition. Fifty years ago,Icelanders imported coal to power and heat their nation. It wasexpensive and dirty. Then geographers and engineers assessed theisland's renewable potential, finding abundant hydro-electric andgeothermal resources. Since both were remote from the load centres, atransmission grid was built around the island, enabling Iceland topower all their electrical and heating needs from renewable energies.Plus 相当于what'smore, theyuse "excess" renewable energy to electrolyze water,capturing the hydrogen for a fleet of fuel-cell buses.
冰岛例子，从coal到地热能的转变。

Cleanelectricity can also transform our global oil addiction.中心再次强调Hybrid cars gettwo to three times the mileage of traditional cars, and soon plug-inhybrids will double that again. The real game-changer is plug-inhybrids that go 80 kilometres before using any combustion fuel. Mostpeople don't drive that far each day, and will use no oil in theirdaily commute! Along with electric cars, the compressed-air car, andH2 fuel cells, these advancing technologies will compete and win outover today's gasoline-driven engines. Price-weary consumers willdrive the demand for these new transportation options.
例子，新能源汽车。

Whatis critical about today's energy challenges and solutions is thematter of scale and speed.Some leading climate scientists now state that the earth'sequilibrium threshold for CO2 was 350 ppm—while population growthand energy demand are taking us to 450-550 ppm. Whilepoliticians speak of renewable targets in 2050, there remains aremarkable lack of urgency when their terms in office end next year.
回到文首的crisisof ignorance。

Noone country can solve this. America, China, India, the EU and Russiamust all embrace这里是采用的意思thistransition—or weall suffer the consequences. A doctor would tell an addict to stopabusing drugs—yet we continue building coal-fired power plantswhile watching commercials for "clean coal".又比喻。形象＋生动，而且此次是比喻前半句，接一句现实。Weare smarter than this.

Small-scalesolar and wind enable rural villages to leapfrog跳背游戏thefossil-fuel path. Energy-efficient buildings, rooftop solar, smartgrids, electric-hybrid cars and renewable electricity will become thenorm for our children. But this transition takes time, aluxury we have already squandered.We are certainly not ignorant—but societal change is hard and canbe expensive. It requires significant investment and commitment frompolicymakers, business leaders and society to move co-operatively onthis global crisis.

Emergencieshelp us to focus. What's needed is a design-science revolution—notto tear down our society, but a design revolution, using the best ofexisting and new technologies to elevate all mankind to higher,sustainable living standards.
基调均来自首段引用句。文章结构也可见一斑。此文比喻很多。

两个statement比起来，我倾向正方。2的话由于立于“不关心环境变化”的成分居多。而1强调环境重要，科研耗时等。对比看起来1就要现实一些。2个人觉得理想化了一些事情。

ddcmj519UID: 176326

                               

数据说明。信服。

Americainvested approximately $100 billion in new energy research,development and demonstration between 1973 and 2003 according to theCongressional Research Service. $50 billion went to nuclear, $25billion to fossil fuel technologies, $14 billion to renewable energy,and $11 billion to energy efficiency. I believe America and the worldgot a very good return on the $25 billion we invested in renewableenergy and energy efficiency. We have afabulous suite of一整套的new technologiesin wind power, solar energy, geothermal energy, hydro and oceanenergy, biomass energy, energy efficiency, and others in the cleantech space.
We are todayaddressingthe energy supply, environmental and climate issues withinstallations of newtechnology相当于application,with over $100 billion of capital transactions worldwide in 2007,growing over 50% per year, according to New Energy Finance.
If we defineour energy problems as "energy dependence"then I say, yes,we can solve the problem with today's technologies. We can convertthe American auto fleet to electric vehicles and E85-fueled hybridcars immediately, using off-the shelf technology. By doing so we willreduce our oil imports by 50%, and eliminate our lack of independencefrom the stranglehold international forces. It can be done—we havethe technology in hand to do it. Near-term discoveries in cellulosicethanol will help, but we are almost there.
出现科技类题目：科技问题依靠科技解决。
政治类：科技发展－降低进口－独立于国外势力。

If we defineour energy problems as the need to energize our economy while notcausing global warming and climate change, well, now, that issomething else.

We will need anelectric power system that is fundamentally different that the one wehave today. The new system will need to be centered technologicallyaround the transmission system, not the generators. A "nationalgrid" will allow us to generate electricity wherever it existsin nature, and distribute it to load centres.

We will need ahydrogen-based transportation system that takesus off of hydrocarbonfuels. After all, the decarbonisation of hydrocarbons leaves us withhydrogen, which will be the energy carrier for mobile uses just likeelectricity is the energy carrier for stationary uses.
For bothelectricity and hydrogen, we will need energy storage technologiesthat do not exist today.
For end use ofenergy, we will need appliances that do their jobs much moreefficiently that the ones we use today.
The bottomline is that we can begin to solve our energy problems with today'stechnology, so thereis no need for delay in getting started, but we will needbreakthroughs across all of these technology arenas to have the toolsfor a carbon-free society that is sustainable.
从现有科技并最终到创新科技，一步一步来才能最终解决问题。

