欧盟专家表示,核能符合绿色投资的标签
2021-05-11 19:47 我要评论(0)
核心提示:“核废料处理仍然是一个亟待解决的问题,目前专家们还没有考虑到环保问题。虽然还是比煤要好。” 欧盟专家表示,核能符合绿色投资的标签。
欧盟专家表示,核能符合绿色投资的标签
EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label
jiangye111
译文简介
“核废料处理仍然是一个亟待解决的问题,目前专家们还没有考虑到环保问题。虽然还是比煤要好。”
正文翻译
EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label
欧盟专家表示,核能符合绿色投资的标签
(An exterior view of a part of the nuclear power plant of energy company RWE in Biblis, Germany.)
(德国比布里斯的莱茵集团能源公司核电站一角的外部照片。)
新闻:
Experts tasked with assessing whether the European unx should label nuclear power as a green investment will say that the fuel qualifies as sustainable, according to a leaked document.
根据一份泄露的文件,负责评估欧盟是否应该将核能列为绿色投资的专家将会说,这种燃料具有可持续发展的资格。0
EU expert advisors last year split over whether nuclear power deserved a green label, recognising that while it produces very low planet-warming CO2 emissions, more analysis was needed on the environmental impact of radioactive waste disposal.
去年,欧盟专家顾问在是否应该给核能贴上绿色标签的问题上产生了分歧,他们认识到,尽管核能产生的温室气体二氧化碳排放量非常低,但需要对放射性废料处理对环境的影响进行更多的分析。
The Commission asked the Joint Research Centre (JRC), its scientific expert arm, to report on the issue.
委员会要求联合研究中心(附属科学专家机构)就这个问题发表报告。
“The analyses did not reveal any science-based evidence that nuclear energy does more harm to human health or to the environment than other electricity production technologies,” the report said.
报告称:“这些分析并没有揭示出任何基于科学的证据,证明核能比其他发电技术对人类健康或环境的危害更大。”
Storage of nuclear waste in deep geologic formations is deemed “appropriate and safe,” it added, although it admitted that “no long-term operational experience is presently available as technologies and solutions are still in demonstration and testing phase”.
该报告还说,将核废料储存在深层地质构造中被认为是“适当和安全的”,尽管它承认“目前没有长期的操作经验,因为技术和解决方案仍处于演示和测试阶段”。
However, the report cited countries including France, Sweden and Finland which are “in an advanced stage of implementation of their national deep geological disposal facilities,” saying those are “expected to start operation within the present decade.”
然而,该报告援引包括法国、瑞典和芬兰在内的一些国家的话说,这些国家的“国家深部地质处置设施”正处于“实施的后期阶段”,并称这些设施“预计将在最近10年内投入使用”。
“For high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel, there is a broad consensus amongst the scientific, technological and regulatory communities that final disposal in deep geological repositories is the most effective and safest feasible solution which can ensure that no significant harm is caused to human life and the environment for the required timespan,” the report says.
该报告称:“对于高放射性废物和乏燃料,科学界、科技界和管制界有一项广泛的共识,即在深层地质储存库中进行最终处置是最有效和最安全的可行解决办法,可确保在所需的时间内不对人类生命和环境造成重大损害。”
And although severe nuclear accidents “cannot be ruled out with 100% certainty,” they are “events with extremely low probability,” the report added, pointing out that only third generation reactors are now being commissioned worldwide in the last 15 years after the Chernobyl disaster.
报告还指出,虽然严重的核事故“不能100%排除”,但它们是“可能性极低的事件”。报告指出,在切尔诺贝利灾难发生后的15年里,世界范围内只有第三代反应堆投入使用。
“The fatality rates characterising state-of-the art [third generation nuclear power plants] are the lowest of all the electricity generation technologies,” the report concludes.
