The ghostly flickers of a new dawn
关键词： 核电,NuclearInternational
Nuclear power
The ghostly flickers of a new dawn
核电：曙光新现 明灭若幽
Nov 23rd 2006 | SYDNEY
From The Economist print edition
A shift in Australia's stance is a sign of the times: all over the world governments are rethinking the politics and economics of nuclear power
澳大利亚立场的转变预示着一个新的时代：全世界政府都在重新思考核电的政治和经济意义。
AP/美联社
FOR much of its 26-year life the Ranger uranium mine in north Australia has seen protests from ecologists who oppose digging for nuclear fuel on the edge of a world heritage park. But by 2008, as the mine's riches run out, Australia may be marching towards a new nuclear era, prompted in part by fear of climate change, the biggest ecological issue of all.
在北澳大利亚兰杰（Ranger）铀矿26年开发史的大部分时期内，它一直受到来自生态学家的抗议，他们反对在一个世界遗产公园的周边地区开发铀矿用于核燃料生产。但是到2008年，该矿资源将开发殆尽，届时澳大利亚可能会步入一个新的核能时代，这在一定程度上也源于对气候变迁的忧虑，后者是当今最重大的生态问题。
On November 21st a government report said Australia should do more than sell uranium to other countries: it should use the material to fuel its own nuclear-power industry, and hence curb its greenhouse gas emissions. That is what John Howard, the prime minister, wanted to hear. Long a sceptic over global warming, he amazed everyone by saying during a trip to Canada in May that nuclear power was an “inevitable” choice for Australia.
11月21日出台的一份政府报告表示，澳大利亚不能仅仅向其它国家出售铀资源，更应将之用作自身的核电工业的燃料，进而抑制温室气体的排放。这正合总理约翰·霍华德（John Howard）之意。他在5月份一次前往加拿大途中表示，核电是澳大利亚的“必然（inevitable）”选择。由于霍华德长期以来一直对全球变暖持怀疑立场，他的这番发言让所有人大为吃惊。
In many parts of the world the mood is shifting in favour of nuclear energy—often because other responses to climate change seem harder (see article). That in turn is creating new worries over the diversion of nuclear fuel to make bombs (see article) and making the distant dream of nuclear fusion even more attractive (see article).
全球许多地区都转向对核能的偏好，通常因为其它应对气候变化的方法似乎更为艰难。不过，这既带来新的忧虑——将核燃料转换制造核弹，也使得核聚变这一遥远的梦想变得更有吸引力。
Among rich countries Australia stands out as a place whose geography and geology pull its energy planners in different directions. It has 38% of the world's low-cost uranium reserves, but has never made its own nuclear power. Cheap coal fuels 80% of its electricity, gas the rest. But Mr Howard, having dropped his bombshell, ordered a policy review from Ziggy Switkowski, a scientifically inclined businessman.
在富裕国家当中，澳大利亚的地理和地质条件将该国能源规划者引向不同方向。澳大利亚拥有全球38%的廉价铀储量，但从未发展自身的核电业。该国80%的电力来自煤燃料，其余部分来自天然气资源。但是，亮出惊人之举的霍华德总理早前指示，由颇具科学天赋的商人齐吉·斯威克斯基（Ziggy Switkowski）博士负责进行政策检讨。
His conclusions? Australia could quadruple its 2005 revenue from exporting uranium oxide (mainly to America, France and Japan) if it enriched and fabricated the fuel first. He also says Australia should consider installing its first nuclear reactor by 2020, building up to 25 reactors by 2050; such a grid could supply one-third of the country's electricity and cut greenhouse gases by almost one-fifth.
那么，斯威克斯基的结论是什么呢？如果澳大利亚进行铀浓缩和初步燃料加工，氧化铀的出口收入（主要出口对象是美国、法国和日本）将是2005年的4倍。他同时表示，澳大利亚应该考虑在2020年之前建立自己的第一座核反应堆，到2050年核反应堆达到25座。这样的规模可以满足三分之一的全国电力所需，并缩减大约五分之一的温室气体排放量。
The report is already dividing the country. Not even Mr Howard liked it all: it acknowledges that nuclear power would be up to 50% dearer than electricity from coal. It would be competitive “only where the costs of greenhouse-gas emissions are explicitly recognised”, in other words by imposing carbon taxes, something Mr Howard has rejected.