ddcmj519UID: 176326

                                Energyefficiency — often referred to as the low-hangingfruit of the powerworld — offers one of the cheapest and most valuable tools forremaking our energylandscape. But it isjust one of the tools we need to meet very necessary, stringentcarbon reduction goals.
The world'spopulation will swell from 6.5 billion to 9 billion, at the same timethat we're struggling to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by2050. 背景知识Few industrialisedcountries are ontrack（＝onthe way）to meet theirreduction requirements—and America is one of the worstof the lot.It will take everything we can think of including energy conservationand efficiency, as well as alaundry list of renewable powersolutions and electrified transportation, to get us even inthe neighbourhood of在附近，大约these goals.
But becauseenergy efficiency is relatively low-cost, and much of the necessarytechnology is already available, it should be the place where we kickoff our energysolution strategy. Weneed more policies that incentivise efficiency, and without those ournation's strategy has noteeth.涉及政治类（onteeth  不懂。。）
Just look atwhat California has done with its utilities. The state was one of thefirst to implementutility decoupling（不懂）—separating utilityprofits from electricity sales—and encouraging utilities to provideservices beyond just power, such as efficient heating and cooling anddemand response programmes. The policies have helped Pacific Gas &Electric (PG&E) discover how cost-effective investing inefficiency programmes is—according to the California PublicUtilities Commission, the average cost of energy efficiencyprogrammes is about half the cost of base load generation.加州例子,科技高效。
PG&E saysthat throughout the three-decade life of its energy efficiencyprogrammes its customers have saved more than 118m megawatt hours ofelectricity, $22 billion, and 135m tons of CO2not emitted. For California, that means per capita energy use hasremained relatively stable, inmarked contrastto the rest ofAmerica, in which demand has jumped by 50%, according to theCalifornia Energy Commission.
Investment inutility programmes can also lead to a boom in startup innovation.While PG&E is just starting to install its smart meter program,companiessuch asGreenBox,AgileWaves,LucidDesign Groupand Onzoaretinkering with hardware and software products that will help deliverthe smart-energy home. Imagine what a blockbuster product, like aniPod of home energy consumption, combined with utilities"smartmetering capability could do.
高效也能引起创新。（正反方的结合）
Thebiggest laggard has been the federal government.States such as California, and cities like New York and SanFrancisco, have been leading the way on energy efficiency, but thefederal government still needs to do a whole lot more. FormerPresident Bill Clinton thinks decoupling should be federally mandatedto spark the same environment in other states in America. While thatmight not bepolitically feasiblein many parts of the country, it's a smart theory.
讲政府能力，权限等。政治类题目参考。
More easilydone is what Clinton and other politicians like Arizona governorJanet Napolitano, and New York city's Mayor Michael Bloombergsuggested at the recent National Clean Energy Summit in LasVegas—national energy-efficiency programmes need to beincentivised with as much focus as clean power.While solar and wind might be hotter topics, nationwide energyefficiency goals backed by investment are a mandatory first step inour efforts to reach carbon goals. Establishing such targets shouldbe the first thing we do before divinginto the various, andriskier, power solutions that could bring us therest of the way to the finish line.

ddcmj519UID: 176326

Rebuttal

总结下面2方发言，中间有很多表达观点的用法。
Now we are cooking with gas, at least as far as our energy technology debate is concerned. Not only have the Pro and Con debaters put forward sharp opening remarks, but we have also received many dozens of thoughtful comments from readers.

Charles Barton, for example, highlights the potential pitfalls of embracing geological carbon sequestration（地质碳扣押量，即生物体死亡后沉积的c含量，如贝壳，骨骼等） as a way of making new coal plants viable（=feasible）. Solarenergy4all advocates the use of economic incentives, including price signals and green taxes, as a way to boost renewable energy. Meanwhile, Loucus points out the dangers of lavishing subsidies too freely on trendy时髦的 energy technologies and alternative fuels that turn out not to be so green by observing that biofuels can be a "double-edged sword"（科技类，科技经常都是这样的，一开始很好，时间推移总会有弊端暴露出来）—especially if they involve corn in the politically powerful American Midwest.

Now, we turn to the rebuttals offered by the two sides of this most important debate.

Joseph Romm sticks to his guns in his posting（坚持观点的全新表达）, insisting that government efforts to boost deployment are more important than those for developing entirely new technologies. One reason for this, he argues, is that "the market is set up to discourage efficiency"（科技类，科技产品与市场的矛盾）: in most power markets, for example, the utility is paid more for [selling more electricity], and so has little interest in encouraging demand-side measures such as better insulation, conservation and so on.
马上想到了反例，Edison的放映机。总的来说应该是这样的。商家需要能够更赚钱的东西，科学家首先保证自己的生活，然后才是道德层面的制约


