中国核电项目缘何加码

    问：在中电集团，你们已经撬动几个重量级的杠杆，你们打算怎么做？

    答：我们在2007年就制定了一个气候策略，到2050年我们将能实现卓有成效的去碳化。2010年完成第一步目标，接下来是2020年，2035年，直到2050年的最终目标。

    问：你们是否达成了2010年的目标？

    答：没错。我们完成了。但这只是刚刚开始。我们已经开始全力朝着2020年的目标前进。我们要说的是，如果大家都跟随我们的策略，如果整个行业都能这么做，到2050年，亚洲地区的电力供应就可能很大程度实现去碳化，从而最终像《联合国气候变化框架公约》（United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change）指出的那样，避免大规模气候变化。

    问：到时候中电集团会实现零碳排放吗？

    答：不是零碳排放。我们所说的是将我们整体装机容量的碳排放量降至0.2公斤/千瓦时的强度。我们现在在0.8左右。那将是一个实质性的降幅。如果世界上其他的电力公司也能这么做，那么整个电力行业，虽然不会是零排放，但也将基本实现去碳化了。

    问：是否存在什么因素可能会阻碍你们达成这个目标？

    答：我认为中电集团会完成这个目标。有一件事我们可以肯定的说，一旦公司业绩停止增长，停止投资，那么就会有一位商业精英走进我的办公室，取代我的工作，让我卷铺盖走人。这是资本主义的本质。但是中电集团可以选择继续根据低碳战略发展业务，可以在核电上进行更多的投资，可以加大对可再生能源的投资以及燃气发电的投资。我们继续运营备用燃煤发电机组，关闭其他燃煤电厂，终究还是把我们的碳排放量降下来。我们可以在能源行业找到自己的位置，但并不是每家电力公司都能做到我们这样。如果你是一家大陆发电企业，正在遵循国家发展目标，那么你说不再用燃煤发电了，那是行不通的。我们可以不假思索，坦率地说，如果世界上其他电力公司也和我们实施一样的策略，那么世界将会更加美好。那么，我们还能做些什么？我们做我们认为对公司和股东有利的事，我们希望其他电力公司能知道他们应该做什么。

    问：据我个人观察，我不是很明白为什么大的电力生产商，像中电集团，好像总是在应对气候变化上领先群雄。你是否认同？如果是这样，你是怎么想的？

    答：对于企业来说，这是一种风险管理方式。我知道这听起来有点难以置信。我并不是授命拯救地球，而是在这里负责为一家大公司制定和实施一个策略，使它能实现可持续发展。中电集团不能再走以前的老路，为持续自己的业务不计后果的增加碳排放。我们已经经营了一百多个年头，我们还将继续下一个一百年。减少碳排放量并不意味着要停止一切有碳排放的投资，那是不切实际的。而是通过慢慢对我们的投资组合去风险化，这样我们还是可以发展业务，同时为股东赢得回报，调整碳排放风险，同时维持我们的广大业务。

    问：你认为最乐观的情况是怎样的？

    答：用可再生能源来解决世界能源问题，这点我也不是很确定。我们有很多的可再生资源，比如，大量的风能、太阳能和潮汐能。但是利用这些能源的成本都非常高。唯有寄希望于世界技术的发展，目前为止全球新技术开发做的很好。但我认为还需要技术上的突破——如同黑天鹅事件（Black swan event黑天鹅事件指非常难以预测，且不寻常的事件，通常会引起市场连锁负面反应，甚至颠覆），一个还没有人想到的能够解决世界能源问题的方法。据我所知最接近的黑天鹅事件应该是核裂变。但问题是，相关技术是否能及时实施，是否能把成本降下来。历史证明，人类是是极具创造性的。相信一旦激励机制到位了，他们就一定会成功。（财富中文网）

    译者：默默

    You've got your hands on some pretty powerful levers at CLP. What are you doing?

    We articulated a climate strategy in 2007 that by 2050 will see us decarbonize dramatically. First goal was 2010, then 2020, 2035, and 2050.

    Did you hit your 2010 goal?

    Yes, we did. It's a modest start. We're well down the path for hitting the 2020 target as well. What we say essentially is that if everybody followed our strategy -- if the whole industry did it -- then there's some chance by 2050 that the electricity supply industry in this part of the world is largely decarbonized, and on a trajectory to hit what the UNFCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] has said is what you need to in order to avoid massive climate change.

    You'll be carbon-free by then?

    Not carbon-free, but what we're saying is we want to get our portfolio to a carbon intensity of 0.2 kilograms per kilowatt hour. We're now at about 0.8. That is a material reduction. And if the rest of the world did the same thing, the industry is not carbon-free, but it's largely decarbonized.

    What might stop you from reaching that goal?

    I don't think CLP will have a problem. One thing we could say is we're going to stop growing, stop investing, in which case someone in a white suit comes into my office, puts my arms in a straightjacket, marches me out, and someone else takes over. That's the nature of capitalism. But we can make choices that will allow us to continue to grow the business in line with our carbon strategy. We can make more investments in nuclear, more investments in renewable energy, more investments in gas-fired generation. We can still do the occasional coal plant, and we can close other coal plants, and still bring our carbon down. We can be a niche player, but not everybody can do what we can do. Because if you're a mainland generator who's there to implement national developmental goals, you can't say you are not going to do coal anymore. It's easier for us, and it's glib, frankly, for us to say, if the rest of the world followed our strategy, the world would be better off. But what else can we do? We do what we think is right for our company and our stakeholders, and we hope the rest of the world can figure out what they should do as well.

    In my experience, big electricity producers such as CLP seem to be ahead of the pack on climate change, which doesn't really make sense to me. Do you agree, and if so, why do you think that is?

    At the end of the day for business -- I know this sounds cynical -- it is all about risk management. I do not have a mandate to save the planet. I'm here to develop and implement a responsible strategy for a large organization in a way that is ultimately sustainable. CLP cannot be on a trajectory of continuing to increase its carbon emissions without regard for the consequences and hope to continue to be in business. We have been in business for over 100 years, and we want to be in business for another 100 years. That does not mean stopping all investments that have carbon emissions, that's unrealistic. But it's about de-risking the portfolio slowly over time so that we can still grow the business and earn returns for our shareholders, risk-adjusted for carbon, while preserving our broader franchise.

    What's your most optimistic scenario?

   The idea that renewable energy is going to solve the world's problems, I'm not so sure about that. There are lots of renewable resource out there -- lots of wind, lots of sunlight, lots of tidal impact. But the cost of harnessing all that is very high. The hope for the world is technology, and the world's been pretty good at developing technology. I think there needs to be a technology breakthrough -- a black swan that no one has thought about that comes along and solves the world's energy problems. The closest to a black swan that I have heard about is nuclear fission. The question is whether it can be done in time, and whether they can get the cost down. Human beings are quite inventive creatures. History has shown that with the right incentives, they can figure things out.