这份报告已让全国上下纷争四起。甚至霍华德也不太欢喜：报告承认核电要比煤电高昂一半，“仅仅在温室气体排放量成本被明确认可”——换言之，即是已经遭到霍华德否决的实行强征碳税——的情况下，才具有竞争力。
With nuclear power now set to dominate next year's general election, Mr Switkowski has certainly given those worried about global warming something to think about: he notes that Australia's uranium exports alone (a record 12,000 tonnes last year) are enough to supply more than twice its annual electricity needs.
由于核电问题现在开始左右明年的大选，斯威克斯基确实也已提供了一些东西给那些担忧全球变暖问题的人考虑：他提到，单单只是澳大利亚铀出口量（去年记录为1.2万吨）就足以供应该国全年电力需求的两倍多。
Elsewhere in the world so many nations are either building new plants, or thinking about it, that energy analysts are speaking of a nuclear renaissance. New reactors are being built in 13 countries. Governments in others, like Britain and America, want to make it easier to start new plants. Several European states are slowing down plans to phase out nuclear power. Asian ones, whose nuclear appetite never faded, plan ever more reactors.
在全球其他地区，很多国家要么正在建新的核电站，要么正考虑有关问题，因此，能源分析家们都在谈及核能复兴（nuclear renaissance）。有13个国家在建新的核反应堆。其他地区的政府，如英国和美国，希望能更简便地启动新的核电厂。一些欧洲国家正在放慢逐步淘汰核电的计划。亚洲国家对核能的兴趣从未消退，它们计划建立更多的核反应堆。
In most places the nuclear debate hinges on safety, cost, the environment and security of supply. Atomic energy lost favour after a near disaster at Three Mile Island in America in 1979 and a real one at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union in 1986. But engineering firms say their latest designs are safer. Several claim to build “passively safe” plants that need no human or mechanical intervention to close after a fault, but rely on the laws of physics to contain runaway reactions. Regulators are tougher too: Finland has told Areva, a French firm making a new reactor, that it must be able to withstand a crashing plane. A consensus is emerging about where to put nuclear waste: most countries want to bury it underground, though only Finland and America have chosen sites.
在大多数地区，核能争论都是围绕着安全、成本、环境影响以及供应稳定性等话题。1979年美国三哩岛（Three Mile Island）核电站局部核泄漏几乎酿成灾难，1986年苏联切尔诺贝利（Chernobyl）核电站核泄漏事件则是实实在在的一场灾难，此后原子能失去了人们的宠爱。不过，工程公司表示，他们最新的设计比起以前大为安全可靠。一些公司声称，已建立具有“被动安全（passively safe）”特性的核电站，发生故障时无须人为或机械干预即能自动停止，它依靠物理学定律来遏制失控反应。管理者也相当强硬：芬兰已经要求为该国新建核反应堆的法国核电巨头阿海珐（Areva）公司必须确保反应堆能经受坠机（crashing plane）式灾难的考验。关于核废料处理的意见也正在趋于一致：大多数国家将把废料埋到地下，只有芬兰和美国选择了特定地点。
As for economics, study after study rates nuclear fission one of the cheapest ways to make power. In practice, however, nuclear plants have often disappointed because of delays, cost overruns and breakdowns. But utilities seem to be getting better at maintenance; some keep their reactors going more than 90% of the time. In democracies, politics is the biggest cause of delay and financial upset. Nuclear policies can be as fickle as government coalitions. Public opinion and local planners are often more sceptical than national authorities—so getting permits is a nail-biting business. Utilities like to skirt such problems by putting new reactors near existing ones, where locals accept nuclear power. Many operators in America and Europe have quietly raised their nuclear output by upgrading existing plants.