He advocates "decoupling" the payments received by utilities from peddling叫卖 electrons, and instead paying them for delivering more of what ordinary punters橄榄球员（词类活用，暗喻） really want: energy services such as cold beer and hot showers, to invoke a phrase often used by Amory Lovins（In the 1990s, his work with the Rocky Mountain Institute has included the design of an ultra-efficient automobile, the "Hypercar". Lovins has been one of the most influential American voices advocating a "soft energy path" for the U.S. and other nations. He has been able to assemble a very impressive array of facts, computations, economic-analyses, forecasts, and arguments that appeal on a common-sense level. He has advocated energy-use and energy-production concepts based, on one hand, on conservation and efficiency, and on the other, on the use of renewable sources of energy and on generation of energy at or near the site where the energy is actually used.）, a respected energy guru. Interestingly, he parts company with those in the climate crisis camp, including Al Gore（戈尔，《不可忽视的真相》）, who now advocate a "Manhattan Project" or "moonshot" approach. Such a crash course may be fine for getting a breakthrough new technology to work once, costs be damned, but he thinks the better way to change the energy system fast is to get existing clean technologies into the hands of more consumers quickly: "If you want deployment of the technology by 2040, we are mostly stuck with what we have today or very soon will have."
政治类，科技类：考虑解决将来要出现的问题时，必须从现有的东西&知识着手。解决现在的问题也是解决未来问题的一种方式

Peter Meisen takes an unusual tack in his rebuttal. He opens with a statement that gives the impression that he is throwing in the towel（=throw in the sponge : to abandon a struggle or contest : acknowledge defeat）. Speaking of Mr Romm, he accepts that "his argument for rapid deployment of existing low-carbon technologies is exactly what's needed in every nation."

In fact, this tactic turns out to be more jujitsu柔术 than hara kiri一击毙命, as he tries to use the force of his opponent's arguments against the attacker. Mr Meisen goes on to make his case that the climate challenge is so daunting that it requires innovation breakthroughs in addition to the expansion of energy efficiency and other ready measures. If such a path is pursued, he insists that "entirely new business opportunities" will be created by emerging "clean tech" sectors such as IGCC gas turbines, hybrid plug-in cars, LED lighting and solar photovoltaics（光和作用产生电）.

Thus far, the debate has been a closely fought contest, with the Pro side holding a slim advantage. But much can happen between now and the closing arguments, so be sure to get your comments in now.

ddcmj519UID: 176326

这篇文章阐述的道理完全切合科技类的一道题目。1.依靠科技解决环境问题。2.科技的效率问题。
科技的产品到最后都会受到市场的影响而变为商业目的产品。于是就造成了诸多问题。政府的政策则是为了减轻商业和科技的相关相应而设立。政府在这里起的作用就是规范人的私欲&促进良性科技产品的推广，使整个政体向着良性循环的方向发展。
I agree with Peter Meisen that "Energy efficient buildings, rooftop solar, smart grids, electric/hybrid cars and renewable electricity will become the norm for our children."



I do not agree this will be expensive nor do I think it will require technology breakthroughs.先同意让步，再反对。
The latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment signed off by all member governments concluded action is very affordable:
In 2050, global average macro-economic costs for mitigation towards stabilisation

从减轻到稳定
between 710 and 445 ppm CO2-eq...corresponds to slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points.
In fact, the bottom-up studies — the ones that look technology by technology, which I have always believed are more credible—have even better news:
Bottom-up studies suggest that mitigation opportunities with net negative costs have the potential to reduce emissions by around 6 GtCO2-eq/yr in 2030.
That is, a 20% reduction in global emissions might be possible in a quarter century with net economic benefits.
How do we get the key energy efficient and renewable energy technologies into the marketplace fast enough to stabilize at safe levels cost-effectively? Again, the answer is programmes aimed at technology deployment rather than technology breakthrough.大大的科技类。。只不过这里强调的市场对科技产品的作用。观点很适合运用在各种科技类。。创新和使用是两回事儿。
Energy-efficient technologies are cost-effective now, but the market is set up to discourage efficiency. In most places, the more electricity a utility sells, the more money it makes. If it's able to boost electricity demand enough, the utility is allowed to build a new power plant with a guaranteed profit. The only way a typical utility can lose money is if demand drops. So the last thing most utilities want to do is seriously push strategies that save energy, strategies that do not pollute in the first place.市场需求与科技进步（为改造环境的矛盾），节约的一般比较贵&比较不效率，个人不愿花费，只能依靠政府1提高成员整体素质2强制or使用公共财产来达到目的。
If we want aggressive deployment of energy efficiency, we need to do what California did decades ago—adopt regulations so that utility company profits are not tied to how much electricity they sell. This is called "decoupling." It also allows utilities to take a share of any energy savings they help consumers and businesses achieve.
Since California utilities can make money when their customers save money, energy-efficiency investments are on the same competitive playing field as new generation. In the past three decades, electricity consumption per capita grew 60% in the rest of the nation, while it stayed flat in high-tech, fast-growing California1. If the entire nation had California's much cleaner electric grid, we would cut total American global-warming pollution by more than a quarter without raising American electric bills. 加州的政府干预例子，即decoupling政策，为降低科技&市场的相关效应，并最终到达了减少用量的同时科技大力发展
What is the key to achieving cost-effective renewables? Again, the answer is smart government deployment programs, not breakthrough research. Why is speeding up the deployment side much more important than generating new technologies? Clean energy technologies typically have a steadily declining cost curve, whereby greater volume leads to lower cost in a predictable fashion方式 because of economies of scale and the manufacturing learning curve

