TED2010
Stewart Brand + Mark Z. Jacobson: Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?
Debat: Har verden brug for atomkraft?
Filmed:
Readability: 4.3
1,577,102 views
Atomkraft: energikrisen har fået selv de mest indgroede miljøforkæmpere til at genovervej det. I denne første TED-debat mødes Stewart Brand og Mark Z. Jacobson og diskuterer fordele og ulemper ved atomkraft. En diskussion, der vil få dig tænke -- og måske endda få dig til at skifte mening.
Stewart Brand - Environmentalist, futurist
Since the counterculture '60s, Stewart Brand has been creating our internet-worked world. Now, with biotech accelerating four times faster than digital technology, Stewart Brand has a bold new plan ... Full bioMark Z. Jacobson - Civil and environmental engineer
At Stanford, Mark Z. Jacobson uses numerical models to study the effects of energy systems and vehicles on climate and air pollution, and to analyze renewable energy resources. Full bio
Since the counterculture '60s, Stewart Brand has been creating our internet-worked world. Now, with biotech accelerating four times faster than digital technology, Stewart Brand has a bold new plan ... Full bioMark Z. Jacobson - Civil and environmental engineer
At Stanford, Mark Z. Jacobson uses numerical models to study the effects of energy systems and vehicles on climate and air pollution, and to analyze renewable energy resources. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:15
Chris Anderson: We're having a debate.
0
0
2000
Chris Anderson: Vi afholder en debat.
00:17
The debate is over the proposition:
1
2000
2000
Debatten omhandler påstanden
00:19
"What the world needs now
2
4000
2000
"Hvad verden har brug for lige nu
00:21
is nuclear energy." True or false?
3
6000
3000
er atomkraft" -- sandt eller falskt?
00:24
And before we have the debate,
4
9000
2000
Før vi afholder debatten,
00:26
I'd like to actually take a show of hands --
5
11000
2000
vil jeg gerne have en håndsoprækning --
00:28
on balance, right now, are you for or against this?
6
13000
3000
lige nu, er du enige eller uenig i denne påstand?
00:31
So those who are "yes," raise your hand. "For."
7
16000
2000
Dem, der er enige, ræk jeres hånd op i luften. "Enig."
00:35
Okay, hands down.
8
20000
2000
Okay, hænderne ned.
00:37
Those who are against, raise your hands.
9
22000
3000
Dem, der er uenige, ræk jeres hænder op.
00:40
Okay, I'm reading that at about
10
25000
3000
Okay, jeg ser det som cirka
00:43
75 to 25 in favor at the start.
11
28000
3000
75 mod 25 til fordel for atomkraft her i starten.
00:46
Which means we're going to take a vote at the end
12
31000
3000
Vi holder endnu en afstemning til sidst
00:49
and see how that shifts, if at all.
13
34000
3000
og ser, hvordan det rykker sig, hvis det overhovedet rykker sig.
00:52
So here's the format: They're going to have six minutes each,
14
37000
2000
Her er formatet: De har 6 minutter hver,
00:54
and then after one little, quick exchange between them,
15
39000
3000
og efter en hurtig afrunding fra dem,
00:57
I want two people on each side of this debate in the audience
16
42000
2000
skal 2 mennesker fra publikum fra hver side af denne debat
00:59
to have 30 seconds
17
44000
2000
på 30 sekunder
01:01
to make one short, crisp, pungent, powerful point.
18
46000
3000
komme med en kort, skarp, gennemtrængende pointe.
01:05
So, in favor of the proposition, possibly shockingly,
19
50000
3000
For atomkraft, måske overraskende,
01:08
is one of, truly, the founders of the
20
53000
2000
er, i sandhed, en af grundlæggerne af
01:10
environmental movement,
21
55000
2000
klimabevægelsen,
01:12
a long-standing TEDster, the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog,
22
57000
3000
en mangeårig TEDster, grundlæggeren af Whole Earth Catalog,
01:15
someone we all know and love, Stewart Brand.
23
60000
3000
en vi alle kender og elsker, Stewart Brand.
01:18
Stewart Brand: Whoa.
24
63000
2000
Stewart Brand: Wow.
01:20
(Applause)
25
65000
2000
(Klapsalver)
01:22
The saying is that with climate, those who know the most
26
67000
2000
Man siger, at når det kommer til klimaet, så er det dem, der ved mest,
01:24
are the most worried.
27
69000
2000
der er mest bekymrede.
01:26
With nuclear, those who know the most
28
71000
2000
Med kernekraft er det dem, der ved mest,
01:28
are the least worried.
29
73000
2000
der er mindst bekymrede.
01:30
A classic example is James Hansen,
30
75000
2000
Et klassisk eksempel er James Hansen,
01:32
a NASA climatologist
31
77000
2000
en klimatolog fra NASA,
01:34
pushing for 350 parts per million
32
79000
2000
der kæmper for maksimalt 350 ppm
01:36
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
33
81000
2000
kuldioxid i atmosfæren.
01:38
He came out with a wonderful book recently
34
83000
2000
Han udgav for nylig en vidunderlig bog,
01:40
called "Storms of My Grandchildren."
35
85000
2000
der hedder "Storms of My Grandchildren."
01:42
And Hansen is hard over for nuclear power,
36
87000
3000
Hansen er meget positiv overfor atomkraft,
01:45
as are most climatologists
37
90000
2000
det er de fleste klimatologer,
01:47
who are engaging this issue seriously.
38
92000
3000
der beskæftiger sig med dette problem med seriøsitet.
01:50
This is the design situation:
39
95000
2000
Dette er situationen:
01:52
a planet that is facing climate change
40
97000
3000
en planet, der står over for klimaforandringer,
01:55
and is now half urban.
41
100000
3000
og som nu er halvt urban.
01:58
Look at the client base for this.
42
103000
2000
Se på grundlaget for dette.
02:00
Five out of six of us
43
105000
2000
Fem ud af seks
02:02
live in the developing world.
44
107000
2000
bor i den udviklede verden.
02:04
We are moving to cities. We are moving up in the world.
45
109000
3000
Vi flytter til byer. Vi bevæger os op i verden.
02:07
And we are educating our kids,
46
112000
2000
Vi uddanner vores børn,
02:09
having fewer kids,
47
114000
2000
får færre børn,
02:11
basically good news all around.
48
116000
2000
alt i alt gode nyheder over hele linjen.
02:13
But we move to cities, toward the bright lights,
49
118000
2000
Men vi flytter til byerne, hen til de klare lys,
02:15
and one of the things that is there that we want, besides jobs,
50
120000
2000
og en af de ting, vi vil have, udover arbejde,
02:17
is electricity.
51
122000
2000
er elektricitet.
02:19
And if it isn't easily gotten, we'll go ahead and steal it.
52
124000
3000
Og hvis vi ikke kan få fat i det på en let måde, så stjæler vi det bare.
02:22
This is one of the most desired things
53
127000
2000
Det er en af de mest eftertragtede ting
02:24
by poor people all over the world,
54
129000
2000
af fattige mennesker over hele verden,
02:26
in the cities and in the countryside.
55
131000
3000
både i byerne og på landet.
02:30
Electricity for cities, at its best,
56
135000
2000
Elektricitet i byerne, når det er bedst,
02:32
is what's called baseload electricity.
57
137000
2000
er det, der kaldes grundbelastnings-elektricitet.
02:34
That's where it is on
58
139000
2000
Det er der, hvor det er tilgængeligt
02:36
all the time.
59
141000
2000
hele tiden.
02:38
And so far there are only three major sources of that --
60
143000
3000
Og indtil videre findes der kun tre hovedkilder til det --
02:41
coal and gas, hydro-electric,
61
146000
2000
kul og gas; vandkraft,
02:43
which in most places is maxed-out --
62
148000
2000
som er fuldt udnyttet de fleste steder,
02:45
and nuclear.
63
150000
2000
og atomenergi.