就经济学方面来说，一再的研究认为核裂变是获取核电的最便宜方式之一。但实际上，核电站常常因延误、成本超支以及故障而让人倍感失望。不过它在维护方面效用更好一些，一些核反应堆可以在90%以上的时间内连续运行。在民主国家，政治因素是导致延误和财政困扰的最主要原因。核政策一如政府联合那样的变幻无常。公共意见以及地方规划人士通常要比国家机关更持怀疑态度——因此获得许可是件悬而又悬的事情。公用事业部门希望在那些接受核电、并已现有核电站的地方新建反应堆，以回避这一难题。许多欧美运营商通过升级现有核电站已经悄然提高了产量。
Britain plans to encourage new reactors by amending its planning laws. Design will be approved by the national government, leaving local authorities to deal with narrower issues. America is offering utilities up to $2 billion in insurance against planning delays. Authoritarian countries like China, and even democratic ones with tough bureaucrats, like France or Japan, never gave much leeway to pesky locals.
英国计划通过修改其规划法以新建核反应堆。反应堆设计将由国家政府审核，更细碎的事务则留给地方政府去处理。美国向公共事业单位提供了20亿美元作为防范规划延误的保险。而像中国这样的威权国家，以及如法国和日本这样的官僚势力强大的民主国家，从来不会给惹麻烦的地方政府留有多少余地。
Planning aside, nuclear plants can be hard to finance, since they cost more and take longer to build than coal- or gas-fired units. In countries with state power firms, like China, the government can stump up the money or use its clout to reduce borrowing costs. A handful of firms, such as Electricité de France, are big and profitable enough to pay for new reactors out of regular income. Other solutions show more imagination: a Finnish consortium that is buying a new reactor consists of utilities and power users committed to buying the plant's output at cost.
撇开规划不说，相比用煤或煤气作燃料，核电站成本更高，建设周期更长，因而资金筹措也相当困难。在中国这类拥有国家电力公司的国家，政府自己可以掏腰包，或者利用自身影响力降低借贷成本。而诸如法国电力（Electricité de France）等少数大公司，自身利润丰厚，足以从固定收入中来补偿新建核反应堆所耗费用。其它解决方案就更显得富有想象力了：一家正在洽购新核反应堆的芬兰财团是由公用事业机构和得到许诺可以成本价购买核电的用户共同组成。
The Finnish and British governments say they will not subsidise nuclear power. America's has no such qualms; in addition to the insurance against delays, it is helping to bear the cost of the permitting process and offering tax breaks on power produced by new plants. Such enthusiasm reflects the hope that nuclear power can wean America off imported fossil fuels. Elsewhere, countries that fear foreign control of their energy supply tend to be pro-nuclear. Ukraine, site of the Chernobyl catastrophe, is busily making more nuclear plants to cut its reliance on Russian gas.
芬兰和英国政府表示，他们不会对核电提供补贴。美国还没有这一担心；除了提供延误保险，政府还伸出援手，承担获取许可证程序的费用，并对新建核电站的电力提供税收优惠。政府的热心反映出美国希望利用核电以戒除进口化石燃料。其它地方，那些担心外国控制能源供应的国家也往往倾向核电。乌克兰这个切尔诺贝利灾难发生地，正积极建造更多的核电站以缩减其对俄罗斯天然气的依赖。
In most of western Europe, feelings are more ambivalent. Many countries have cut nuclear output, or made plans to do so, and are only reluctantly reviewing that stance in the light of global warming. Indeed, some ecologists, such as Mike Townsley of Greenpeace, a lobby group, say talk of a renaissance is overdone. If there is a rebirth, it may lie in the mere fact that nuclear power is being discussed, not in any consensus about its merits.