经验曲线, as explained in 2000 in a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), Experience Curves for Energy Technology Policy2:
Wind power is an example of a technology which relies on technical components that have reached maturity in other technological fields…. Experience curves for the total process of producing electricity from wind are considerably steeper than for wind turbines. Such experience curves reflect the learning in choosing sites for wind power, tailoring the turbines to the site, maintenance, power management, etc, which all are new activities.
Or consider solar photovoltaics:
The experience curve shows the investment necessary to make a technology, such as solar photovoltaics, competitive, but it does not forecast when the technology will break-even. The time of break-even depends on deployment rates, which the decision-maker can influence through policy. With historical annual growth rates of 15%, photovoltaic modules will reach break-even point around the year 2025. Doubling the rate of growth will move the break-even point 10 years ahead to 2015.
Investments will be needed for the ride down the experience curve, that is for the learning efforts which will bring prices to the break-even point…. We will refer to these additional costs as learning investments, which means that they are investments in learning to make the technology cost-efficient, after which they will be recovered as the technology continues to improve.
Here is a key conclusion:
… for major technologies such as photovoltaics, wind power, biomass, or heat pumps, resources provided through the market dominate the learning investments. Government deployment programmes may still be needed to stimulate these investments.
We are in a race to get technologies into the learning curve phase: "The experience effect leads to a competition between technologies to take advantage of opportunities for learning provided by the market. To exploit the opportunity, the emerging and still too expensive technology also has to compete for learning investments."
In short, you need to get from first demonstration to commercial introduction as quickly as possible to be able to then take advantage of the learning curve before your competition does. Again, that's why if you want mass deployment of the technology by 2040, we are mostly stuck with what we have today or very soon will have. Some breakthrough technology in the year 2025 will find it exceedingly difficult to compete with technologies like wind or baseload solar that have had decades of such learning.
And that is why the analogy of a massive government Apollo programme or Manhattan project is so flawed. Those programmes were to create unique non-commercial products for a specialised customer with an unlimited budget. Throwing money at the problem was an obvious approach. To save a livable climate we need to create mass-market commercial products for lots of different customers who have limited budgets. That requires a deployment-based strategy.
As the IEA report concludes:
If we want cost-efficient, CO2-mitigation technologies available during the first decades of the new century, these technologies must be given the opportunity to learn in the current marketplace. Deferring decisions on deployment will risk lock-out of these technologies, i.e., lack of opportunities to learn will foreclose these options making them unavailable to the energy system.…
Deploy now!



后面都是引用来论证政策的必须及必要。

ddcmj519UID: 176326

Mr Romm and I agree on many points. Climate change is the critical challenge of this century, and a broad set of energy supply and demand solutions are required.



His argument for rapid deployment of existing low-carbon technologies is exactly what's needed in every nation.
都是开头让步。
The UN IPCC projects dire consequences for staying the course. The combined miseries of coastal flooding, desertification, species loss, agricultural dislocation and disease migration are almost too much to imagine. No sane society would inflict this fate on future generations.
The world's response, the 1997 Kyoto protocol

京都议定书, called for a 5% reduction from 1990 greenhouse gas levels. Instead, global CO2
emissions have increased another 8%. Leaving out the economies of India, China and the developing world, the treaty negotiators knew they were merely agreeing to a small reduction of a certain increase in atmospheric carbon concentrations.
What we've done in the past isn't working. Our call is for a design science revolution that fundamentally shifts our energy paradigm. The solutions are found in the statements by last year's Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. Al Gore launched the "We Can Solve It" Campaign by stating "the goal of reaching 100% renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity. Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to our health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunications networks."
都引用了Al Gore的话，作用却相悖，相当针锋。
This strategy is valid within and between all neighbouring nations. IPCC chairman, Dr Ragendra Pachauri wrote, "The quantity of electricity traded internationally is abysmally small. Interconnecting grids internationally would permit the generation and transfer of electricity at least possible cost, which would not only ensure efficient utilization of natural resources, but also access to tapping efficiently generated power across international boundaries. The environmental and economic benefits from this approach could have revolutionary significance."
Unique to electricity are the peaks and valleys of daily and seasonal demand as our planet rotates. Globally, we've installed over 17,000 power plants, yet half are idle at night. An interconnected electric grid allows utilities to level the load curve, maximising the generation resources of the entire power pool. Over the last century, these high-voltage grids link half the world. With co-operative resolve, we can complete the job in two decades.
It's important to understand that transmission is blind to the source of energy, carrying electricity generated from coal or nuclear or wind without prejudice. Herein lies a major part of our global energy crisis, as 82% of our energy comes from polluting or toxic fuels. This is why I challenge two of the Princeton stabilisation wedges, coal and nuclear. A new priority order needs to become a part of all utility decisions going forward. We must flip（翻，此处=turn） the old energy model upside down.
In the last century, utilities met new demand by building large centralised coal, nuclear and hydro generation plants and linking high-voltage transmission to our cities and industry. Renewables were considered "alternative energy," energy efficiency wasn't a priority because you couldn't bill（为..买单） the customer, and conservation was considered a personal virtue.
Mr Romm correctly states the Herculean scale required by the stabilisation wedges. However, we propose a priority ranking—so we don't exacerbate the climate and energy issues.
以下四段层次很鲜明。环保要从 教育-科技进步-创新使用
Conservation first. The watt that you don't generate is the cheapest and cleanest energy of all. During times of utility crisis, consumers have responded with 10-20% cuts in use. We do know how to conserve—and it requires constant education.
Energy efficiency next. Continuous improvement in technology enables us to get the same amount of work using less energy, materials and time. Examples are combined heat and power plants, reducing air conditioning for office buildings, and higher mileage ratings for vehicles. Entirely new business opportunities are created from clean tech: IGCC gas turbines, hybrid plug-in cars, energy star appliances, rooftop photovoltaics, compact fluorescent and LED lighting.
Then new power generation. In this model, renewable energies get primary focus. Since 2000, renewables have become mainstream—providing cost-competitive, secure and reliable power into utility grids. Today, 34 nations get over 50% of their electrical needs from renewables, led by Norway, Iceland, Brazil, New Zealand and Canada. These nations use biomass, geothermal and hydropower, whose benefits also include agricultural irrigation, drinking water, flood control and recreation. Denmark, Germany, Spain, Japan, India and America are integrating utility-scale wind, solar and geothermal power. Every nation and utility needs a set of renewable resource maps, as analysis clearly reveals an abundance of clean energy potential on each continent. In all cases, high-voltage transmission is the key in getting this renewable energy to markets.
Last in line are the fossil fuels and nuclear. Natural gas is the cleanest burning fuel. Compared to burning coal, natural gas emits just 25% of the carbon dioxide and releases no nitrous and sulphur oxides or particulate matter. In the context of climate change, natural gas beats coal hands down. No new coal fired plants should be built unless the CO2
can be sequestered. Regarding nuclear power, it's important to remember that nuclear plants are high-tech ways to boil water, create steam, spin a turbine and generate electricity. There are currently 439 plants around the world. Each one creates radioactive waste that is toxic to humans and the environment. The full life-cycle costs of construction, facility protection, decommissioning and waste storage are uneconomic by comparison. And in geopolitical terms, doesn't the Middle East going nuclear concern you?
We now have more elegant, sophisticated and cleaner ways to generate and deliver electricity for our society. Remaining addicted to fossil fuels is damaging to our environment and bad long term policy. It is unsustainable. Aggressive policies that encourage conservation, energy efficiency, clean transport and linking renewable resources are the new priorities. Flipping our energy paradigm upside down will drive innovation and investment towards a de-carbonised future—and just makes sense.