报告总结说:“最先进的(第三代核电站)的致死率是所有发电技术中最低的。”
Further expert advice
进一步的专家建议
“This is one step in the process,” a Commission spokesperson reminded EURACTIV, saying the JRC report will now be reviewed by experts on radiation protection and waste management under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty, as well as by experts on environmental impacts from the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks.
“这只是过程中的一步,” 委员会的一位发言人提醒《欧洲动态》说,根据欧洲原子能条约第31条,联合研究中心的报告将由辐射防护和废物管理方面的专家,以及健康、环境和新风险科学委员会的环境影响专家进行审查。
The uation will be “rigorous,” the spokesperson added, saying “the credibility of this assessment is crucial.”
这位发言人补充说,评估将是“严格的”,“评估的可信度至关重要。”
“The nuclear industry is desperate for funds as nuclear power is too expensive and new projects are evaporating,” said Greenpeace EU policy adviser Silvia Pastorelli.
绿色和平组织欧盟政策顾问西尔维亚· 帕斯托雷利表示:“核工业就是吞金兽,核电过于昂贵,新项目正在消失。”
Foratom, the nuclear power industry lobby group, welcomed the report, saying “it makes it clear that nuclear does not cause more harm to human health nor the environment than any other power-producing technology which is currently considered as sustainable under the taxonomy.”
核能工业游说团体Foratom则对这份报告表示欢迎,称“它清楚地表明,核能对人类健康和环境的危害并不比任何其他目前被认为是可持续发展的发电技术更大。”
“Now that this assessment is available, we hope that the Commission will quickly come forward with a clear indication as to how and when it will include nuclear under the taxonomy,” said Foratom director general Yves Desbazeille.
Foratom总干事伊夫·德斯巴泽尔说:“既然这份评估已经出炉,我们希望委员会能够迅速提出一个明确的指示,说明如何以及何时将核能列入分类。”
JRC critique
联合研究中心的批判
And although the JRC has since branched out into other areas, Greenpeace claims that “nuclear research still represents 25% of its activity,” with Euratom providing €532 million to the JRC for the period 2021-2025.
尽管联合研究中心已经扩展到其他领域,但绿色和平组织声称“核研究仍占其活动的25%”,在2021-2025年期间,欧洲原子能机构将向联合研究中心提供5.32亿欧元。
The European Commission however brushed aside those claims, saying the JRC has acquired “extensive technical expertise on nuclear energy” since its creation in 1957. “The JRC has been requested to deliver a thorough, independent evidence-based report on Nuclear energy and technology, which, together with the two expert Committees’ opinions, will ensure a rigorous process where all relevant perspectives and facts are considered,” a Commission spokesperson told EURACTIV.
然而,欧盟委员会对这些说法不予理会,称联合研究中心自1957年成立以来,已经获得了“广泛的核能技术专长”。委员会一位发言人告诉《欧洲动态》:“联合研究中心已被要求提交一份全面、独立、以证据为基础的核能和技术报告,这份报告加上两个专家委员会的意见,将确保所有相关观点和事实都得到考虑的严格程序。”
EU countries are also split over how the taxonomy should treat investments in natural gas.
对于天然气投资的应该怎么分类,欧盟国家也存在分歧。
After a plan to exclude gas faced push back from pro-gas countries, the Commission this month drafted plans to label some gas as sustainable – splintering countries between those who support the fuel as an alternative to more-polluting coal, and those who say new gas plants risk locking in emissions for decades, thwarting climate goals.
在一项将天然气排除在外的计划遭到支持天然气国家的反对后,该委员会本月起草了一份计划,将一些天然气定义为“可持续的”——有些国家支持将天然气作为污染更严重的煤炭的替代品,而有些国家则认为新建天然气工厂可能会在未来几十年内固化排放,阻碍气候目标的实现。
评论翻译
viper_16
It’s about time.