02:47
I would love to have something in the fourth place here,
64
152000
3000
Jeg ville elske at have en fjerde ting her,
02:50
but in terms of constant, clean,
65
155000
2000
men i forhold til vedvarende, rent,
02:52
scalable energy,
66
157000
2000
skalerbart energi,
02:54
[solar] and wind and the other renewables
67
159000
2000
er [sol] og vind og de andre vedvarende energikilder
02:56
aren't there yet because they're inconstant.
68
161000
2000
der ikke endnu, fordi de er ustadige.
02:58
Nuclear is and has been for 40 years.
69
163000
3000
Atomenergi er og har været det i 40 år.
03:02
Now, from an environmental standpoint,
70
167000
2000
Hvis man ser på det fra en miljøforkæmpers synspunkt,
03:04
the main thing you want to look at
71
169000
2000
er den vigtigste ting, du kan kigge på,
03:06
is what happens to the waste from nuclear and from coal,
72
171000
3000
hvad der sker med affaldet fra atomkraft og fra kulkraft,
03:09
the two major sources of electricity.
73
174000
3000
de to største kilder til elektricitet.
03:13
If all of your electricity in your lifetime came from nuclear,
74
178000
3000
Hvis den elektricitet, du bruger på et helt liv, kom fra atomkraft,
03:16
the waste from that lifetime of electricity
75
181000
2000
ville affaldet fra den elektricitet
03:18
would go in a Coke can --
76
183000
2000
kunne være i en Coladåse --
03:20
a pretty heavy Coke can, about two pounds.
77
185000
3000
en temmelig tung Coladåse, omkring et kg.
03:24
But one day of coal
78
189000
3000
Men én dag med kul
03:27
adds up to one hell of a lot
79
192000
2000
løber op i en helvedes masse
03:29
of carbon dioxide
80
194000
2000
kuldioxid
03:31
in a normal one-gigawatt coal-fired plant.
81
196000
3000
i et normalt ét-gigawatt kuldrevet kraftværk.
03:36
Then what happens to the waste?
82
201000
2000
Hvad sker der så med afffaldet?
03:38
The nuclear waste typically goes into
83
203000
2000
Det nukleare affald ender typisk i
03:40
a dry cask storage
84
205000
2000
en CASTOR container
03:42
out back of the parking lot at the reactor site
85
207000
2000
ude i bagenden af parkeringspladsen ved reaktorområdet,
03:44
because most places don't have underground storage yet.
86
209000
2000
fordi de fleste steder endnu ikke har underjordiske opbevaringsrum endnu.
03:46
It's just as well, because it can stay where it is.
87
211000
3000
Det gør heller ikke noget, for det kan sagtens blive, hvor det er.
03:49
While the carbon dioxide,
88
214000
2000
Mens kuldioxiden,
03:51
vast quantities of it, gigatons,
89
216000
3000
enorme mængder af det, gigatons,
03:54
goes into the atmosphere
90
219000
2000
ender i atmosfæren,
03:56
where we can't get it back -- yet --
91
221000
2000
hvor vi ikke kan få det tilbage, endnu,
03:58
and where it is causing the problems that we're most concerned about.
92
223000
3000
og hvor det forsager de problemer, som vi er så bekymrede for.
04:02
So when you add up the greenhouse gases
93
227000
3000
Når du lægger drivhusgasserne fra
04:05
in the lifetime of these various energy sources,
94
230000
3000
en levetid med disse forskellige energikilder sammen,
04:08
nuclear is down there with wind and hydro,
95
233000
3000
er kernekraft helt nede ved siden af vind- og vandkraft,
04:11
below solar and way below, obviously, all the fossil fuels.
96
236000
3000
under solenergi og langt under alle de fossile brændstoffer, selvfølgelig.
04:16
Wind is wonderful; I love wind.
97
241000
2000
Vind er vidunderligt; jeg elsker vind.
04:18
I love being around these
98
243000
2000
Jeg elsker at være omkring disse
04:20
big wind generators.
99
245000
3000
store vindgeneratorer.
04:23
But one of the things we're discovering is that
100
248000
2000
Men en af de ting, vi opdager er, at
04:25
wind, like solar, is an actually relatively
101
250000
2000
vindenergi, ligesom solenergi, faktisk er en relativt
04:27
dilute source of energy.
102
252000
2000
forurenende kilde til energi.
04:29
And so it takes a very large footprint on the land,
103
254000
3000
Det efterlader et meget stort aftryk på verden,
04:32
a very large footprint in terms of materials,
104
257000
2000
et meget stort aftryk i form af materialer,
04:34
five to 10 times what you'd use for nuclear,
105
259000
3000
fem eller 10 gange det, man bruger til kernekraft,
04:37
and typically to get one gigawatt of electricity
106
262000
3000
og typisk svarer én gigawatt elektricitet
04:40
is on the order of 250 square miles
107
265000
3000
til 650 kvadratkilometer
04:43
of wind farm.
108
268000
2000
vindmøllefarme.
04:45
In places like Denmark and Germany,
109
270000
3000
Steder som Danmark og Tyskland
04:48
they've maxed out on wind already.
110
273000
2000
har allerede udnyttet alt vinden.
04:50
They've run out of good sites.
111
275000
2000
De er løbet tør for gode steder.
04:52
The power lines are getting overloaded.
112
277000
3000
Ledningerne bliver overbelastet.
04:55
And you peak out.
113
280000
2000
Og de topper.
04:57
Likewise, with solar,
114
282000
2000
Ligeledes, med solenergi,
04:59
especially here in California,
115
284000
2000
specielt her i Californien,
05:01
we're discovering that the 80 solar farm
116
286000
2000
opdager vi, at aftalerne om 80 sol-farme,
05:03
schemes that are going forward
117
288000
2000
som bliver fremlagt,
05:05
want to basically bulldoze
118
290000
2000
dybest set vil bulldoze
05:07
1,000 square miles of southern California desert.
119
292000
3000
2.500 kvadratkilometer af den californiske ørken.
05:10
Well, as an environmentalist, we would rather that didn't happen.
120
295000
3000
Som miljøforkæmper, vil jeg helst ikke have, at det sker.
05:13
It's okay on frapped-out agricultural land.
121
298000
3000
Det er okay med uddyrket landbrug.
05:16
Solar's wonderful on rooftops.
122
301000
3000
Solfangere er vidunderlige på tagtoppe.
05:19
But out in the landscape,
123
304000
2000
Men ude i landskabet
05:21
one gigawatt is on the order of 50 square miles
124
306000
3000
fylder én gigawatt i omegnen af 130 kvadratkilometer
05:24
of bulldozed desert.
125
309000
2000
planeret ørken.
05:26
When you add all these things up --
126
311000
2000
Når du ligger alle disse ting sammen --
05:28
Saul Griffith did the numbers and figured out
127
313000
2000
Saul Griffith regnede det ud og fandt ud af,
05:30
what would it take
128
315000
2000
hvor meget plads det vil kræve
05:32
to get 13 clean
129
317000
2000
at få 13 rene
05:34
terawatts of energy
130
319000
3000
terawatt energi
05:37
from wind, solar and biofuels,
131
322000
3000
fra vind- og solenergi samt biobrændstoffer,
05:40
and that area would be roughly the size of the United States,
132
325000
3000
og det område vil groft set svare til USA i størrelse,
05:43
an area he refers to as "Renewistan."
133
328000
3000
et område, han omtaler som "Renewistan."
05:47
A guy who's added it up all this very well is David Mackay,
134
332000
3000
En fyr, som har regnet det hele meget flot ud er David Mackay,
05:50
a physicist in England,
135
335000
2000
en fysiker fra England,
05:52
and in his wonderful book, "Sustainable Energy," among other things,
136
337000
3000
og i hans vidunderlige bog, "Sustainable Energy," siger han,
05:55
he says, "I'm not trying to be pro-nuclear. I'm just pro-arithmetic."