焦点仍然在现有的污染能源和未来的清洁能源上。解决问题的最终途径都是要创新。（个人觉得，由于没能找出新的立意，仍然焦点在环境问题上且未能有效解释市场机制的影响——也就是人性的阴暗面，所以感觉就不是很有力。）

ddcmj519UID: 176326

The oil crises in the 1970s were such a serious problem for Japan that they shook the foundation of the nation, whose energy self-supply ratio was extremely low. For 30 years since then, Japan's government and industry have promoted research, development and dissemination of energy-efficient, renewable energy, nuclear energy and other various technologies for enhancing energy security. These efforts have yielded substantial results. I would like to introduce two of Japan's experiences.日本在70年代的能源稀缺造成的转变。

i) When addressing energy problems, an energy conservation approach has significant potential. Japan's energy consumption per GDP has been reduced by almost 40% over the 30-year period as a result of technology development. In America, energy consumption per GDP is a little less than three times as high as that of Japan, and in China, it is about nine times. There is plenty of room for reducing energy consumption with the energy conservation approach in both of the two huge energy-consuming nations of the world, and that means much improvement can be expected using existing technologies.

ii) On the other hand, innovation such as new technology development in the energy field should also be promoted. At the time of the oil crises in Japan, it was said that photovoltaic technology was not economically feasible. However, NEDO and Japan's private sector have invested an enormous amount of resources in research and development and therefore costs have been reduced to about one-thirtieth of 30 years ago. It is evident that widespread use of PV power generation today could not have been possible without such aggressive research and development efforts.

The energy problems we are facing today are not only about energy security. Recently, resolution of the climate change problem has emerged as a new challenge concerning energy. One of the scenarios prepared by the IPCC indicates that it is necessary to reduce GHG emissions by 50% to 85% by 2050 in order to confine a temperature rise to between 2°C and 2.4°C. G8 leaders agreed at the Hokkaido Toyako Summit this year to share the vision of a global 50% reduction target.各种会议通过要在2050年减排一半。

Against this backdrop, the Japanese government has also conducted a study on what should be done to reduce global GHG emissions by half by 2050. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, which is responsible for Japan's energy policies, announced the "Cool Earth Energy Innovative Technology Plan"1 this spring. This plan indicates 21 fields of promising next-generation technology of which practical application is expected when aggressive R&D activities are pursued in such fields as "High-efficiency Photovoltaic Power Generation,""Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles,""Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage,""High-performance Power Storage"and "Hydrogen Production, Transport and Storage."各种对于气候问题设定的计划An estimate in the plan that assumes realization of the innovative technologies in the 21 fields showed that they will contribute about 60% of the required reduction amount. That is to say, in order to achieve a 50% GHG reduction, there is an essential need for research, development and dissemination of innovative technologies.

The utilisation of existing technologies such as energy-efficient technologies is extremely important, but it is not enough. We are still in need of innovation in energy technologies. As energy problems are a global common issue, all nations should make a unified effort to promote research and development of innovative energy technology

ddcmj519UID: 176326

Closing

All good things must come to an end, including our lively debate on energy technology. It remains a closely run match thus far, with a slight edge优势 to the Pro team running up to today's closing statements.