时间问题。
zolikk
Green as a political color has been anti-nuclear by definition since the late 60s. It has been a consequence of how the environmentalist movement evolved, and having strong anti-nuclear opinions has become part of it. Only now you can start to see certain green parties or organizations dropping their anti-nuclear stance, but it is very much the exception. Opposing it is still a dogmatic component of green politics.
从60年代末开始,绿色作为一种政治颜色就被定义为“反核”。这是环保运动演变的结果,而强烈的反核观点已经成为其中的一部分。直到现在,你才开始看到某些绿色政党或组织放弃了他们的反核立场,但这在很大程度上是例外。反对核能仍然是绿色政治的教条组成部分。0
Silent-Gur-1418
Oh I know, that's why I disregard pretty much every "green" activist group and political party out there. Their disdain for nuclear proves quite conclusively that they don't actually believe what they're saying and are just grifting off the easily panicked.
哦,我知道,这就是为什么我无视了几乎所有的“绿色”激进组织和政党。他们对核能的蔑视相当决定性地证明了他们实际上并不相信他们所说的,只是在欺骗那些容易恐慌的人。0
towcar
The waste disposal is still an issue and not concerned green yet by the experts in this article. Though still better than coal
核废料处理仍然是一个亟待解决的问题,目前专家们还没有考虑到环保问题。虽然还是比煤要好
whattothewhonow
The waste disposal issue is due almost entirely to outdated Cold War de-escalation treaties restricting the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. upxe those treaties with agreements on reprocessing locations, international inspections, and technology sharing and we can start making old fuel into new fuel.
Less than 10% of a fuel rod is waste, the rest is unburned uranium or fissionable transuranics. Of the >10% that is waste, after the ten years that a spent fuel assembly spends cooling off in a storage pool, the majority of the fission products decay to stability.
Its a fraction of a fraction that is still radioactive for hundreds or thousands of years, and if you are reprocessing the waste anyway, you can partition out the long lived stuff, vitrify it in glass and bury it in deep geological shafts drilled into continental craton 15,000 feet below the water table, then film the shaft with concrete and forget it's down there.
The nuclear waste problem is a political problem, not a engineering or technology problem. We can fix it with the stroke of a pen if we had the collective will to do so. We'd rather keep killing ourselves and par boiling the world with coal.
废料处理问题几乎完全是由于限制核燃料再加工的过时的冷战降级条约造成的。更新这些条约,签订关于再加工地点、国际检查和技术共享的协议,我们就可以开始将旧燃料转化为新燃料。
燃料棒中只有不到10%是废料,其余都是未燃烧的铀或可裂变的超铀物质。10%以外的部分都是浪费,一个乏燃料组件在存储池中冷却十年之后,大部分的裂变产物都会衰变到稳定状态。
放射性会持续几百年甚至几千年的只是非常非常小的部分,如果你再处理这些废料,你可以把那些放射很长时间的东西分割出来,用玻璃把它玻璃化,把它埋在地下水位以下一万五千英尺的大陆克拉通深处的地质竖井里,然后用混凝土把竖井盖上,然后就别管它了。
核废料问题是一个政治问题,而不是一个工程或技术问题。如果我们有集体的意愿,我们可以大笔一挥来解决这个问题。但我们宁愿继续自杀,用煤来加热世界。
Curb5Enthusiasm
Nuclear power plants are not economically viable anymore and a waste of money compared to renewable energy sources
与可再生能源相比,核电站在经济上不再可行,是一种浪费金钱的行为
LitesLiger
Nuclear power is not energy efficient and not as clean as people believe it to be. Obviously France there in the list of supporters since they are like worlds 3rd largest in the business.
Don't follow headlines, follow the money.
核能并不像人们认为的那样节能和清洁。法国显然在支持者名单上,因为他们是世界第三大商业国家。
不要看新闻,要看钱。
gwdope
Nuclear is extremely efficient, and far cleaner than any hydrocarbon based method. Modern Nuclear reactor designs that run on thorium produce almost zero radioactive waste and are much safer than older technologies. If we are going to solve the climate problem nuclear is going to part of the solution, but it’s going to require huge amounts of investment and a ton of work to change the public’s mind.
