1.媒體來源:
CNN
2.記者署名:Julia Horowitz, Salma Abdelaziz and Li-Lian Ahlskog Hou, CNN
3.完整新聞標題:Nuclear energy scares people. The climate crisis is giving it
another chance
4.完整新聞內文:(註:直接end的話下方有我大概翻的大意，有翻錯麻煩大家指正，感謝)
London (CNN Business)Growing up in Finland, Iida Ruishalme had a deep
affinity for nature — particularly the forest, where she loved to go
trekking with her dogs. Now, she's worried that her daughters won't
experience such idyllic days as the climate crisis accelerates. So last
month, she boarded a night train from Switzerland to join protests in the
German capital Berlin.
Ruishalme agrees the world needs more wind farms and solar panels. But what
she and her fellow demonstrators really want is a commitment to something
else: nuclear energy.
"We have to give this technology a chance," the Mothers for Nuclear member
said, joining dozens of others who stood with signs outside the city's famous
Brandenburg Gate.
"We have to give this technology a chance," the Mothers for Nuclear member
said, joining dozens of others who stood with signs outside the city's famous
Brandenburg Gate.
Nuclear plants are also notoriously expensive to build. Construction tends to
run over budget and time, and wind and solar energy has typically come out
cheaper. How to safely store the radioactive waste it produces is another
headache.
Germany began winding down its nuclear industry following the 2011 Fukushima
disaster in Japan, when an earthquake and tsunami triggered a meltdown of
three reactors in one of the worst nuclear incidents of all time. All six
reactors still operating in Germany should be shut by the end of next year.
Yet the scale of the climate crisis is encouraging other governments and
investors to give the nuclear industry another look.
Whether the world invests heavily into nuclear will depend on what people
have the stomach for. Ruishalme, for one, hopes they'll put their anxieties
aside.
Europe's big decision
Nuclear energy currently accounts for about 10% of the world's electricity
production. In some countries, the share is even larger. The United States
and the United Kingdom generate roughly 20% of their electricity from nuclear
energy. In France, it's 70%, according to the World Nuclear Association.
The world is now at a nuclear crossroads: It could scale up nuclear as a
sturdy energy source to keep emissions down, or throw all its money behind
renewables, which are quicker to build and more profitable — but sometimes
patchy.
Advocates emphasize that nuclear power flows even when the sun doesn't shine
and the wind doesn't blow.
"We need renewables to be complemented by a reliable, 24/7 energy source,"
said James Hansen, a climate scientist at Columbia University who also took
part in the Berlin demonstration.
The UK government agrees. It supports the construction of the country's first
nuclear power station in more than two decades in southwestern England. US
President Joe Biden's infrastructure package, meanwhile, includes $6 billion
in grants to keep older plants running. And President Emmanuel Macron
recently announced that France would begin building new plants for the first
time in nearly 20 years.
That puts France and Germany at odds with each other ahead of a crucial
decision by the European Union on whether to classify nuclear as "green" or
"transitional" on a controversial list of sustainable energy sources set to
be unveiled Wednesday. The outcome could unleash a wave of fresh funding, or
leave nuclear on the outside.
EU climate chief Frans Timmermans recently indicated that both nuclear and
natural gas — which is made up mostly of the greenhouse gas methane — could
qualify for green financing.
"I think we need to find a way of recognizing that these two energy sources
play a role in the energy transition," he said at an event hosted by
Politico. "That does not make them green, but it does acknowledge the fact
that nuclear being zero emissions is very important to reduce emissions, and
that natural gas will be very important in transiting away from coal into
renewable energy."
While nuclear power produces zero emissions when generated, the uranium
required to make it needs to be mined, and that process emits greenhouse
gases. Nonetheless, an analysis by the European Commission concluded that
emissions from nuclear are around the same as wind energy and less than solar
when the full cycle of production is taken into account.
Hansen, a longtime advocate for nuclear power, said it's crucial in global
efforts to decarbonize, and that Germany shouldn't use its political clout to
stand in the way of fresh investment.
"The consequence of treating it as not sustainable is we're not going to have
a pathway to limit climate change to the level that young people are now
demanding," he said. "It's really important that Germany not be able to
impose this policy on the rest of Europe and on the world."
But German politicians and experts argue that high costs and the time it
takes to build new plants — no fewer than five years, and often much longer
— mean money would be better spent elsewhere.
The latest UN-backed climate science shows the world should nearly halve
emissions over this decade to have any chance of limiting global warming to
1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, a vital cap to avoid worsening
climate impacts. The world must also shoot for net zero by mid-century. That
means emissions must be reduced as much as possible, and the rest captured or
offset.
Current pledges, including those made at the recent COP26 climate summit in
Scotland, only get the world around one-quarter of the way there, according
to Climate Action Tracker.
The International Energy Agency says that nuclear power generation should
more than double between 2020 and 2050 in the pursuit of net zero. Its share
in the electricity mix will drop, but that's because demand for power will
soar as the world electrifies as many machines as possible, including cars
and other vehicles.
Yet Ben Wealer, who researches nuclear power economics at the Technical
University of Berlin, argues that the world can't wait for new nuclear
plants, especially since the next eight years are so crucial to decarbonizing.
"Looking at the time frames, it cannot be a huge help in combating climate
change," he said. "It blocks the cash we need for renewables."
Even if the world did have more time, delays are a problem. The Hinkley Point
C plant in the United Kingdom, for example, is now to be completed in
mid-2026, six months later than planned, and its costs are rising. The latest
price tag was as much as ￡23 billion ($30 billion), about ￡5 billion ($6.6
billion) more than when the project was launched in 2016.