Many readers have posted thoughtful, often technically detailed, comments suggesting the debaters have done their jobs well in provoking thought.

However, not all of you punters比赛双方 are perfectly pleased. Though some readers appreciate the civility and nuanced debating styles on offer from 由双方提供的both teams, others are still lusting for blood. Taiglin finds "both sides of this argument to be in grey areas around the same viewpoint. I do not see a major contrast." Other readers fault the organisers, not the debaters, for the boxers hugging so often in the centre of the debate ring很好的比喻. Kerry E. O'Neill offers a crisp version of this critique: "The premise of this debate is flawed, as others have noted. Why are we debating deploying existing technologies today vs. investing in breakthrough innovations to solve the energy crisis?" We need both, goes the argument.

It does seem the two teams are bending over backwards to be conciliatory rather than go for the jugular

. That, of course, is the prerogative（=privilege） of the debaters. As for the question about the debate's premise, the reason the debate proposition was posed as a clear choice between rapid deployment in today's technologies and aggressive investment in tomorrow's inventions （政治类相关：更关注现存问题还是预计会出现问题）is this: the first rule of economics (well, the first rule that matters) is that you cannot spend the same dollar twice.

When debating airy topics like energy policy, it is all too easy for armchair pundits to conjure up在脑海中呈现 infinitely large pots of money that can be spent on all good things, on today's needs and tomorrow's wishes, on choice A and choice B. In real life, and especially in government, hard choices have to be made because resources are, in fact, finite.很多题目的核心
Sensible tools of economics like cost-benefit analysis as well as a willingness to make difficult choices is essential. Hence, The Economist's decision to pose a provocative question that was certain to upset those who wish to have their cake and eat it too比喻坐收其成.

Turning to the closing arguments, it is clear that some of the conciliatory tone seen thus far remains. However, Joseph Romm does strike a direct blow, claiming that the side opposite is "in complete agreement with me." His remarks expand on his line of argument that technologies that are ready or which recombine old, established technologies can solve the climate and energy problem. As an example of the latter, he trumpets the potential of concentrating solar thermal plants, which he calls "perhaps the most important renewable" because it can be used for baseload power on the power grid.

Peter Meisen closes the Con team's case by issuing a warning: "If we continue building and funding the world's energy needs as we did in the last century, we deserve the consequences." In addition to the technology-boosting approaches discussed already in the debate, he emphasises one that he believes got short shrift: "government policies that provide the grease to accelerate this transition比喻." With adequate greasing, he is convinced that "investments in clean energy solutions will flourish and dominate the 21st Century."

So will you remain a MugWump（were Republicans who supported Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland in the 1884 United States presidential election. They made the party switch because they could not in good faith support the Republican candidate James Blaine of Maine. Many Republicans considered him to be untrustworthy and a fraudulent candidate. This was unusual, in the political stranglehold of Gilded Age politics.）, to invoke an old American folk saying, sitting on the fence with your mug on one side and your wump on the other? Or will one of our debaters persuade you to vote with the Pro or Con team? In real life, as in energy policy, we have to make hard choices. The time has come for you to make yours, by voting now.

ddcmj519UID: 176326

I think Mr Meisen and Ms Fehrenbacher are in complete agreement with me that "we can solve our energy problems with existing technologies today, without the need for breakthrough innovations." The time has come for aggressive deployment of energy efficient and renewable energy technologies. Indeed it is long overdue.




Breakthroughs are nice, like winning the lottery, but in fact, breakthroughs in energy technology that fundamentally change how we use energy are considerably rarer than most people realise1. In any case, breakthroughs certainly can't be counted on to 被指望save the day no matter how much money we throw at them—just look at hydrogen fuel cell cars.

After billions of dollars spent in public and private money over the past two decades, hydrogen technology has seen no game-changing breakthroughs, and the cars are still decades away from ever being practical2. Honda's new FCX Clarity, supposedly "the world's first hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicle intended for mass production," still costs "cost several hundred thousand dollars each to produce." Mass production might bring that down to $100,000—and even that assumes people would buy a car for which there's no fueling infrastructure. The future in vehicles is good old fuel efficiency, hybrids, and batteries—all of which is quite old technology.还是说新科技应用的慢等等，表面就科技才是当前，所要依靠的。

Having helped run the largest programme in the world for working with businesses to develop and deploy clean energy technologies — the US Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy—I could not agree more that we must start with an aggressive push on energy efficiency. I am very glad to see that both Mr Meisen and Ms Fehrenbacher understand this.

Energy efficiency is the cheapest alternative. California has cut annual peak demand by 12 GW—and total demand by about 40,000 GWh—through a variety of energy efficiency programs over the past three decades. Over their lifetime, the cost of efficiency programs has averaged 2-3 cents per kW—five times cheaper than new nuclear, coal, or natural gas generation3. If the world launched a nationwide effort to embrace efficiency and change regulations to encourage efficiency, then we could keep electricity demand flat in the rich countries well past 2020. And countries like China could cut their demand growth rates in half. That is particularly true if we include an aggressive effort to push combined heat and power4.

