经济学人下载:核能,烟雾消散之后

Yet a gassier Europe may not need to worry too much about security of supply. At least in the near term there is plenty of LNG because capacity originally intended to serve America is no longer needed for that purpose. This is good news for Europe and for Japan, which in the short run needs gas and oil to make up for lost production at Fukushima and other nuclear plants closed in the earthquake’s aftermath, regardless of its long-term choices.

然而，燃气比例更高的欧洲也许不必过多地为供应安全感到担忧。由于原本旨在供应美国的液化天然气产能已无需用于这一目的，因此至少在短期之内，将有充足的液化天然气供应。这对于欧洲和日本来说是一条好消息，无论日本作何长期选择，该国在短期之内需要依靠天然气和石油来弥补福岛核电站以及其他在地震余波中关闭的核电站的产能损失。

Some expect this surplus to last throughout the 2010s, as new sources become available. Others fear, or hope, that the market could tighten quite quickly. Paul McConnell of Wood Mackenzie, another research firm, has argued that for China to meet a pledged 40% reduction in the carbon intensity of its economy by 2020 would require a lot more gas than currently expected. If nuclear plants contribute less, that will be truer than ever. But though gas supply may tighten, there is still, by all estimates, a lot of it around for the medium to long term.

某些人士预计，随着新的来源可资利用，这种供应过剩将会在整个21世纪10年代中持续；其他人士则担心（或者希望）市场将会很快趋紧。另一家研究公司——伍德麦肯兹公司(Wood Mackenzie)的保罗??麦康奈尔(Paul McConnell)已经指出，中国若想在2020年前实现其经济碳密度降低四成的承诺，该国的天然气需求量就将远远高于现有预期。如果核电站的发电量减少，情况就更是如此。不过，尽管天然气供应或将趋紧，但所有预测都认为在中长期时段上，仍然会有大量天然气。

In the long term we’re not all dead长期看来，我们并非全都难逃一劫

Gas would be an early winner in a less nuclear world. But renewables might also do well. When cheap and plentiful gas replaces coal in electricity generation, it often reduces emissions much more cheaply than renewables can. But when gas replaces nuclear, it increases emissions. Any country serious about tackling climate change will therefore want more fossil-fuel-free generation elsewhere in the system. Renewables would have a clearer run at that segment of the market.

在一个核能利用程度降低的世界中，天然气将会是早期的赢家。不过可再生能源或许也能有出色的表现。当廉价而充足的天然气取代煤炭在电力生产中的地位之时，它常常会以远低于可再生能源的代价减少碳排放；但当天然气取代的是核能时，则会增加排放量。因此，任何一个认真应对气候变化的国家，都将会希望系统中存在更多的非化石燃料发电。在市场的这一领域内，可再生能源的趋势将更加清晰。

Distressing though it is, the crisis at Fukushima Dai-ichi is not in itself a reason for the world to change energy policy. The public-health effects seem likely, in the long run, to be small. Coal, with its emissions of sulphur, mercury and soot, will continue to kill far more people per kilowatt hour than nuclear does. But as an opportunity to reflect it may be welcome.

尽管福岛第一核电站的危机令人悲痛，但它自身却并非世界改变能源政策的理由。长期看来，这场危机对公共健康带来的影响可能不大。而排放硫、汞和煤灰的煤炭，其每千瓦时产能所造成的死亡人数仍将远远高于核能。不过，人们或许会欢迎以此为契机对其进行反思。

An energy portfolio, like any other, is a basket of risks: of security of supply, cost and environmental damage. Fear and uncertainty, which nuclear fission produces as unavoidably as it does iodine-131, distort people’s perceptions of those risks. The long-term outlook which nuclear power also brings with it should clarify them.

能源组合与其他任何投资组合一样，都是一揽子风险：其中包括供应安全风险、成本风险以及环境破坏风险。就像核裂变会不可避免地产生碘131一样，它也总是会带来恐惧和惶惑，而这两种情绪则扭曲了人们对于上述风险的认知。而同样将由核能带来的长期前景，则应当澄清这些认知。

Over the next 40 years, four things look clear. The world’s people would be healthier and its climate less prone to change if it used a lot less coal; that requires greater energy efficiency, more renewable power and better grids, all of which also allow greater energy security; significantly more research would help; and the supply of gas is much larger and more reliable than was thought just ten years ago, which will lower the costs of change. Because nuclear power saves carbon, doing without it would make action on climate harder. But because it increases capital costs and systemic risks, it would rarely have grown that much anyway outside a few countries. It won’t go away, but it must to some extent remain a sideshow, however spectacular it looks when it goes wrong.

在未来的40年中，有四点看起来明白无误。如果世界大幅度减少对煤炭的消耗，那么其民众将会更加健康，全球气候的变数也会下降；这需要更高的能源效率、更多的可再生能源以及更好的电网，而这三者也能带来更高的能源安全性；大幅增加的研究将有所裨益；而天然气的供应则比仅仅10年前所认为的要多上许多，其可靠性也更高，而这将会降低变革的成本。由于核能减少了碳消耗，因此不使用核能将会使气候方面的行动更加困难。但由于核能增加了资本成本和系统风险，因此除少数几国之外，它不管怎样都不太可能取得多大的发展。核能不会消失，但无论在发生事故时场面有多么宏大，从某种意义上说，它必然依旧只是主流之外的一个余兴节目。