137
340000
3000
blandt andet, "Jeg forsøger ikke at være pro-atomkraft. Jeg er blot pro-aritmetik."
05:58
(Laughter)
138
343000
2000
(Latter)
06:02
In terms of weapons,
139
347000
2000
Når det kommer til våben,
06:04
the best disarmament tool so far is nuclear energy.
140
349000
3000
så er det bedste værktøj til nedrustning indtil videre atomkraft.
06:07
We have been taking down
141
352000
2000
Vi har fjernet
06:09
the Russian warheads,
142
354000
2000
de russiske sprænghoveder
06:11
turning it into electricity.
143
356000
2000
og omdannet dem til elektricitet.
06:13
Ten percent of American electricity
144
358000
2000
10 procent af den amerikanske elektricitet
06:15
comes from decommissioned warheads.
145
360000
2000
kommer fra afviklede sprænghoveder.
06:17
We haven't even started the American stockpile.
146
362000
3000
Vi er ikke engang begyndt på det amerikanske lager.
06:21
I think of most interest to a TED audience
147
366000
3000
Jeg tror det mest interessante for et TED-publikum
06:24
would be the new generation of reactors
148
369000
2000
er den nye generation af reaktorer,
06:26
that are very small,
149
371000
2000
som er meget små,
06:28
down around 10
150
373000
2000
nede omkring 10
06:30
to 125 megawatts.
151
375000
2000
til 125 megawatt.
06:32
This is one from Toshiba.
152
377000
2000
Denne her er fra Toshiba.
06:34
Here's one the Russians are already building that floats on a barge.
153
379000
3000
Her er en, som russerne allerede er ved at bygge, der flyder på en pram.
06:37
And that would be very interesting in the developing world.
154
382000
3000
Det vil være meget interessant i den udviklede verden.
06:40
Typically, these things are put in the ground.
155
385000
2000
Typisk bliver disse ting proppet i jorden.
06:42
They're referred to as nuclear batteries.
156
387000
2000
De bliver kaldt nukleare batterier.
06:44
They're incredibly safe,
157
389000
2000
De er utroligt sikre,
06:46
weapons proliferation-proof and all the rest of it.
158
391000
2000
våbenudbredelses-sikrede og alt det andet.
06:48
Here is a commercial version from New Mexico
159
393000
3000
Her er en kommerciel version fra New Mexico
06:51
called the Hyperion,
160
396000
2000
kaldet "Hyperion",
06:53
and another one from Oregon called NuScale.
161
398000
3000
og en anden fra Oregon kaldet "NuScale".
06:56
Babcock & Wilcox that make nuclear reactors,
162
401000
2000
Babcock & Wilcox, som laver atomreaktorer...
06:58
here's an integral fast reactor.
163
403000
3000
her er en IFR.
07:01
Thorium reactor that Nathan Myhrvold's involved in.
164
406000
3000
Thorium-reaktor, som Nathan Myhrvold er involveret i.
07:04
The governments of the world are going to have to decide
165
409000
2000
Verdens regeringer er nødt til at besluttte,
07:06
that coals need to be made expensive, and these will go ahead.
166
411000
3000
at kul skal gøres dyrt, og så vil disse ting blive lavet.
07:09
And here's the future.
167
414000
3000
Og her er fremtiden.
07:12
(Applause)
168
417000
5000
(Klapsalver)
07:17
CA: Okay. Okay.
169
422000
2000
CA: Okay. Okay.
07:19
(Applause)
170
424000
4000
(Klapsalver)
07:23
So arguing against,
171
428000
2000
Til at argumentere imod påstanden,
07:25
a man who's been at the nitty, gritty heart
172
430000
3000
er en man, som har været med ved kernen
07:28
of the energy debate and the climate change debate for years.
173
433000
2000
af energidebatten og klimaforandrings-debatten i årevis.
07:30
In 2000, he discovered that soot
174
435000
3000
I 2000 fandt han ud af, at sod
07:33
was probably the second leading cause of global warming, after CO2.
175
438000
3000
formegentlig er den næststørste årsag til den globale opvarmning, næstefter CO2.
07:36
His team have been making detailed calculations
176
441000
3000
Hans hold har lavet detaljerede udregninger
07:39
of the relative impacts
177
444000
2000
af de relative konsekvenser
07:41
of different energy sources.
178
446000
2000
af de forskellige energikilder.
07:43
His first time at TED, possibly a disadvantage -- we shall see --
179
448000
3000
Hans første gang ved TED, måske en ulempe -- vi får at se --
07:46
from Stanford,
180
451000
2000
fra Stanford,
07:48
Professor Mark Jacobson. Good luck.
181
453000
2000
professor Mark Jacobson. Held og lykke.
07:50
Mark Jacobson: Thank you.
182
455000
2000
Mark Jacobson: Mange tak.
07:52
(Applause)
183
457000
2000
(Klapsalver)
07:54
So my premise here is that nuclear energy
184
459000
2000
Min forudsætning her er, at kernekraft
07:56
puts out more carbon dioxide,
185
461000
2000
udleder mere kuldioxid,
07:58
puts out more air pollutants,
186
463000
2000
udsender flere luftforurenende stoffer,
08:00
enhances mortality more and takes longer to put up
187
465000
2000
øger dødeligheden og tager længere tid at sætte op
08:02
than real renewable energy systems,
188
467000
2000
en rigtige vedvarende energisystemer,
08:04
namely wind, solar,
189
469000
2000
det vil sige vind, sol,
08:06
geothermal power, hydro-tidal wave power.
190
471000
3000
jordvarme, vandkraft.
08:09
And it also enhances nuclear weapons proliferation.
191
474000
3000
Det øger også udbredelsen af atomvåben.
08:12
So let's start just by looking at the
192
477000
2000
Lad os bare starte med at kigge på
08:14
CO2 emissions from the life cycle.
193
479000
2000
CO2-udledningen over livscyklussen.
08:16
CO2e emissions are equivalent emissions
194
481000
2000
CO2e udledningen svarer til udledningen
08:18
of all the greenhouse gases and particles
195
483000
2000
fra alle drivhusgasserne og -partiklerne,
08:20
that cause warming
196
485000
2000
som forsager opvarmning,
08:22
and converted to CO2.
197
487000
2000
konverteret til CO2.
08:24
And if you look, wind and concentrated solar
198
489000
2000
Hvis man ser efter, så har vind og solvarme
08:26
have the lowest CO2 emissions, if you look at the graph.
199
491000
2000
de laveste CO2-uledninger, hvis du kigger på grafen.
08:28
Nuclear -- there are two bars here.
200
493000
2000
Atomkraft -- der er to søjler her.
08:30
One is a low estimate, and one is a high estimate.
201
495000
2000
Den ene er et lavt estimat, og den anden er et højt estimat.
08:32
The low estimate is the nuclear energy industry
202
497000
2000
Det lave estimat er atomkraft-industriens
08:34
estimate of nuclear.
203
499000
2000
estimat af atomkraft.
08:36
The high is the average of 103
204
501000
2000
Det høje er et gennemsnit af 103
08:38
scientific, peer-reviewed studies.
205
503000
2000
videnskabelige, videnskabeligt bedømte studier.
08:40
And this is just the
206
505000
2000
Og dette er blot
08:42
CO2 from the life cycle.
207
507000
2000
CO2 fra livscyklussen.
08:44
If we look at the delays,
208
509000
2000
Hvis vi kigger på forsinkelserne,
08:46
it takes between 10 and 19 years
209
511000
2000
så tager det mellem 10 og 19 år
08:48
to put up a nuclear power plant
210
513000
2000
at bygge et atomkraftværk
08:50
from planning to operation.
211
515000
2000
fra planlægning til drift.
08:52
This includes about three and a half to six years
212
517000
2000
Dette inkluderer omkring tre og et halvt til seks år
08:54
for a site permit.