核能是非常高效的,而且比任何基于碳氢化合物的发电方法都要清洁得多。以钍为燃料的现代核反应堆设计几乎不会产生放射性废料,而且比旧技术安全得多。如果我们要解决气候问题,核能将是解决方案的一部分,但它需要大量的投资和大量的工作来改变公众的想法。
LitesLiger
There are nuclear plants that use Plutonium
有使用钚的核电站
Jerrymoviefan3
We definitely need nuclear to save the world from global warming. China definitely needs to build the plants they are planning.
我们绝对需要核能来拯救世界,使其免于全球变暖。中国肯定需要建造他们正在计划的核电厂。
Zukiff
It's greener because the disposal of solar/wind etc equipment which only last all of 10 years or so is just as damaging to the environment. That's the part where most renewable energy advocate forgot. Also renewables are not reliable source of constant energy, very often countries using it actually need another source as backup. I'm not saying it's not good, it's just not as good as nuclear
它更环保,因为处理只能使用10年左右的太阳能/风能等设备对环境的破坏是一样的。这是大多数可再生能源倡导者忘记的部分。此外,可再生能源也不是稳定的能源来源,通常使用它的国家实际上需要另一种能源作为后备。我不是说可再生能源不好,只是它不如核能好
shariewayne
That's the party where most renewable energy advocate forgot.
What nuclear power advocates forget is the cost. Since Fukushima the cost for a new nuclear power plants skyrocketed due to new safety standards. Building one takes a decade & costs so much that they're not sustainable. Nuclear Energy is the most expensive energy you can produce, making it unattractive to build & run a power plant.
“这是大多数可再生能源倡导者忘记的部分”
核能倡导者忘记的是成本。自福岛核事故以来,由于新的安全标准,新建核电站的成本飙升。建造一座需要10年时间,成本太高,无法持续。核能是你能生产的最昂贵的能源,这使得建造和运行一个核电厂没有吸引力。
IaAmAnAntelope
Stupid that this wasn’t a given from day one, but at least they’re getting it right in the end.
愚蠢的是,这个结论不是第一天就得出的,但至少他们在最后得出了正确结论。
ShmorriorUnited States of America
It reminds me of a saying about trees. The best time to plant one was 20 years ago. The second best time to plant one is now.
For all my life, one of the major criticisms of nuclear power is "it takes 5-10 years to build a plant". Well, if instead of that argument winning the day 5, 10, 20 years ago we'd been building them ever since, we'd be in a much different situation, I think.
这让我想起了一句关于树的谚语。种植这这株树的最佳时间是20年前。第二好的种植时机就是现在。
在我的一生中,对核能的主要批评之一是“建一座核电站需要5-10年”。好吧,如果不是那场辩论在5年,10年,20年前赢了,而是自那之后我们一直在建造它们,我们今天的情况本会大不一样的。
sgtlionScotland
As someone largely opposed to nuclear power plants, I don't think many would argue that slow-to-build is their biggest flaw. Though it admittedly is a flaw to think about - if we'd built nuclear reactors all over 20 years ago, we'd currently have a world full of old, leaky, corroding nuclear reactors based on old technology that aren't economically viable to fix up. (Not to mention the other certain and potential downsides)
It might not be quite as bad as the CO2 emissions we're facing now, but it still wouldn't be great.
作为一个很反对核电站的人,我不认为很多人会认为建造缓慢是它们最大的缺陷。尽管这是一个需要考虑的缺陷——如果我们在20年前就建造了核反应堆,我们现在的世界将充斥着陈旧的、泄漏的、腐蚀的、基于旧技术的核反应堆,在经济上无法修复。(更不用说其他确定的和潜在的负面影响了)
这可能没有我们现在面临的二氧化碳排放那么糟糕,但也不会太好。
ShmorriorUnited States of America
Nuclear power plant licenses are typically 40+ years so I'm not sure how you get that ones built starting 20 years ago would be old and hazardous by now. At worst they, would be replacing the power lost from decommissioning much older plants with reliable baseload power, something renewables have never been able to accomplish at the industrial scales needed.
