中国核电项目缘何加码

    问：你认为核能是解决亚洲能源危机的出路吗？

    答：如果我们真的认真对待气候变化问题，那么我们也必须认真对待核能。美国正走一条折中的道路，美国宣称：“我们不使用核能，只需要用天然气取代煤。”也许这能让美国的能源危机推迟一段时间，但问题是天然气碳排放量很高。如果不使用核能，世界将很难在继续满足能源需求增长的同时避免对气候产生破坏性影响的风险。核能是目前唯一既能提供我们生存所需的能源，同时又能将成本控制在合理范围内的技术。如果利用得当，核能可以实现零碳排放。

    问：迄今为止，中国是世界上核电扩张最快的国家，有28个新核电站在规划中，有的或已开建。这样做，我们是否需要担心核能使用的安全问题？

    答：中国很重视各国的看法，正努力确保核电项目的万无一失。我们在大亚湾核电站项目上看到了极高的安全记录及安全意识，安全并没有只是停留在口号上。你看到《南华早报》（South China Morning Post）的头条新闻了吗? 四天中在同一个煤矿发生了二次爆炸，其中有29人在星期五爆炸中丧生，另外7人则在昨天的爆炸中身亡。可是有多少人直接死于福岛核电站的核泄漏危机呢？零。海啸造成3万人死亡，但福岛核泄露事故并没有直接造成人员死亡。任何选择都有风险，只能两害相权取其轻。

    问：现在核电是否要依靠亚洲引领？

    答：是的。世界电力需求增长的大部分都来自亚洲。中国每年新建8万兆瓦装机容量。中电集团是一家市值200亿美元的大公司，我们在亚洲的装机容量为2万兆瓦。也就是说，中国每个季度的新增装机容量就抵得上中电集团的所有装机容量了。中国每年的新增装机容量中有6万兆瓦都是煤电。好在这些电厂都将使用清洁煤技术，有利于常规排放量的减少。

    问：北京是否还会出现雾霾天气？

    答：一段时间内肯定是有的。中国正在建设高效、现代的火力发电厂，但碳排放量仍然较高。气候变化是一个不容忽视的问题，需要想办法解决，但是他们首先要解决的是在满足能源需求的同时减少常规碳排放量。

    问：你觉得未来会如何发展？我们是否终将难逃一劫？

    答：碳排放量将在未来20到30年急剧上升。到了某一时刻，可能需要一场大的危机才能使全球齐心协力。很难说危机将以什么样的形式出现，但破坏性需要特别大。相比之下，飓风桑迪或卡特里娜那样的灾害力度还不够大。不需要成为专家就能明白气候不稳定所引起的巨大风险。应该是提前应对，而不是等到灾难发生以后。但是政客们面临的问题是，选举周期太短，无法认真处理。如何去对选民说：“我们现在要过点苦日子，因为我们要么放慢经济增速，要么提高能源生产成本，而这也将导致增长减缓。不过不用担心，到2050年，你们的子孙将会因此受益良多。”选民肯定很难接受。英国经济学家尼克•斯特恩在他的《斯特恩报告》（Stern Report）中曾试图兜售这样的想法。他说：到2050年，这么做的成本可能只占GDP的1%，人们甚至感觉不到。话虽如此，但要转换成目前要实施的具体政策就要难得多了。在西方自由民主国家中，这在民意上很难行得通。

    Do you think nuclear is the answer to Asia's energy dilemma?

    If you're serious about climate change, I think you've got to be serious about nuclear. The U.S. is going down an intermediate path, saying "We don't need nuclear, we'll just back out of coal and we'll use natural gas." That will defer the problem in the U.S. for a period of time. But gas is still pretty carbon intensive. Without nuclear it's hard to see how the world will continue to meet energy demand growth without catastrophic risk to the climate. Nuclear is the only technology that exists today that can provide base-load power at a reasonable cost -- if you get the program right -- with zero carbon emissions.

    China has by far the most aggressive nuclear buildout underway in the world today, with 28 new plants planned or already under construction. Can we trust them to do this safely?

    They are very sensitive about the world's perception, and they want to make sure they are getting it right. Everything we've seen on the ground at Daya Bay suggests it's not just rhetoric. The safety record and the safety culture are extremely high. Did you see the headline in the South China Morning Post? Second explosion in one coal mine in four days. Twenty-nine people killed Friday and another seven people killed yesterday. How many people were directly killed by the meltdown at Fukushima? Zero. Well, the tsunami killed 30,000 people; the nuclear accident itself hasn't killed anybody. We have choices to make. None of them are easy.

    And it's up to Asia to take the lead on this?

    Yes, because the majority of the growth in power demand is going to come from this part of the world. China builds 80,000 megawatts a year new capacity. We're a big company -- $20 billion market cap -- and we are 20,000 megawatts across the region. But every quarter China builds another CLP. And something like 60,000 megawatts is coming from coal. The good news is that the coal will be done cleanly, in the sense of conventional emissions.

    No more yellow smog in Beijing?

    After a while, sure. China is building efficient, modern coal-fired plants, but they are still carbon-intensive. Climate change is not something they're ignoring but it's a problem to be dealt with later. They have to deal with the conventional emissions first and meet the demand for energy.

    What do you think is going to happen? Are we doomed?

    Carbon emissions are going to rise quite dramatically in the next 20 to 30 years. At some stage it will need a major crisis in order for the world to get its act together. Hard to say what form that will take. You need something really catastrophic. Hurricane Sandy or Katrina, that's not a big enough crisis. You do not have to be an expert to understand there's a major risk of climate destabilization that requires action today, not after it hits you. But the problem the politicians face is the electoral cycle is just too short to deal with that. It's very hard to say to voters, "Look, I have to make you poorer now because we're going to have to slow down growth or increase costs of energy production which will have the consequence of slowing down growth. But don't worry, it's going to benefit your children or your grandchildren by the year 2050." That's a difficult sell. [British economist] Nick Stern tried it in his Stern report; he said it's only 1% of GDP by 2050, you won't even notice. But translate that into specific policies that you have to implement today, and it is much harder. It's a difficult political sell in a liberal western democracy.