213
519000
2000
for at få en grund,
08:56
and another two and a half to four years
214
521000
2000
og endnu to og et halvt til fire år
08:58
for a construction permit and issue,
215
523000
2000
for at få en byggetilladelse,
09:00
and then four to nine years for actual construction.
216
525000
3000
og så fire til ni år for reel opførelse.
09:03
And in China, right now,
217
528000
2000
I Kina er de, lige nu,
09:05
they're putting up five gigawatts of nuclear.
218
530000
2000
ved at bygge fem gigawatt atomkraft.
09:07
And the average, just for the construction time of these,
219
532000
3000
Gennemsnittet, blot for byggetiden af disse,
09:10
is 7.1 years
220
535000
2000
er 7,1 år,
09:12
on top of any planning times.
221
537000
2000
lagt til er så tid til planlægning.
09:14
While you're waiting around for your nuclear,
222
539000
2000
Mens du går og venter på din kernekraft,
09:16
you have to run the regular electric power grid,
223
541000
3000
er du nødt til at bruge det almindelige strømnet,
09:19
which is mostly coal in the United States and around the world.
224
544000
3000
som består mest af kul i USA og i resten af verden.
09:22
And the chart here shows the difference between
225
547000
3000
Diagrammet her viser forskellen mellem
09:25
the emissions from the regular grid,
226
550000
2000
udledningerne fra det almindelige net,
09:27
resulting if you use nuclear, or anything else,
227
552000
3000
hvis du bruger atomkraft, eller noget andet,
09:30
versus wind, CSP or photovoltaics.
228
555000
3000
i forhold til vind, solvarme eller solceller.
09:33
Wind takes about two to five years on average,
229
558000
3000
Vindkraft tager omkring to til fem år i gennemsnit,
09:36
same as concentrated solar and photovoltaics.
230
561000
2000
det samme som solvarme og solceller.
09:38
So the difference is the opportunity cost
231
563000
3000
Så forskellen er offeromkostningerne
09:41
of using nuclear versus wind, or something else.
232
566000
3000
ved at bruge atomkraft i forhold til vind eller andet.
09:44
So if you add these two together, alone,
233
569000
2000
Hvis du alene ligger disse sammen,
09:46
you can see a separation
234
571000
2000
kan du se en adskillelse,
09:48
that nuclear puts out at least nine to 17 times
235
573000
3000
og atomkraft udsender mindst ni til 17 gange
09:51
more CO2 equivalent emissions than wind energy.
236
576000
3000
mere CO2 lignende emissioner end vindenergi.
09:54
And this doesn't even account
237
579000
2000
Dette tager ikke engang højde
09:56
for the footprint on the ground.
238
581000
2000
for aftrykket på jorden.
09:58
If you look at the air pollution health effects,
239
583000
3000
Hvis du kigger på luftforureningens påvirkninger af helbredet,
10:01
this is the number of deaths per year in 2020
240
586000
2000
dette er antallet af døde om året i 2020
10:03
just from vehicle exhaust.
241
588000
2000
alene fra udstødningsgasser.
10:05
Let's say we converted all the vehicles in the United States
242
590000
3000
Lad os forestille os, at vi omdannede alle biler i USA
10:08
to battery electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
243
593000
3000
til batteridrevne elektriske biler, hydrogendrevne biler
10:11
or flex fuel vehicles run on E85.
244
596000
2000
eller biler, der kører på biobenzin.
10:13
Well, right now in the United States,
245
598000
2000
Lige nu i USA
10:15
50 to 100,000 people die per year from air pollution,
246
600000
3000
dør 50 til 100.000 mennesker om året på grund af luftforurening,
10:18
and vehicles are about 25,000 of those.
247
603000
3000
og biler står for omkring 25.000 af disse.
10:21
In 2020, the number will go down to 15,000
248
606000
2000
I 2020 vil det tal falde til 15.000
10:23
due to improvements.
249
608000
2000
på grund af forbedringer.
10:25
And so, on the right, you see gasoline emissions,
250
610000
2000
Her kan du, til højre, se benzinudledningerne,
10:27
the death rates of 2020.
251
612000
2000
dødeligheden i 2020.
10:29
If you go to corn or cellulosic ethanol,
252
614000
2000
Hvis du kigger på majs eller celluloseholdigt ethanol,
10:31
you'd actually increase the death rate slightly.
253
616000
2000
så stiger dødeligheden faktisk en smule.
10:33
If you go to nuclear,
254
618000
2000
Hvis du bruger atomkraft,
10:35
you do get a big reduction,
255
620000
2000
får du en stor reduktion,
10:37
but it's not as much as with wind and concentrated solar.
256
622000
3000
men den er ikke så stor som ved brug af vind eller solvarme.
10:40
Now if you consider the fact
257
625000
2000
Hvis du så overvejer det faktum,
10:42
that nuclear weapons proliferation
258
627000
3000
at udbredelsen af atomvåben
10:45
is associated with nuclear energy proliferation,
259
630000
2000
er forbundet til udbredelsen af atomenergi,
10:47
because we know for example,
260
632000
2000
for vi ved, for eksempel,
10:49
India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons secretly
261
634000
3000
at Indien og Pakistan udviklede atomvåben i hemmelighed
10:52
by enriching uranium
262
637000
2000
ved at berige uran
10:54
in nuclear energy facilities.
263
639000
2000
på atomkraftværker.
10:56
North Korea did that to some extent.
264
641000
2000
Nordkorea gjorde det også til en vis grad.
10:58
Iran is doing that right now.
265
643000
2000
Iran gør det lige nu.
11:00
And Venezuela would be doing it
266
645000
2000
Og Venezuela ville gøre det,
11:02
if they started with their nuclear energy facilities.
267
647000
3000
hvis de startede deres atomkraftværker.
11:05
If you do a large scale expansion
268
650000
3000
Hvis du foretager en stor udvidelse
11:08
of nuclear energy across the world,
269
653000
3000
af atomkraft verden over,
11:11
and as a result there was just one
270
656000
2000
og som resultat af dét blev der lavet blot én
11:13
nuclear bomb created
271
658000
3000
atombombe,
11:17
that was used to destroy a city
272
662000
2000
som blev brugt til at ødelægge en by
11:19
such as Mumbai or some other big city, megacity,
273
664000
3000
så som Mumbai eller en anden stor by, en megaby,
11:22
the additional death rates due to this
274
667000
2000
ville de yderligere dødsfald på grund af dette
11:24
averaged over 30 years and then scaled to the population of the U.S.
275
669000
3000
gennemsnitligt over 30 år og skaleret til USA’s befolkning
11:27
would be this.
276
672000
2000
ville være dette.
11:29
So, do we need this?
277
674000
2000
Har vi brug for dette?
11:31
The next thing is: What about the footprint? Stewart mentioned the footprint.
278
676000
3000
Den næste ting: Hvad med aftrykket? Stewart nævnte aftrykket.
11:34
Actually, the footprint on the ground for wind
279
679000
2000
Faktisk er aftrykket på jorden for vindenergi
11:36
is by far the smallest of any energy source in the world.
280
681000
3000
langt det mindste sammenlignet med hvilken som helst energikilde i verden.
11:39
That, because the footprint, as you can see,
281
684000
2000
Det er fordi, at aftrykket, som I kan se,
11:41
is just the pole touching the ground.
282
686000
2000
blot er en pæl, der rører jorden.
11:43
And you can power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet
283
688000
2000
Man kan drive alle biler i USA
11:45
with 73,000 to 145,000
284
690000
3000
med 73.000 til 145.000
11:48
five-megawatt wind turbines.
285
693000
2000
fem-megawatt vindturbiner.
11:50
That would take between one and three square kilometers
286
695000
3000
Det ville kræve mellem 2,5 og 8 kvadratkilometer
11:53
of footprint on the ground, entirely.
287
698000
2000
aftryk på jorden alt i alt.
11:55
The spacing is something else.
