博客 Blog

新研究揭示可再生能源的潜力

根据政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)的最新报告,截止2050年可再生能源将能够满足全球77%的能源需求,远远高于现在的13%。为了达到该目标,政府必须投入大量前所未有的资金并制定正确的公共政策支持可再生能源发展。开发可再生能源技术可以减少2010年到2050年间的2200-5600 亿吨碳排放。

发表该报告的IPCC工作组联合主席雷蒙·比奇斯补充道,“未来发展中国家在该领域将占据重要位置——这些地区有14亿人口依然得不到生活用电,然而这些地区具备发展可再生能源的最佳条件。”

人们对该报告的反应形形色色。英国《每日电讯报》撰稿人杰弗里·里恩说:“前景很广阔。然而即使报告对2050年的乐观前景得以实现,世界上97%的可再生能源技术潜能还是无法得到开发。”

国际绿色和平组织的斯文·泰斯科是该报告的主要作者之一,他说:“该报告是对各国政府的邀请,以倡议其对本国政策进行彻底检修,并搭建可再生能源的中心平台。随着下一次气候大会的临近,即12月的南非第十七届缔约方会议,各国政府显然有义务达到标准。”

然而美国学者小罗杰·皮科尔对该报告持有稍微不同的观点,他表示“IPCC不过是在即将来临的专题报道中为决策者就可再生能源作了一个新的总结,它看上去只是终于(间接地、拐弯抹角地)承认了我们没有关键的技术来达到低排放目标(例如450百万体积分率以下),以维持大气中的二氧化碳浓度。

完整的报告将在5月31日发布。

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default thumb avatar
gaidee

关键在于适应,而不是增加供应

关于可再生能源的问题,我们不能全部依赖IPCC的报告。联合国的政治问题太多,现在看来,气候变化问题交给联合国实在是不明智之举。前年底的时候,我在美国在科学的美国人上读到了一篇文章,说是全球需要大约350万台风力发电机以及几十万平方公里的太阳能发电系统,足以解决全球的电力供应问题。现在又看到这个长达九百页的将要面世的“好消息”,心里不是滋味。首先,2050年是个遥远的未来,那时候很多人都不在世界上了,给人以一种虚空的感觉,调不起世人之积极性;其次,如果这么好的事情,为什么现在不做,或者过去的20年来,做的还是那么少?我们不能总是靠把问题推到未来,而洋洋得意;其三,苹果手机不用什么联合国推广,大家都排队抢着买,难道这个可再生能源就是那么差嘛?为什么微软的比尔盖茨不那么热衷你们说的什么新能源,转而投巨资搞行波核能呢?这个世界上最富裕的人都看不上的东西,偏偏联合国这么热衷呢?人家又有钱,又有势,把他排除在外是不是可笑?再把坏小子苹果的乔布斯弄进来,在全球宣传不是一件更可行、更靠谱的事情吗?真是看不懂IPCC的专家们做的这马子事情。

然后又是什么发展中国家要这样,要那样。我们发展中国家要汽车、要洋房、要iPhone、要这个要那个,还不是学的西方的。你发展可再生能源,那么你自己先搞出来,大规模普及普及给穷人们看看,那时候,你不让发展中国家学都不行。我们中国搞这个不能说不积极,搞得现在风能过剩;弄得太阳能产业“过热”,也算是给发达国家乃至其它发展中国家敲了一个警钟。别以为搞可再生能源的钱是树上长的,花了那么多钱,是有机会成本的,搞得不好非但不能节能,往往还适得其反,弄得你自己哭笑不得。快到2012了,这个世界怎么就这么不能消停消停呢?

To adapt more, not to supply more

On the issue of renewable energy, we can't completely rely on IPCC. Now that it seems to be unwise to entrust UN with the issue of climate change, for there are too many political issues with it. At the end of 2009, I read an article in Scientific American in the US, which said that the problem of electrocity supply can be resolved if there are around 3.5 million aerogenerator and a solar heating system with a space of hundreds of thousands of square meter, so I feel complicated when seeing the coming "good news" in 900 pages. Firstly, year 2050 is in a far-distant future, and many people will be dead at that time. It makes people feel hollow and thus fails to activate them. Secondly, if the solution is so great, why don't we apply them? Why have we done so little in the past 20 years? We can't keep leaving problems to the future and be proud of it. Thirdly, Iphone didn't need any UN promotion to make itself eagerly wanted by people waiting in line. Is the renewable energy even not as good as an Iphone? If renewable energy is as promising as it appears, why don't Bill Gates care about it but focus on traveling wave nuclear reactor? Why is UN so keen on something that are not emphasized by the richest people with great power in the world? Isn't it ridiculous? Won't it be more effective and practical to invite Jobs into the huge promotion? I just don't see what's going on in those IPCC experts' mind. Then our developing countries are blamed on asking for whatever it is. The trend of demand - cars, houses, Iphones - are all led by western countries. They shall apply the technology, expand its scale and show it to us, if you want the renewable energy to be widely applied. At that time the developing countries will be eager to learn this technologies. China is quite active in renewable energy generating, but the result is surplus on wind and solar energy. That is also a warning to all the developed and developing countries. The money invested in renewable energy does not come from nowhere. There are also opportunity costs. It probably ends no good - with so much money spent and no energy saved. Since 2012 is coming near, why can't everybody calm down?

This comment is translated by Zhang Xiaofei.