核电站的许可证通常需要40年以上的时间,所以我不确定你怎么能让那些20年前才开始建造的核电站“今天已经很老了,很危险”。在最坏的情况下,他们将用可靠的基载电力来替代老旧电厂失去的电力,这是可再生能源无法在工业规模上做到的。
LoneWorldWandererSpain
Sadly, our government's green plan includes closing all nuclear reactors before 2035. Needless to say, this will obviously not happen.
Spain is already one of the countries that has invested the most in renewable energies. The government will have to face the harsh reality, that nuclear power plants are essential to our grid, otherwise we will have to start building coal and gas plants like in Germany, which contradicts the green plan itself
遗憾的是,我们政府的绿色计划包括在2035年前关闭所有的核反应堆。不用说,这显然不会发生。
西班牙已经是可再生能源投资最多的国家之一。政府将不得不面对残酷的现实,核电站对我们的电网至关重要,否则我们将不得不像德国一样开始建造煤电厂和燃气电厂,而这么做与绿色计划本身是矛盾的
Nardypants
The real question is: why not? It's leagues better than a lot of other options.
真正的问题是:为什么不算绿色能源呢?这比很多其他选择都要好。
Dark__ThoughtsGermany
The real answer is: It's too expensive to build, too expensive to maintain, and new reactors would not be built in time to tackle our climate issues. The current amount of reactors being build, will not even able to replace the ones being taken offline - even in countries that have a lot of them (like France).
Nuclear power is simply not economically viable.
真正的答案是:建造和维护成本都太高了,而且新反应堆无法及时建成来解决我们的气候问题。目前正在建造的反应堆数量,甚至无法取代那些正在关闭的反应堆——即使在拥有大量反应堆的国家(比如法国)。
核能在经济上根本不可行。
iLEZSweden
I don't know what we're going to do about the waste later, and smarter people will say it's too little and too late, but we sure as hell need nuclear to cut down on the bloody coal power we use now.
我不知道我们以后会对这些废料做些什么,聪明的人会说这太杯水车薪了,也太迟了,但我们确实需要核能来减少我们现在正在使用的该死的煤电。
m_hakkinen
It's not perhaps sustainable in the long run but good for now. The only sustainable solution is to reduce consumption.
从长远来看,这可能是不可持续的,但就目前而言是好的。唯一可持续的解决办法是减少消费。
请支持独立网站,转载请注明本文链接:http://fm.m4.cn/2021-05/1348782.shtml
文章来源:龙腾网 | 责任编辑:东方
- 无视对美的不平等,日本只会沦为附庸
- 美国国债越来越难卖
- 伊朗和以色列 昔日盟友如何变为死敌?
- 美不摒弃冷战思维 新世界大战一触即发
- 中国科技超越韩国 未来核心科技差距更大
- 克里米亚回归俄罗斯10周年
- 网友讨论:日本经济给人的警示
- 美国会发生社会主义革命吗?
- 日媒:绿色氢能,美国想与中企竞争
- 阿桑奇的引渡将表明西方是否存在"自由"
- 看美国脸色,韩国企业正错失中国市场
- 没有中国参与 新能源转型将额外支出20%
- 突发!全美再度疯狂裁员
- 红海危机表明中国的"一带一路"至关重要
- 美国"印太经济框架"正在失去吸引力
- 反驳"中国经济见顶" 陆克文点出三件事
- 美国发明了购物中心 但中国人谱写新篇章
- 2024全球选举年:是政治转变的一年?