288
700000
2000
Afstanden er noget helt andet.
11:57
That's the footprint that is always being confused.
289
702000
2000
Det er aftrykket, der altid bliver misforstået.
11:59
People confuse footprint with spacing.
290
704000
2000
Man misforstår aftrykket for afstanden.
12:01
As you can see from these pictures,
291
706000
2000
Som I kan se fra disse billeder,
12:03
the spacing between can be used for multiple purposes
292
708000
3000
så kan afstanden mellem vindmøllerne blive brugt til mange formål,
12:06
including agricultural land,
293
711000
2000
herunder landbrug,
12:08
range land or open space.
294
713000
2000
land til kvæg eller vidder.
12:10
Over the ocean, it's not even land.
295
715000
2000
Over havet er der ikke engang land.
12:12
Now if we look at nuclear -- (Laughter)
296
717000
3000
Hvis så kigger på atomkraft -- (Latter)
12:15
With nuclear, what do we have?
297
720000
2000
Hvad har vi med atomkraft?
12:17
We have facilities around there. You also have a buffer zone
298
722000
2000
Vi har anlæg rundt omkring. Vi har også en bufferzone,
12:19
that's 17 square kilometers.
299
724000
2000
der er 45 kvadratkilometer.
12:21
And you have the uranium mining
300
726000
2000
Du har også udvindingen af uran,
12:23
that you have to deal with.
301
728000
2000
der skal tages højde for.
12:25
Now if we go to the area,
302
730000
2000
Hvis vi kigger på arealet,
12:27
lots is worse than nuclear or wind.
303
732000
3000
så er meget værre end atom- eller vindkraft.
12:30
For example, cellulosic ethanol, to power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet,
304
735000
3000
For eksempel, celluloseholdigt ethanol til at drive USA’s vognpark
12:33
this is how much land you would need.
305
738000
2000
ville kræve så meget land.
12:35
That's cellulosic, second generation
306
740000
2000
Det er celluloseholdigt ethanol, anden generation
12:37
biofuels from prairie grass.
307
742000
2000
biobrændsler fra præriegræs.
12:39
Here's corn ethanol. It's smaller.
308
744000
2000
Her er ethanol fra majs. Det er mindre.
12:41
This is based on ranges from data,
309
746000
3000
Det er baseret på data,
12:44
but if you look at nuclear,
310
749000
2000
og hvis man kigger på atomkraft,
12:46
it would be the size of Rhode Island to power the U.S. vehicle fleet.
311
751000
3000
vil det være på størrelse med Rhode Island for at drive USA’s vognpark.
12:49
For wind, there's a larger area,
312
754000
2000
Vindkraft vil bruge et større område,
12:51
but much smaller footprint.
313
756000
2000
men med et meget mindre aftryk.
12:53
And of course, with wind,
314
758000
2000
Og med vind kan du selvfølgelig
12:55
you could put it all over the East Coast,
315
760000
2000
placere det på hele østkysten,
12:57
offshore theoretically, or you can split it up.
316
762000
2000
offshore teoretisk, eller du kan dele det op.
12:59
And now, if you go back to
317
764000
2000
Hvis du går tilbage og
13:01
looking at geothermal, it's even smaller than both,
318
766000
3000
kigger på jordvarme, så er det endnu mindre end begge,
13:04
and solar is slightly larger than the nuclear spacing,
319
769000
3000
og solenergi er en smule større end pladsen til atomkraft,
13:07
but it's still pretty small.
320
772000
2000
men det er stadig temmeligt småt.
13:09
And this is to power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet.
321
774000
2000
Og det er for at drive hele USA’s vognpark.
13:11
To power the entire world with 50 percent wind,
322
776000
3000
For at kunne drive hele verden med 50 procent vindenergi,
13:14
you would need about one percent of world land.
323
779000
3000
skal du bruge omkring én procent af jordens landområder.
13:17
Matching the reliability, base load is actually irrelevant.
324
782000
2000
For at matche pålideligheden er grundbelastningen faktisk irrelevant.
13:19
We want to match the hour-by-hour power supply.
325
784000
3000
Vi skal matche elektricitetsforbruget time for time.
13:22
You can do that by combining renewables.
326
787000
2000
Det kan du gøre ved at kombinere vedvarende energikilder.
13:24
This is from real data in California,
327
789000
2000
Det her er reelle data fra Californien,
13:26
looking at wind data and solar data.
328
791000
3000
med data om vinden og solen.
13:29
And it considers just using existing hydro
329
794000
3000
Det tager hensyn til at bruge eksisterende vandkraft
13:32
to match the hour-by-hour power demand.
330
797000
2000
til at matche kravene for elektricitet time for time.
13:34
Here are the world wind resources.
331
799000
2000
Her er verdens vind-ressourcer.
13:36
There's five to 10 times more wind available worldwide
332
801000
2000
Der er 5 til 10 gange mere vind tilgængeligt på verdensplan,
13:38
than we need for all the world.
333
803000
2000
end vi har brug for i hele verden.
13:40
So then here's the final ranking.
334
805000
2000
Her er den endelige sammenligning.
13:42
And one last slide I just want to show. This is the choice:
335
807000
3000
Og her er et sidste dias, jeg vil vise: her er valget.
13:45
You can either have wind or nuclear.
336
810000
2000
Vi kan enten have vindkraft eller atomkraft.
13:47
If you use wind,
337
812000
2000
Hvis vi bruger vind,
13:49
you guarantee ice will last.
338
814000
2000
kan vi garantere at isen ikke vil tø.
13:51
Nuclear, the time lag alone
339
816000
2000
Med atomkraft vil forsinkelserne alene
13:53
will allow the Arctic to melt and other places to melt more.
340
818000
3000
tillade at Nordpolen smelter sammen med andre steder.
13:56
And we can guarantee a clean, blue sky
341
821000
3000
Vi kan garantere en ren, blå himmel,
13:59
or an uncertain future with nuclear power.
342
824000
3000
eller en usikker fremtid med atomkraft.
14:02
(Applause)
343
827000
8000
(Klapsalver)
14:10
CA: All right.
344
835000
2000
CA: Okay.
14:12
So while they're having their comebacks on each other --
345
837000
2000
Så mens de diskuterer en sidste gang --
14:14
and yours is slightly short because you slightly overran --
346
839000
2000
og du har lidt kortere tid, fordi du brugte lidt for meget før --
14:16
I need two people from either side.
347
841000
2000
skal jeg bruge to mennesker på hver side af påstanden.
14:18
So if you're for this,
348
843000
2000
Så hvis du for dette,
14:20
if you're for nuclear power, put up two hands.
349
845000
3000
hvis du er for atomkraft, skal du række to hænder i vejret.
14:23
If you're against, put up one.
350
848000
2000
Hvis du er i mod det, skal du række én hånd op.
14:25
And I want two of each for the mics.
351
850000
2000
To fra hver side skal have en mikrofon.
14:27
Now then, you guys have --
352
852000
2000
Nu har i --
14:29
you have a minute comeback on him
353
854000
3000
du har et minut til at lave et comeback på ham,
14:32
to pick up a point he said, challenge it,
354
857000
2000
til at vælge en pointe, han havde, udfordre den,
14:34
whatever.
355
859000
2000
eller hvad du vil.
14:38
SB: I think a point of difference we're having, Mark,
356
863000
2000
SB: Jeg tror en stor forskel mellem os, Mark,
14:40
has to do with weapons
357
865000
3000
er ved spørgsmålet om våben
14:43
and energy.
358
868000
2000
og energi.
14:45
These diagrams that show that nuclear is somehow
359
870000
2000
De diagrammer, der viser at atomkraft på en eller anden måde
14:47
putting out a lot of greenhouse gases --
360
872000
2000
udsender en masse drivhusgasser --
14:49
a lot of those studies include, "Well of course war will be inevitable
361
874000
3000
en masse af de studier vil sige, at "selvfølgelig vil krig være uundgåeligt,
14:52
and therefore we'll have cities burning and stuff like that,"
362
877000
2000
og derfor vil byer brænde og sådan noget,"
14:54
which is kind of finessing it
363
879000
2000
hvilket er at strække den
14:56
a little bit, I think.