大多数西欧国家的感受则更为矛盾。许多国家已经削减了核电产量或做了相关部署，但由于全球变暖的影响，它们正在不情愿地检讨其立场。事实上，一些生态学者——如游说组织“绿色和平（Greenpeace）”的马克·唐斯雷（Mike Townsley）——就认为有关核能复兴的讨论有些夸大了。即便真有核能复兴，那也只是基于核电问题被人们所广泛讨论这一最基本的事实，而非源自人们对其利弊达成多少共识。翻译 by witt
Nuclear power
The ghostly flickers of a new dawn
核电：曙光新现 明灭若幽
Nov 23rd 2006 | SYDNEY
From The Economist print edition
A shift in Australia's stance is a sign of the times: all over the world governments are rethinking the politics and economics of nuclear power
澳大利亚立场的转变预示着一个新的时代：全世界政府都在重新思考核电的政治和经济意义。
AP/美联社FOR much of its 26-year life the Ranger uranium mine in north Australia has seen protests from ecologists who oppose digging for nuclear fuel on the edge of a world heritage park. But by 2008, as the mine's riches run out, Australia may be marching towards a new nuclear era, prompted in part by fear of climate change, the biggest ecological issue of all.
在北澳大利亚兰杰（Ranger）铀矿26年开发史的大部分时期内，它一直受到来自生态学家的抗议，他们反对在一个世界遗产公园的周边地区开发铀矿用于核燃料生产。但是到2008年，该矿资源将开发殆尽，届时澳大利亚可能会步入一个新的核能时代，这在一定程度上也源于对气候变迁的忧虑，后者是当今最重大的生态问题。
On November 21st a government report said Australia should do more than sell uranium to other countries: it should use the material to fuel its own nuclear-power industry, and hence curb its greenhouse gas emissions. That is what John Howard, the prime minister, wanted to hear. Long a sceptic over global warming, he amazed everyone by saying during a trip to Canada in May that nuclear power was an “inevitable” choice for Australia.
11月21日出台的一份政府报告表示，澳大利亚不能仅仅向其它国家出售铀资源，更应将之用作自身的核电工业的燃料，进而抑制温室气体的排放。这正合总理约翰·霍华德（John Howard）之意。他在5月份一次前往加拿大途中表示，核电是澳大利亚的“必然（inevitable）”选择。由于霍华德长期以来一直对全球变暖持怀疑立场，他的这番发言让所有人大为吃惊。
In many parts of the world the mood is shifting in favour of nuclear energy—often because other responses to climate change seem harder (see article). That in turn is creating new worries over the diversion of nuclear fuel to make bombs (see article) and making the distant dream of nuclear fusion even more attractive (see article).
全球许多地区都转向对核能的偏好，通常因为其它应对气候变化的方法似乎更为艰难。不过，这既带来新的忧虑——将核燃料转换制造核弹，也使得核聚变这一遥远的梦想变得更有吸引力。
Among rich countries Australia stands out as a place whose geography and geology pull its energy planners in different directions. It has 38% of the world's low-cost uranium reserves, but has never made its own nuclear power. Cheap coal fuels 80% of its electricity, gas the rest. But Mr Howard, having dropped his bombshell, ordered a policy review from Ziggy Switkowski, a scientifically inclined businessman.
在富裕国家当中，澳大利亚的地理和地质条件将该国能源规划者引向不同方向。澳大利亚拥有全球38%的廉价铀储量，但从未发展自身的核电业。该国80%的电力来自煤燃料，其余部分来自天然气资源。但是，亮出惊人之举的霍华德总理早前指示，由颇具科学天赋的商人齐吉·斯威克斯基（Ziggy Switkowski）博士负责进行政策检讨。
His conclusions? Australia could quadruple its 2005 revenue from exporting uranium oxide (mainly to America, France and Japan) if it enriched and fabricated the fuel first. He also says Australia should consider installing its first nuclear reactor by 2020, building up to 25 reactors by 2050; such a grid could supply one-third of the country's electricity and cut greenhouse gases by almost one-fifth.
那么，斯威克斯基的结论是什么呢？如果澳大利亚进行铀浓缩和初步燃料加工，氧化铀的出口收入（主要出口对象是美国、法国和日本）将是2005年的4倍。他同时表示，澳大利亚应该考虑在2020年之前建立自己的第一座核反应堆，到2050年核反应堆达到25座。这样的规模可以满足三分之一的全国电力所需，并缩减大约五分之一的温室气体排放量。
The report is already dividing the country. Not even Mr Howard liked it all: it acknowledges that nuclear power would be up to 50% dearer than electricity from coal. It would be competitive “only where the costs of greenhouse-gas emissions are explicitly recognised”, in other words by imposing carbon taxes, something Mr Howard has rejected.