- 中国多部畅销小说今年将与俄读者见面
- 2023年的政治事件:乌克兰、加沙、金砖国家
- 1风留痕丨美国恼羞成怒 证明被拿捏住了"七寸
- 2福特董事长:汽车业受到美国政客反复折腾
- 3王毅:国际法在美国眼里似乎只是工具
- 4拜登指责中国“排外”,林剑发出反问!
- 5美国施压下,阿斯麦CEO最新涉华表态!
- 6周伯通丨从不传递情报,最恐怖的是躺平间谍
- 7扎哈罗娃:对中国促进解决俄乌冲突表示尊重
- 8少女商场更衣室遭警察误杀 检方拒提指控!
- 9中国再次减持美国国债,日英均增持
- 10台媒:机密文件被曝在网上兜售,台外事部门
- 11世界各地外国人祝福中文日
- 12菲媒炒中国留学生"威胁" 居然惊动武装部队
- 13冯德莱恩欧盟演讲时被人打断 指责其是"战犯
- 14拜登又犯迷糊 合影时手 足无措 一脸茫然
- 15多维度较量!国安机关公布境外窃密"新领域"
- 16被爆性骚扰女歌手 民进党新竹党部主委致歉
- 17金正恩观看中国中央民族乐团专场音乐会
- 18特朗普一旦被定罪 可能带来严重政治后果
- 19俄电子战部队:"星链"列入俄军打击目标清单
- 20图拉设计人员造出 FPV 无人机智能制导系统
- 1司马平邦|中国让老美瑟瑟发抖的是算力霸权
- 2金灿荣|45年过去了 传统等级观念死灰复燃
- 3申鹏|是谁在迫害“犹太人”?
- 4占豪丨意大利退出"一带一路"4个月后,后悔
- 5女子太醉不想开车 竟让8岁儿子代驾回家
- 6风留痕丨美国恼羞成怒 证明被拿捏住了"七寸
- 7张文木|智与库
- 8远航|中国统一,历史的呼唤
- 9胡懋仁|北约会直接对俄罗斯下手吗?
- 10一季度中国GDP同比增长5.3%
- 11政府工作人员被边防警察枪杀 美国也沉默了
- 12不想看到变得非常反华 以至于无法正确思考
- 13美国就伊朗是否预警上演否认三连
- 14张文木|学问是在血泊中而不是学堂里学到的
- 15郭松民|从“苏联内战”的角度辨析俄乌战争
- 16各国古迹:云中圣殿和最古老的摩天城
- 17全球首台!中国研制成功!
- 18美国国债越来越难卖
- 19福特董事长:汽车业受到美国政客反复折腾
- 20王毅:国际法在美国眼里似乎只是工具
- 1张文木 | 政治的膨胀与政治的文本——历史
- 2美军公布:六代机最新进展……
- 3江平舟|莫斯科恐袭 美国事先就知情?
- 4明星球员梅西身价缩水
- 5后沙:《杜鹃花落》,文责自负!
- 6司马平邦|中国让老美瑟瑟发抖的是算力霸权
- 7中国科技超越韩国 未来核心科技差距更大
- 8申鹏|他们实现“美国梦”了吗?
- 9胡懋仁|西方资产阶级带来的观念害人不浅
- 10占豪丨中国改变世界的大招正在起关键作用!
- 11菲律宾地图实锤!黄岩岛不属于其领土
- 12胡懋仁|全面私有化给那些国家带来的祸患
- 13丁刚 | 如何看待"中国制造"考验西方眼界
- 14金灿荣|45年过去了 传统等级观念死灰复燃
- 15申鹏|是谁在迫害“犹太人”?
- 16占豪丨意大利退出"一带一路"4个月后,后悔
- 17女子太醉不想开车 竟让8岁儿子代驾回家
- 18风留痕丨美国恼羞成怒 证明被拿捏住了"七寸
- 19乌克兰AV女优竟与乌军伤残士兵拍摄合照
- 20胡懋仁|乌克兰怎么就成了今天这副样子?
网友评论