364
881000
3000
en lille smule, synes jeg.
14:59
The reality is that there's, what,
365
884000
2000
Realiteten er, at der er
15:01
21 nations that have nuclear power?
366
886000
3000
21 nationer, der har atomkraft.
15:04
Of those, seven have nuclear weapons.
367
889000
2000
Af disse har 7 atomvåben.
15:06
In every case, they got the weapons
368
891000
2000
I hvert tilfælde fik de våbnene
15:08
before they got the nuclear power.
369
893000
3000
før de fik atomenergi.
15:11
There are two nations, North Korea and Israel,
370
896000
2000
Der er to nationer, Nordkorea og Israel,
15:13
that have nuclear weapons
371
898000
2000
der har atomvåben
15:15
and don't have nuclear power at all.
372
900000
2000
uden overhovedet at have atomenergi.
15:17
The places that we would most like to have
373
902000
3000
De steder, hvor vi virkelig gerne vil have
15:20
really clean energy occur
374
905000
2000
helt ren energi
15:22
are China, India, Europe, North America,
375
907000
3000
er Kina, Indien, Europa og Nordamerika,
15:25
all of which have sorted out their situation
376
910000
3000
og alle de steder har styr på deres situation
15:28
in relation to nuclear weapons.
377
913000
2000
med atomvåben.
15:30
So that leaves a couple of places like Iran,
378
915000
2000
Det efterlader et par steder så som Iran,
15:32
maybe Venezuela,
379
917000
2000
måske Venezuela,
15:34
that you would like to have very close
380
919000
3000
hvor vi gerne vil have rigtig streng
15:37
surveillance of anything
381
922000
2000
overvågning af alt,
15:39
that goes on with fissile stuff.
382
924000
2000
der foregår på atomkraftværker.
15:41
Pushing ahead with nuclear power will mean we
383
926000
2000
Hvis vi kæmper for atomkraft
15:43
really know where all of the fissile material is,
384
928000
2000
kan vi få et overblik over, hvor alt det fissile materiale er,
15:45
and we can move toward
385
930000
2000
og så kan vi bevæge os mod
15:47
zero weapons left, once we know all that.
386
932000
3000
at fjerne alle atomvåben.
15:50
CA: Mark,
387
935000
2000
CA: Mark,
15:52
30 seconds, either on that or on anything Stewart said.
388
937000
3000
du har 30 sekunder til at kommentere på noget af det Stewart har sagt.
15:55
MJ: Well we know India and Pakistan had nuclear energy first,
389
940000
3000
MJ: Vi ved, at Indien og Pakistan havde atomkraft først,
15:58
and then they developed nuclear weapons secretly in the factories.
390
943000
3000
hvorefter de udviklede atomvåben i hemmelighed.
16:01
So the other thing is, we don't need nuclear energy.
391
946000
3000
En anden ting er, at vi ikke har brug for atomenergi.
16:04
There's plenty of solar and wind.
392
949000
2000
Der er masser af energi i solen og vinden.
16:06
You can make it reliable, as I showed with that diagram.
393
951000
2000
Vi kan gøre det pålideligt, som jeg også viste jer på diagrammerne.
16:08
That's from real data.
394
953000
2000
De er baseret på reelle data.
16:10
And this is an ongoing research. This is not rocket science.
395
955000
2000
Dette er løbende forskning. Det er ikke raketvidenskab.
16:12
Solving the world's problems can be done,
396
957000
3000
Vi kan løse verdens problemer,
16:15
if you really put your mind to it and use clean, renewable energy.
397
960000
3000
hvis vi virkelig engagerer os og bruger ren, vedvarende energi.
16:18
There's absolutely no need for nuclear power.
398
963000
3000
Der er absolut intet behov for atomkraft.
16:21
(Applause)
399
966000
3000
(Klapsalver)
16:24
CA: We need someone for.
400
969000
2000
CA: Vi skal bruge en, der er for atomkraft.
16:26
Rod Beckstrom: Thank you Chris. I'm Rod Beckstrom, CEO of ICANN.
401
971000
3000
Rod Beckstrom: Tak, Chris. Jeg hedder Rod Beckstrom, jeg er administrerende direktør i ICANN.
16:29
I've been involved in global warming policy
402
974000
2000
Jeg har været involveret i politikken bag den globale opvarmning
16:31
since 1994,
403
976000
2000
siden 1994,
16:33
when I joined the board of Environmental Defense Fund
404
978000
2000
hvor jeg trådte ind i bestyrelsen for Environmental Defense Fund,
16:35
that was one of the crafters of the Kyoto Protocol.
405
980000
3000
der var en af skaberne af Kyoto-aftalen.
16:38
And I want to support Stewart Brand's position.
406
983000
2000
Jeg vil gerne støtte Stewart Brands' holdning.
16:40
I've come around in the last 10 years.
407
985000
2000
Jeg har skiftet holdning i løbet af de sidste 10 år.
16:42
I used to be against nuclear power.
408
987000
2000
Jeg var engang i mod atomkraft.
16:44
I'm now supporting Stewart's position,
409
989000
2000
Jeg støtter nu Stewarts holdning,
16:46
softly, from a risk-management standpoint,
410
991000
2000
og, set fra et risikostyrings-synspunkt,
16:48
agreeing that
411
993000
2000
er jeg enig i,
16:50
the risks of overheating the planet
412
995000
2000
at risikoen for, at vi overopheder planeten
16:52
outweigh the risk of nuclear incident,
413
997000
3000
opvejer risikoen for, at vi har et uheld med atomkraft,
16:55
which certainly is possible and is a very real problem.
414
1000000
3000
selvom dét også er en reel trussel og et reelt problem.
16:58
However, I think there may be a win-win solution here
415
1003000
2000
Jeg tror dog, at der findes en løsning,
17:00
where both parties can win this debate,
416
1005000
3000
der kan tilfredsstille begge parter i denne debat,
17:03
and that is, we face a situation
417
1008000
2000
og det er, at vi står over for en situation,
17:05
where it's carbon caps on this planet
418
1010000
2000
hvor vi skal indføre loft over CO2-udslippet,
17:07
or die.
419
1012000
2000
ellers dør vi.
17:09
And in the United States Senate,
420
1014000
2000
I Senatet i USA
17:11
we need bipartisan support --
421
1016000
2000
skal vi bruge tværpolitisk støtte --
17:13
only one or two votes are needed --
422
1018000
2000
vi skal kun bruge én eller to ekstra stemmer --
17:15
to move global warming through the Senate,
423
1020000
2000
for at global opvarmning kan blive behandlet i Senatet,
17:17
and this room can help.
424
1022000
2000
og alle her kan hjælpe.
17:19
So if we get that through, then Mark will solve these problems. Thanks Chris.
425
1024000
3000
Hvis vi kan få dét til at ske, så kan Mark løse disse problemer. Tak, Chris.
17:22
CA: Thank you Rod Beckstrom. Against.
426
1027000
2000
CA: Tak, Rod Beckstrom. Imod atomkraft.
17:24
David Fanton: Hi, I'm David Fanton. I just want to say a couple quick things.
427
1029000
3000
David Fanton: Hej, jeg hedder David Fanton. Jeg vil bare lige sige et par hurtige ting.
17:27
The first is: be aware of the propaganda.
428
1032000
3000
Den første er: pas på propagandaen.
17:30
The propaganda from the industry
429
1035000
2000
Propagandaen fra industrien
17:32
has been very, very strong.
430
1037000
2000
har været meget stærk.