A May presentation of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) modelling results shows that energy efficiency could deliver up to 36,000 Gigawatt-hours of "negawatts" by 2020 (that is the equivalent of more than 5 GW of baseload generation operating 80% of the time)5. At the same time, the state could build 1.6 GW of small CHP and 2.8 GW of large CHP. So that is nearly 10 GW of efficiency by 2020. If this were reproduced nationwide, efficiency would deliver more than 130 GW of efficiency by 2020, easily covering all of the expected demand growth.

While wind and solar photovoltaics get all the attention in the renewable energy arena because of their rapid growth, perhaps the most important renewable technology it is concentrated solar thermal power (CSP), which I call solar baseload. Recently, CSP has come roaring back after more than a decade of neglect with more than a dozen providers building projects in two dozen countries6.

Utilities in the American Southwest are already contracting for power at 14 to 15 cents/kWh. The modeling for the CPUC puts California solar thermal at 12.7 to 13.6 cents/kWh (including six hours of storage capacity)—and at similar or lower costs in the rest of the West. A number of players are adding low-cost storage that will make the power better than baseload (since it delivers peak power when demand actually peaks, rather than just delivering a constant amount of power 24/7). More importantly, baseload solar has barely begun dropping down the experience curve as costs are lower from economies of scale and the manufacturing learning curve. The CPUC analysis foresees the possibility that CSP could drop 20% in cost by 2020.

A 2006 report by the Western Governors Association "projects that, with a deployment of 4 GW, total nominal cost of CSP electricity would fall below 10¢/kWh."7 And that deployment will likely occur before 2015. Indeed, the report noted the industry could "produce over 13 GW by 2015 if the market could absorb that much." The report also notes that 300 GW of CSP capacity can be located near existing transmission lines. As an aside, wind power is a very good match with CSP in terms of their ability to share the same transmission lines, since a great deal of wind is at night, and since CSP, with storage, is dispatchable.

There is enough baseload solar potential in one 90-mile-by-90-mile grid in the American Southwest to power the whole country. A similar grid in North Africa could power all of Europe. India and China have equally large solar resources, more than enough to replace new coal.
前面一直在说CSP的可操作性及各种优点，就是为了说明这项技术的成熟度，及能够解决问题的所在，以致最后引出，他们的技术都是现有的。我们需要的只是把这些技术的使用扩大化。

And CSP is a decades old technology, that uses mostly commodity materials—steel, concrete and glass. The central component, a standard power system routinely used by the natural gas industry today, would create steam to turn a standard electric generator. Plants can be built rapidly, in two to three years. It would be straightforward to build CSP systems at whatever rate industry and governments needed, ultimately 50 to 100 gigawatts a year growth or more—if we got serious about global warming and technology deployment.
Once again, it is crystal clear "we can solve our energy problems with existing technologies today, without the need for breakthrough innovations."

ddcmj519UID: 176326

After reviewing all of the Energy Debate comments, many stated that it's not either we deploy or focus on breakthroughs—it is and/both.




Michael Eckhart of ACORE rightfully states that "we can begin to solve our energy problems with today's technology, so there is no need for delay in getting started, but we will need breakthroughs across all of these technology arenas to have the tools for a carbon-free society that is sustainable."

At last year's World Energy Congress (WEC), one-quarter of the exhibiters featured renewable and efficient technologies. This was a tenfold increase from three years prior. For me, it was the most significant demonstration of these new technologies breaking into the energy establishment of coal, oil, gas and nuclear.

The Global Energy Network Institute prepared our participation by challenging the E8 (eight largest global utilities) with a proposition and set of questions that are worth repeating. The WEC daily news deemed them important enough to publish for the entire convention—and I offer them here so you can pose them to your own energy ministry and utilities:

"We are all interconnected today—linked across borders via gas pipelines, electric grids, telecommunication cable, and global finance. The new international factor facing our industry is carbon. Power production and the transport sector create two-thirds of global CO2
emissions, and the public is becoming vocal in their demand for cleaner energy and fuels. It seems certain that a 'market price per ton of carbon' will soon be enacted and will dramatically alter the cost equation for fossil fuels.国际类，一个国家受益其他也受益。受益的标准不一致？阶级&立场？

As a member of the E8, you are a global leader in how we produce electricity. The rules of the game are changing. In preparation for the 20th World Energy Congress, we put forward several questions for consideration by you and your staff:
1. Renewable Potential: What's the potential capacity of all the renewable resources in your service territory, including your neighbours? Could you meet most of your electrical requirements from these non-carbon resources? (Five nations already do: Norway, Iceland, Brazil, Canada and New Zealand.)
2. Interconnection: How could these renewables be integrated into your electric grid and provide the reliability, security and immediate dispatch that your customers require?
3. Fossil Fuel Transition: As existing fossil fuel and nuclear plants need replacing in the coming years, could renewables meet that replacement capacity using the same criteria?
4. Design: In the coming carbon constrained world of the future, how would you strategically plan, engineer and build this out?"

Additionally, every business and citizen needs to ask a couple of personal questions. First, does my electricity come from clean or polluting energy? Second, what fuel powers your car, bus, truck, train or plane? These two choices, made by billions of people, will determine the future of our planet.