German officials also argue that the lack of a global plan for storing toxic
waste should disqualify nuclear as a "sustainable" energy source.
Christoph Hamann, an official at Germany's federal office for nuclear waste
management, emphasized that government efforts to construct sites below
ground where waste can be stored indefinitely remain a work-in-progress.
"We're talking about a very toxic, high radioactive waste, which is producing
problems for the next tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of
years. And we're directing this problem, when using nuclear power, to future
generations," Hamann said.
Wave of funding
It's not just Europe that's mulling more nuclear. The most energetic push is
in China, where there are 18 reactors under construction as the world's
biggest emitter tries to pivot away from coal. That's more than 30% of the
reactors being built globally, according to the World Nuclear Association.
And the debate is becoming more complex as new nuclear technologies are
developed and show signs they could generate better financial returns.
he US government has backed TerraPower, the startup chaired by Bill Gates.
The company, which wants to stand up a next-generation nuclear project at a
former coal hub in Wyoming, utilizes molten salt to transfer heat from the
reactor and use it to generate electricity, which it claims will simplify
construction and allow it to adjust output to meet changing demand.
Meanwhile, Britain is supporting a push by engineering firm Rolls-Royce to
build smaller nuclear reactors, which have lower upfront costs. That pitch
could help draw in private investors.
"It's very, very difficult for any country to achieve net zero ambitions
without nuclear," said Tom Samson, the CEO of the new Rolls-Royce venture.
The parts of a Rolls-Royce reactor are designed so almost all of it can be
built and assembled in a factory. That limits the amount of time that's
required to piece its components together on an expensive construction site.
Initially, production is estimated at ￡2.2 billion ($2.9 billion) per unit.
"If you look back in history, you can find lots of examples of big nuclear
projects that have struggled," Samson said. "We've designed ours to be
different."
About ￡210 million ($278 million) in funding from the UK government will
allow the company to begin applying for regulatory approvals. It hopes to set
up three factories in Britain and start churning out about two units per
year, which would power 2 million homes. The first unit is expected to go
into service in the United Kingdom in 2031.
For comparison, the Hinkley power station is expected to provide electricity
for 6 million homes.
Samson also emphasizes that smaller reactors produce little waste. The spent
fuel from a small modular reactor operating for 60 years would fill an
Olympic-size swimming pool, he said.
Fission or fusion?
According to data from PitchBook, nuclear energy startups raised $676 million
in venture capital funding globally in the first nine months of 2021. That's
more than the total amount raised over the past five years combined.
That figure includes funding for startups that explore nuclear fusion, which
has been attracting more attention. The nuclear power generators currently
operating use fission technology, which involves splitting the nucleus of an
atom. Fusion is the process of combining two nuclei to create energy — often
referred to as the energy of the sun or the stars.
Scientists are still working out how to successfully manage a fusion reaction
and turn it into a commercially viable project. But investors are
increasingly excited about its potential since it doesn't produce lingering
radioactive waste and comes with no risk of a Fukushima-style meltdown, nor
does it rely on uranium.
Helion, a US-based fusion startup, announced last month that it had raised
$500 million in a round led by Sam Altman, the former president of Y
Combinator.
As the world weighs which way to turn on nuclear, it could be years until
it's clear which was the right road to take. A look at Germany and France in
10 or 20 years from now may provide the answer.
Ultimately, arguments around emissions, reliability and economics may be cast
aside. The real future of nuclear could come down to public opinion.
"If there is a nuclear accident, a new major one, that could kill the entire
industry," said Henning Gloystein, director of energy, climate and resources
at Eurasia Group.
5.完整新聞連結 (或短網址):https://reurl.cc/KrZdpm
*給直接end的極簡略新聞大意:
最近發生於德國柏林的一場要求再次使用核能的示威活動中，核能議題再度浮上檯面，在
車諾比與福島和災後，多國減少核能使用，德國更是預計在2022年底前關閉還在運作中的
6座核電廠。然而也有許多專家、民眾和國家為了因應氣候變遷的問題有不同的選擇。
有氣候科學家主張應該以核能為基載能源以搭配新興綠能，英國也在最近開始興建其
20年來第一座核電廠，美國也投資了約60億以維護現行核電廠的運行，法國更是在全國
7成能源來自核能的情況下宣布要開始興建20年來第一座核電廠。然而核能是否是綠能
尚未定論，興建核電廠的長耗時與大量資金也被批評。但專家也指出核能和天然氣可能
可以協助我們達到減碳並過度向新興綠能的遠大目標，而除此之外，核廢料處置仍然是極
具爭議的問題。
此外，一些新興的核能科技也正被熱門的研究與投資中，譬如小型、較低成本的核電廠與
核融合的科技也是現在的投資熱門項目。
德國與法國可說是走在不同端的國家(註:德國力求減核，法國則大量使用核能)究竟
孰對孰錯仍然未可知，核能的使用與否也不僅僅取決於學理，更是受大眾意向左右。
6.備註:
貼這篇主要是看到後發現跟台灣現在的情況有點像XD 面臨使用核能與否的問題，甚至文
中訪問的專家也有提到類似以核養綠的概念，我不是相關專家，但我覺得能源議題算是
蠻重要的，尤其我們今年也看到了一些供電吃緊的徵象，剛好蕾神的新聞告一段落(?)
想說貼上來跟大家討論~ 有錯也請大家指正