17:34
And we have not had
431
1039000
2000
Vi har endnu ikke hørt
17:36
the other side of the argument fully aired
432
1041000
3000
alle argumenterne fra den anden side af denne debat,
17:39
so that people can draw their own conclusions.
433
1044000
2000
således at folk kan drage deres egne konklusioner.
17:41
Be very aware of the propaganda.
434
1046000
2000
Pas rigtigt meget på propagandaen.
17:43
Secondly, think about this.
435
1048000
2000
For det andet, tænk på dette.
17:45
If we build all these nuclear power plants,
436
1050000
2000
Hvis vi bygger alle disse atomkraftværker,
17:47
all that waste
437
1052000
2000
så vil alt affaldet
17:49
is going to be on hundreds, if not thousands,
438
1054000
2000
være på hundrede, måske tusinde,
17:51
of trucks and trains,
439
1056000
2000
af lastbiler og toge,
17:53
moving through this country every day.
440
1058000
2000
der bevæger sig igennem landet hver dag.
17:55
Tell me they're not going to have accidents.
441
1060000
3000
Bild mig ikke ind, at der ikke vil ske et uheld.
17:58
Tell me that those accidents aren't going to
442
1063000
3000
Bild mig ikke ind, at de uheld ikke vil sprede
18:01
put material into the environment
443
1066000
3000
materiale ud i miljøet,
18:04
that is poisonous for hundreds of thousands of years.
444
1069000
2000
materiale der er giftigt i flere hundrede tusind år.
18:06
And then tell me that each and every one of those trucks and trains
445
1071000
3000
Prøv så at bilde mig ind, at hver enkelt af disse lastbiler og toge
18:09
isn't a potential terrorist target.
446
1074000
2000
ikke vil være potentielle mål for terrorister.
18:11
CA: Thank you.
447
1076000
2000
CA: Tak.
18:14
For.
448
1079000
2000
For atomkraft.
18:16
Anyone else for? Go.
449
1081000
3000
Er der nogen, der er for? Værsgo.
18:19
Alex: Hi, I'm Alex. I just wanted to say,
450
1084000
2000
Alex: Hej, jeg hedder Alex. Jeg ville bare lige sige,
18:21
I'm, first of all, renewable energy's biggest fan.
451
1086000
2000
at jeg, for det første, er vedvarende energis største fan.
18:23
I've got solar PV on my roof.
452
1088000
2000
Jeg har solceller på taget.
18:25
I've got a hydro conversion
453
1090000
2000
Jeg har vandkraft
18:27
at a watermill that I own.
454
1092000
2000
fra en vandmølle, jeg ejer.
18:29
And I'm, you know, very much "pro" that kind of stuff.
455
1094000
3000
Jeg er rigtigt meget for alt den slags.
18:32
However, there's a basic arithmetic problem here.
456
1097000
3000
Ikke desto mindre står vi over for et matematisk problem her.
18:35
The capability of
457
1100000
2000
Kapaciteten i
18:37
the sun shining, the wind blowing and the rain falling,
458
1102000
3000
solen, der skinner; vinden, der blæser og regnen, der falder,
18:40
simply isn't enough to add up.
459
1105000
2000
er simpelthen ikke nok.
18:42
So if we want to keep the lights on,
460
1107000
2000
Så hvis vores lys skal forblive tændt,
18:44
we actually need a solution
461
1109000
2000
så har vi brug for en løsning,
18:46
which is going to keep generating all of the time.
462
1111000
3000
der kan skabe energi hele tiden.
18:49
I campaigned against nuclear weapons in the '80s,
463
1114000
3000
Jeg protesterede mod atomvåben i 80'erne,
18:52
and I continue to do so now.
464
1117000
2000
og det gør jeg stadig.
18:54
But we've got an opportunity
465
1119000
2000
Men vi har en mulighed for
18:56
to recycle them into something more useful
466
1121000
2000
at genbruge våbnene som noget brugbart,
18:58
that enables us to get energy all of the time.
467
1123000
3000
der gør os i stand til at få energi hele tiden.
19:01
And, ultimately, the arithmetic problem isn't going to go away.
468
1126000
3000
I sidste ende vil det matematiske problem ikke forsvinde.
19:04
We're not going to get enough energy from renewables alone.
469
1129000
3000
Vi kan ikke få nok energi fra vedvarende kilder alene.
19:07
We need a solution that generates all of the time.
470
1132000
2000
Vi har brug for en løsning, der kan generere energi hele tiden.
19:09
If we're going to keep the lights on,
471
1134000
2000
Hvis vi vil beholde lyset tændt,
19:11
nuclear is that solution.
472
1136000
2000
er atomkraft den løsning.
19:13
CA: Thank you.
473
1138000
2000
CA: Tak.
19:16
Anyone else against?
474
1141000
2000
Er der andre, der er imod?
19:18
Man: The last person who was in favor made the premise
475
1143000
2000
Mand: Den sidste person, der talte for atomkraft, antog,
19:20
that we don't have enough
476
1145000
2000
at vi ikke har nok
19:22
alternative renewable resources.
477
1147000
3000
alternative vedvarende energikilder.
19:25
And our "against" proponent up here
478
1150000
2000
Vores modtaler af forslaget på scenen
19:27
made it very clear that we actually do.
479
1152000
2000
gjorde det klart, at det har vi altså.
19:29
And so the fallacy
480
1154000
2000
Ideen om
19:31
that we need this resource
481
1156000
2000
at vi har brug for denne ressource,
19:33
and we can actually make it in a time frame
482
1158000
2000
og at vi kan nå det inden for en given tidsramme,
19:35
that is meaningful is not possible.
483
1160000
2000
der giver mening, er ikke mulig.
19:37
I will also add one other thing.
484
1162000
2000
Jeg vil også tilføje en sidste ting.
19:39
Ray Kurzweil and all the other talks --
485
1164000
2000
Ray Kurzweil og alle de andre talere --
19:41
we know that the stick is going up exponentially.
486
1166000
2000
vi ved at udviklingen stiger eksponentielt.
19:43
So you can't look at state-of-the-art technologies in renewables
487
1168000
3000
Derfor kan du ikke kigge på vores topmoderne teknologier inden for vedvarende energi
19:46
and say, "That's all we have."
488
1171000
2000
og sige, at det er alt, hvad vi har.
19:48
Because five years from now, it will blow you away
489
1173000
2000
Fordi om fem år vil du blive imponeret over
19:50
what we'll actually have as alternatives
490
1175000
2000
hvilke alternativer vi har
19:52
to this horrible, disastrous nuclear power.
491
1177000
2000
til denne horrible, katastrofale atomkraft.
19:54
CA: Point well made. Thank you.
492
1179000
2000
CA: God pointe. Tak.
19:56
(Applause)
493
1181000
3000
(Klapsalver)
19:59
So each of you has really just a couple sentences --
494
1184000
2000
Nu har i hver et par sætninger --
20:01
30 seconds each
495
1186000
2000
30 sekunder hver --
20:03
to sum up.
496
1188000
2000
til at opsummere.
20:06
Your final pitch, Stewart.
497
1191000
2000
Dit sidste bidrag, Stewart.
20:08
SB: I loved your "It all balances out" chart
498
1193000
3000
SB: Jeg er vild med det "det hele er i balance"-diagram,
20:11
that you had there.
499
1196000
2000
som du havde deroppe.
20:13
It was a sunny day and a windy night.
500
1198000
2000
Det var en solrig dag og en blæsende nat.
20:16
And just now in England
501
1201000
2000
I England har de lige haft
20:18
they had a cold spell.
502
1203000
2000
en kuldeperiode.
20:20
All of the wind in the entire country
503
1205000
2000
Alle vindturbiner i hele landet
20:22
shut down for a week.
504
1207000
2000
var nedlukkede i en uge.
20:24
None of those things were stirring.
505
1209000
2000
Ingen af dem bevægede sig.
20:26
And as usual, they had to buy nuclear power from France.