这份报告已让全国上下纷争四起。甚至霍华德也不太欢喜：报告承认核电要比煤电高昂一半，“仅仅在温室气体排放量成本被明确认可”——换言之，即是已经遭到霍华德否决的实行强征碳税——的情况下，才具有竞争力。
With nuclear power now set to dominate next year's general election, Mr Switkowski has certainly given those worried about global warming something to think about: he notes that Australia's uranium exports alone (a record 12,000 tonnes last year) are enough to supply more than twice its annual electricity needs.
由于核电问题现在开始左右明年的大选，斯威克斯基确实也已提供了一些东西给那些担忧全球变暖问题的人考虑：他提到，单单只是澳大利亚铀出口量（去年记录为1.2万吨）就足以供应该国全年电力需求的两倍多。
Elsewhere in the world so many nations are either building new plants, or thinking about it, that energy analysts are speaking of a nuclear renaissance. New reactors are being built in 13 countries. Governments in others, like Britain and America, want to make it easier to start new plants. Several European states are slowing down plans to phase out nuclear power. Asian ones, whose nuclear appetite never faded, plan ever more reactors.
在全球其他地区，很多国家要么正在建新的核电站，要么正考虑有关问题，因此，能源分析家们都在谈及核能复兴（nuclear renaissance）。有13个国家在建新的核反应堆。其他地区的政府，如英国和美国，希望能更简便地启动新的核电厂。一些欧洲国家正在放慢逐步淘汰核电的计划。亚洲国家对核能的兴趣从未消退，它们计划建立更多的核反应堆。
In most places the nuclear debate hinges on safety, cost, the environment and security of supply. Atomic energy lost favour after a near disaster at Three Mile Island in America in 1979 and a real one at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union in 1986. But engineering firms say their latest designs are safer. Several claim to build “passively safe” plants that need no human or mechanical intervention to close after a fault, but rely on the laws of physics to contain runaway reactions. Regulators are tougher too: Finland has told Areva, a French firm making a new reactor, that it must be able to withstand a crashing plane. A consensus is emerging about where to put nuclear waste: most countries want to bury it underground, though only Finland and America have chosen sites.
在大多数地区，核能争论都是围绕着安全、成本、环境影响以及供应稳定性等话题。1979年美国三哩岛（Three Mile Island）核电站局部核泄漏几乎酿成灾难，1986年苏联切尔诺贝利（Chernobyl）核电站核泄漏事件则是实实在在的一场灾难，此后原子能失去了人们的宠爱。不过，工程公司表示，他们最新的设计比起以前大为安全可靠。一些公司声称，已建立具有“被动安全（passively safe）”特性的核电站，发生故障时无须人为或机械干预即能自动停止，它依靠物理学定律来遏制失控反应。管理者也相当强硬：芬兰已经要求为该国新建核反应堆的法国核电巨头阿海珐（Areva）公司必须确保反应堆能经受坠机（crashing plane）式灾难的考验。关于核废料处理的意见也正在趋于一致：大多数国家将把废料埋到地下，只有芬兰和美国选择了特定地点。
As for economics, study after study rates nuclear fission one of the cheapest ways to make power. In practice, however, nuclear plants have often disappointed because of delays, cost overruns and breakdowns. But utilities seem to be getting better at maintenance; some keep their reactors going more than 90% of the time. In democracies, politics is the biggest cause of delay and financial upset. Nuclear policies can be as fickle as government coalitions. Public opinion and local planners are often more sceptical than national authorities—so getting permits is a nail-biting business. Utilities like to skirt such problems by putting new reactors near existing ones, where locals accept nuclear power. Many operators in America and Europe have quietly raised their nuclear output by upgrading existing plants.