Undeveloped in this debate, but critically important, are government policies that provide the grease to accelerate this transition. Katie Fehrenbacher of Earth2Tech and Joseph Romm make the convincing case for California's decoupling utility profits and energy efficiency programmes. This should be initiated by utility commissions across the nation. Global subsidies and incentives for fossil fuels and nuclear power are ten times that for renewable and clean tech. This is upside down in a world facing peak oil and climate change.

The proactive way to shift the direction of climate change is to shift our energy investments.

The International Energy Agency stated that $45 trillion will be required in the next few decades to meet the world's growing energy demand and reduce CO2 emissions. To tackle climate change, it is essential that renewables, energy efficiency and future fuels receive the lion's share of this investment.

Entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, pension funds养老基金 and individual investors will fund this transition—and benefit handsomely

可观. The opportunities are global, especially as India and China strive to raise the living standards of 2.5 billion people. Until recently, these two nations have followed the same energy path as the west. Solving climate change will require the West and East to co-operate, moving beyond carbon-based fuels and investing in the transition to renewables and clean technologies.

The commercialisation of these renewables has attracted multinational energy and engineering firms to initiate significant financial commitments. Yet solar, wind and geothermal remain less than 3% of the global energy mix. With market barriers removed, some experts forecast that renewables will supply 50% of our energy requirements in 2050. That would be a 1,700% increase from today's market share, offering investors strong potential returns.

Efficiencies are coming from government policy and technical breakthroughs. Several countries and states are banishing the incandescent bulb白炽灯 for the more efficient compact florescent繁荣. Looking forward, the organic light-emitting diode is the next generation of energy efficient lighting, using just a fraction of today's wattage-wasting bulbs. Gas-electric hybrid cars get 2-3 times the mileage of current automobiles, with the promise of plug-in hybrids getting over 100 miles per gallon. Promising second generation liquid fuels include algae, switch grass and jatropha curcas



（植物名，不详..） seeds. Breakthroughs will double solar cell efficiency and wind turbines have grown to six megawatt capacity. Smart grids, feed-in laws and net metering propel rooftop photovoltaics. Each of these new technologies is a huge business opportunity, creating new industries and jobs.

If we continue building and funding the world's energy needs as we did in the last century, we deserve the consequences. If we embrace the energy technology revolution, investments in clean energy solutions will flourish and dominate the 21st
Century. Climate change will be mitigated by shifting investments to solutions that de-carbonise the entire energy value chain. To track our progress, follow the Keeling Curve and the money.

Finally, I want to extend my thanks to Vijay Vaitheeswaran and the editors at Economist.com for hosting this debate, Joseph Romm for his thoughtful analysis, the featured participants and all those who took time to comment and engage in this critical issue of our time. It was an honour.

ddcmj519UID: 176326

It is not possible to agree with the proposed premise without some qualification, that we are looking for economic and long lasting solutions to large-scale energy generation. The energy problems that we seek to solve involve deploying economic energy systems while reducing the environmental impact of energy generation, particularly the potential for global climate change. But there are two main domains of energy involved, electricity and transportation, and the need for innovation for each is different. We do have existing technologies to reduce emissions from electricity generation, but we do not have all the technologies to enable significant reduction in the transportation domain.




Today, nuclear energy is the largest source of CO2-free electricity. The nuclear share of consumed electricity is about 16%, provided by nearly 440 plants in 31 countries. The electrical energy produced from nuclear plants is much larger than that provided by all renewables, including hydro. Developed over nearly 50 years, the nuclear fuel cycle of today uses mined uranium铀 at a rate of 0.07m tons per year, and the proven reserves of uranium at today's price level is about 5.5m tons. Some geologists think the total economically-extractable resources could be ten times this amount, closer to 50m tons. Today's fuel cycle depends on fissioning分解 U-235, an isotope present at a level less than 1% of natural uranium. Mined uranium resources are found in geographically spread countries like Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, and Nigeria, and will support the doubling of world nuclear electricity generation in a few decades, but can last for centuries if fuel breeding in advanced reactors or uranium recovery from seawater is introduced as part of the nuclear fuel cycle. Furthermore, when uranium runs out, there is the three times more abundant thorium. The reliability of nuclear plants has grown with experience so that an American nuclear plant today operates on average 90% of the time as opposed to only 70% in 1990.核能的有限性质疑核能发电的长久性。

Providing affordable and clean energy for the transportation sector based on today's technologies is less assured, and innovations are needed to shift this sector away from its addiction to oil. Three avenues to reducing demand for oil and CO2
emissions in this sector should be pursued: (1) obtaining higher mileage per gallon of gasoline and relying more on hybrid and electrical cars, (2) relying more on public transportation using clean electricity production, (3) and using cleaner heat and electricity in production of gasoline itself. About 15-20 % of the energy consumed in transportation is consumed at the refineries, depending on the quality of oil. If some of the energy and hydrogen needed are provided by nuclear or renewable energy, instead of natural gas or heavy oils, CO2
emissions will be significantly reduced. Since more of future oil supplies will be heavy and sour, it is important to apply innovations to reduce the CO2
footprint of refineries. Similarly, using cleaner sources of heat in extracting oil from tar sands or shale will be needed in the next few decades. In the longer run, relying on rechargeable batteries or synthetic gasoline will be needed. These technologies are present today, but not at economically competitive levels.