506
1211000
2000
Som sædvanlig var de nødt til at købe atomenergi fra Frankrig.
20:28
Two gigawatts comes through the Chunnel.
507
1213000
2000
To gigawatt kom under Kanalen.
20:30
This keeps happening.
508
1215000
2000
Det sker hele tiden.
20:32
I used to worry about the 10,000 year factor.
509
1217000
3000
Jeg var en gang bekymret for atomaffaldets levetid.
20:36
And the fact is, we're going to use the nuclear waste we have for fuel
510
1221000
3000
Faktum er dog, at vi kan bruge vores eksisterende affald som brændsel
20:39
in the fourth generation of reactors that are coming along.
511
1224000
3000
i de fjerde generations reaktorer, der er på vej.
20:42
And especially the small reactors need to go forward.
512
1227000
3000
Specielt brugen af de små reaktorer skal øges.
20:45
I heard from Nathan Myhrvold -- and I think here's the action point --
513
1230000
3000
Jeg hørte fra Nathan Myhrvold -- og jeg tror, at det er her er aktionspunktet --
20:48
it'll take an act of Congress
514
1233000
2000
at det blot kræver en beslutning fra Kongressen
20:50
to make the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
515
1235000
2000
for at få Nuclear Regulatory Commision
20:52
start moving quickly on these small reactors,
516
1237000
2000
til at få fart i udbredelsen af disse små reaktorer,
20:54
which we need very much, here and in the world.
517
1239000
3000
som vi har rigtigt meget brug for både her og i resten af verden.
20:58
(Applause)
518
1243000
6000
(Klapsalver)
21:04
MJ: So we've analyzed the hour-by-hour
519
1249000
2000
MJ: Vi har, time for time, analyseret
21:06
power demand and supply,
520
1251000
2000
behovet og forsyningen af strøm
21:08
looking at solar, wind, using data for California.
521
1253000
3000
ved at kigge på data fra sol- og vindenergi i Californien.
21:11
And you can match that demand, hour-by-hour,
522
1256000
3000
Du kan matche behovet time for time
21:14
for the whole year almost.
523
1259000
2000
næsten hele året.
21:16
Now, with regard to the resources,
524
1261000
2000
Når det kommer til ressourcerne,
21:18
we've developed the first wind map of the world,
525
1263000
2000
så har vi udviklet verdens første kort over vinden,
21:20
from data alone, at 80 meters.
526
1265000
2000
fra data alene, helt ned til 80 meter.
21:22
We know what the wind resources are. You can cover 15 percent.
527
1267000
3000
Vi kender ressourcerne. Vi kan dække 15 procent.
21:25
Fifteen percent of the entire U.S.
528
1270000
2000
15 procent af hele USA
21:27
has wind at fast enough speeds to be cost-competitive.
529
1272000
3000
har vind, der blæser hurtigt nok til at være konkurrencedygtigt på prisen.
21:30
And there's much more solar than there is wind.
530
1275000
2000
Der er endnu mere energi i solen, end der er i vinden.
21:32
There's plenty of resource. You can make it reliable.
531
1277000
3000
Der er masser af ressourcer. Vi kan gøre det pålideligt.
21:35
CA: Okay. So, thank you, Mark.
532
1280000
3000
CA: Okay. Tak, Mark.
21:38
(Applause)
533
1283000
4000
(Klapsalver)
21:42
So if you were in Palm Springs ...
534
1287000
3000
Så hvis du var i Palm Springs...
21:45
(Laughter)
535
1290000
5000
(Latter)
21:50
(Applause)
536
1295000
2000
(Klapsalver)
21:52
Shameless. Shameless. Shameless.
537
1297000
3000
Skamløst. Skamløst. Skamløst.
21:55
(Applause)
538
1300000
2000
(Klapsalver)
21:57
So, people of the TED community,
539
1302000
3000
Altså, folk i TED-samfundet,
22:00
I put it to you that what the world needs now
540
1305000
2000
jeg påstår over for jer, at det, verden har brug for nu,
22:02
is nuclear energy.
541
1307000
2000
er atomkraft.
22:04
All those in favor, raise your hands.
542
1309000
3000
Alle dem der er enige, ræk jeres hænder op.
22:07
(Shouts)
543
1312000
3000
(Råb)
22:10
And all those against.
544
1315000
2000
Og alle dem, der er uenige.
22:13
Ooooh.
545
1318000
2000
Åååh.
22:15
Now that is -- my take on that ...
546
1320000
2000
Det er -- det ser jeg som...
22:17
Just put up ... Hands up, people who changed their minds during the debate,
547
1322000
3000
Bare ræk... Op med hænderne, jer, der skiftede mening i løbet af debatten,
22:20
who voted differently.
548
1325000
2000
jer, der stemte anderledes.
22:22
Those of you who changed your mind
549
1327000
3000
Dem, der skiftede mening
22:25
in favor of "for"
550
1330000
2000
til fordel for påstanden,
22:27
put your hands up.
551
1332000
2000
ræk jeres hænder op.
22:29
Okay. So here's the read on it.
552
1334000
3000
Okay. Sådan her ser jeg det.
22:32
Both people won supporters,
553
1337000
2000
Begge talere vandt tilhængere,
22:34
but on my count,
554
1339000
3000
men min optælling viser,
22:37
the mood of the TED community shifted
555
1342000
2000
at holdningen i forsamlingen skiftede
22:39
from about 75 to 25
556
1344000
2000
fra omkring 75 mod 25
22:41
to about 65 to 35
557
1346000
2000
til omkring 65 mod 35,
22:43
in favor, in favor.
558
1348000
2000
der er for.
22:45
You both won. I congratulate both of you.
559
1350000
2000
I vandt begge. Tillykke til jer begge.
22:47
Thank you for that.
560
1352000
2000
Tak for det.
22:49
(Applause)
561
1354000
3000
(Klapsalver)
Translated by Asger Bachmann
ABOUT THE SPEAKERS
Stewart Brand - Environmentalist, futuristSince the counterculture '60s, Stewart Brand has been creating our internet-worked world. Now, with biotech accelerating four times faster than digital technology, Stewart Brand has a bold new plan ...
Why you should listen
With biotech accelerating four times faster than digital technology, the revival of extinct species is becoming possible. Stewart Brand plans to not only bring species back but restore them to the wild.
Brand is already a legend in the tech industry for things he’s created: the Whole Earth Catalog, The WELL, the Global Business Network, the Long Now Foundation, and the notion that “information wants to be free.” Now Brand, a lifelong environmentalist, wants to re-create -- or “de-extinct” -- a few animals that’ve disappeared from the planet.
Granted, resurrecting the woolly mammoth using ancient DNA may sound like mad science. But Brand’s Revive and Restore project has an entirely rational goal: to learn what causes extinctions so we can protect currently endangered species, preserve genetic and biological diversity, repair depleted ecosystems, and essentially “undo harm that humans have caused in the past.”
Stewart Brand | Speaker | TED.com
Mark Z. Jacobson - Civil and environmental engineer
At Stanford, Mark Z. Jacobson uses numerical models to study the effects of energy systems and vehicles on climate and air pollution, and to analyze renewable energy resources.
Why you should listen
Mark Z. Jacobson's research looks at the causes and effects of vastly complex processes -- the physics and chemistry of our atmosphere. He and his team at Stanford have pioneered new atmospheric research and analysis techniques that give a picture of the current state of our atmosphere, show what pollution from aerosols, ethanol, agriculture, and ultraviolet radiation are doing to it, and predict how these might affect the climate.
Jacobson developed the first interactive model showing the combined effects of gas, aerosols and radiative air-pollution on weather systems. He also discovered that black carbon -- the main component of soot particles -- may be the second-leading cause of global warming after carbon dioxide.
Jacobson's group developed the world's first wind map based on data at the height of modern wind turbines -- serving as the scientific justification for major wind farm proposals in recent years.
Mark Z. Jacobson | Speaker | TED.com