就经济学方面来说，一再的研究认为核裂变是获取核电的最便宜方式之一。但实际上，核电站常常因延误、成本超支以及故障而让人倍感失望。不过它在维护方面效用更好一些，一些核反应堆可以在90%以上的时间内连续运行。在民主国家，政治因素是导致延误和财政困扰的最主要原因。核政策一如政府联合那样的变幻无常。公共意见以及地方规划人士通常要比国家机关更持怀疑态度——因此获得许可是件悬而又悬的事情。公用事业部门希望在那些接受核电、并已现有核电站的地方新建反应堆，以回避这一难题。许多欧美运营商通过升级现有核电站已经悄然提高了产量。
Britain plans to encourage new reactors by amending its planning laws. Design will be approved by the national government, leaving local authorities to deal with narrower issues. America is offering utilities up to $2 billion in insurance against planning delays. Authoritarian countries like China, and even democratic ones with tough bureaucrats, like France or Japan, never gave much leeway to pesky locals.
英国计划通过修改其规划法以新建核反应堆。反应堆设计将由国家政府审核，更细碎的事务则留给地方政府去处理。美国向公共事业单位提供了20亿美元作为防范规划延误的保险。而像中国这样的威权国家，以及如法国和日本这样的官僚势力强大的民主国家，从来不会给惹麻烦的地方政府留有多少余地。
Planning aside, nuclear plants can be hard to finance, since they cost more and take longer to build than coal- or gas-fired units. In countries with state power firms, like China, the government can stump up the money or use its clout to reduce borrowing costs. A handful of firms, such as Electricité de France, are big and profitable enough to pay for new reactors out of regular income. Other solutions show more imagination: a Finnish consortium that is buying a new reactor consists of utilities and power users committed to buying the plant's output at cost.
撇开规划不说，相比用煤或煤气作燃料，核电站成本更高，建设周期更长，因而资金筹措也相当困难。在中国这类拥有国家电力公司的国家，政府自己可以掏腰包，或者利用自身影响力降低借贷成本。而诸如法国电力（Electricité de France）等少数大公司，自身利润丰厚，足以从固定收入中来补偿新建核反应堆所耗费用。其它解决方案就更显得富有想象力了：一家正在洽购新核反应堆的芬兰财团是由公用事业机构和得到许诺可以成本价购买核电的用户共同组成。
The Finnish and British governments say they will not subsidise nuclear power. America's has no such qualms; in addition to the insurance against delays, it is helping to bear the cost of the permitting process and offering tax breaks on power produced by new plants. Such enthusiasm reflects the hope that nuclear power can wean America off imported fossil fuels. Elsewhere, countries that fear foreign control of their energy supply tend to be pro-nuclear. Ukraine, site of the Chernobyl catastrophe, is busily making more nuclear plants to cut its reliance on Russian gas.
芬兰和英国政府表示，他们不会对核电提供补贴。美国还没有这一担心；除了提供延误保险，政府还伸出援手，承担获取许可证程序的费用，并对新建核电站的电力提供税收优惠。政府的热心反映出美国希望利用核电以戒除进口化石燃料。其它地方，那些担心外国控制能源供应的国家也往往倾向核电。乌克兰这个切尔诺贝利灾难发生地，正积极建造更多的核电站以缩减其对俄罗斯天然气的依赖。
In most of western Europe, feelings are more ambivalent. Many countries have cut nuclear output, or made plans to do so, and are only reluctantly reviewing that stance in the light of global warming. Indeed, some ecologists, such as Mike Townsley of Greenpeace, a lobby group, say talk of a renaissance is overdone. If there is a rebirth, it may lie in the mere fact that nuclear power is being discussed, not in any consensus about its merits.
大多数西欧国家的感受则更为矛盾。许多国家已经削减了核电产量或做了相关部署，但由于全球变暖的影响，它们正在不情愿地检讨其立场。事实上，一些生态学者——如游说组织“绿色和平（Greenpeace）”的马克·唐斯雷（Mike Townsley）——就认为有关核能复兴的讨论有些夸大了。即便真有核能复兴，那也只是基于核电问题被人们所广泛讨论这一最基本的事实，而非源自人们对其利弊达成多少共识。翻译 by witt
Trackback
你可以使用这个链接引用该篇文章 http://publishblog.blogchina.com/blog/tb.b?diaryID=6279478