The Fukushima crisis will slow the growth of nuclearpower. Might it reverse it?

　　福島危機將減緩核能的增長，但它是否會扭轉其發展勢頭?

　　FEAR and uncertainty spread faster and fartherthan any nuclear fallout. To date the crisis at theFukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant in Japan, laid low bythe tsunami of March 11th, seems to have done littleif any long-term damage to the environmentbeyond the plants immediate vicinity or to publichealth. In fits and starts, and with various reverses,the situation at the plant has come closer to beingunder control.

　　與任何核輻射相比，恐懼與惶惑的傳播速度更快，范圍更遠。迄今為止，因311海嘯而陷入癱瘓的日本福島第一核電站，看起來并沒有對除電廠毗鄰區域以外的環境和公眾健康造成多大的長期傷害。伴隨著事態的種種反復，福島核電站的狀況已在曲折中更加趨于受控。

　　But the immediate crisis is far from over. The temperature of the three reactors withdamaged central cores still fluctuates and water systems for the spent-fuel pools are jury-rigged at best. Contaminated food has been found a disconcertingly long way away, although itseems to be being kept out of the food chain. There are worries about tap water in distantTokyo.

　　不過，眼下的危機遠未結束。三座堆芯中心受損的反應堆的溫度仍起伏不定，而乏燃料池供水系統也頂多只是被應急修復而已。人們在遠方發現了受污染的食物，其與核電站相距之遠令人不安，不過這些食物看起來被排除在了食物鏈以外。而遙遠的東京也出現了對自來水的擔憂。

　　There will certainly be more durable effects too. Years of clean-up will drag into decades. Apermanent exclusion zone could end up stretching beyond the plants perimeter. Seriouslyexposed workers may be at increased risk of cancers for the rest of their lives . A concern for the long term, like uncertainty and fear, is one of thethings that nuclear power invariably brings to discussions of future energy.

　　更加持久的影響也必將出現。數年的清理工作將會延長為數十年;永久無人區的范圍可能最終將超出核電站廠區之外;受到嚴重輻射的工人們在其余生中罹患癌癥的幾率可能會更高。在關于未來能源的討論中，諸如惶惑以及恐懼等長期顧慮也是核能必然引入的事項之一。

　　To a lot of environmentalists, the priority is to get nuclear power out of those discussions onceand for all. Simply put, you cant trust the stuff. Somewhere, eventually, reactors will get outof control. One did at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979. One did at Chernobyl in 1986.Now three have done so again, and an argument that had seemed to be running short of puff is revived. Though this disaster has beennothing like as bad as Chernobyl, it is in some ways a lot worse than Three Mile Islanda bit likethree Three Mile Islands in a row, with added damage in the spent-fuel stores.

　　對于眾多環保主義者而言，其首要考慮是將核能一勞永逸地排除在這些討論之外。簡而言之，人們不能相信核能。總歸會有某處的反應堆將要失控。1979年，賓夕法尼亞州三里島有一座反應堆失控;1986年，切爾諾貝利有一座反應堆失控; 如今，又有三座重蹈覆轍，而且一種曾經似已偃旗息鼓的說法，如今又重獲生機。盡管此次災難迄今為止，還根本不像切爾諾貝利事故那樣惡劣，但從某些意義上說，它卻遠遠糟于三里島核事故它有些類似于連續發生三次的三里島事故，外加乏燃料貯存池所受的損害。

　　Fukushima Dai-ichi, it is true, was swamped by a natural catastrophe of biblical proportions.But this argument cuts both ways. Nuclear planners clearly did not appreciate how bad thingscould get on a low-lying coast in a seismic zone; and poor planning is part of the problem. Onereason why Japanese confidence in nuclear power had been growing in recent years was thatpast scandals led to resignations and the prospect of reform among planners, powercompanies and regulators. Whereas in 2005 only a quarter of people felt nuclear energy wassafe, by last year more than 40% did, according to a survey by Japans Cabinet Office. Findingsites for new reactors was not proving easyand old reactors stayed online as a resultbut itdid not seem impossible.

　　的確，福島第一核電站滅頂之災的元兇是一場規模極為宏大的自然災難。不過這種說法卻是雙刃劍。核能規劃者們顯然未能認識到在震區地勢低洼的海岸邊，情況能夠變得多糟;而拙劣的設計正是問題的一部分。近年來，日本人對核能的信心之所以越發高漲，其原因之一在于往日的丑聞以辭職收場，并帶來了規劃者、電力公司和監管者進行改革的前景。根據日本內閣府的調查，2005年時僅有四分之一的民眾認為核能是安全的，而去年持此觀點者已超過四成。為新反應堆選址雖并不容易，但看起來也并非毫無可能。

　　Elsewhere, too, the industry was reviving. Figuresfrom the World Nuclear Association, a trade body,have shown more capacity planned and proposedthan on the ground. Now much of this expansionlooks likely to be curtailed. Even the replacement ofreactors may be in question.

　　核能產業在其他地區也在重現生機。來自行業組織世界核協會的數據已經表明，計劃或提議開發的核能大于現有產能。如今看來，這種產能擴張中可能將有許多會被削減，甚至連反應堆的替換或許都得打上問號。

　　When last year a volcano closed the skies over Europe and a blown-out oil-rig turned the Gulfof Mexico black, there was no widespread enthusiasm for giving up oil or air travel. Butnuclear power is much less fundamental to the workings of the world than petrol oraeroplanes. Nuclear reactors generate only 14% of the worlds electricity, and with a medianage of about 27 years and a typical design life of 40 a lot are nearing retirement.Although the world is eager to fly and thirsts for oil, it has had little appetite for new nuclearpower for the past quarter of a century.

　　當去年一座火山令歐洲空域關閉，一座失控爆炸的石油鉆井平臺將墨西哥灣染成黑色時，人們并未對放棄石油或航空旅行產生過廣泛的熱情。不過，與石油或飛機相比，核能對世界運行的基礎性作用要弱得多。核反應堆發電量僅為全球總發電量的14%，而其年齡中位數為27年，設計壽命一般為40年，許多反應堆正臨近退役。盡管世界急欲飛行而又渴求石油，但在過去的25年中，它對新增核能卻并無多大胃口。

　　This is not just the direct result of Chernobyl. New nuclear plants cost a great deal of money.After Fukushima they are likely to cost even more, thanks to extra uncertainty in licensing andapproval if nothing else. Another problem now made manifest is that if operator error orshoddy construction causes a reactor of the same design as yours halfway round the world togo wrong, yours may be shut down too. This is not a merely theoretical possibility. SevenGerman nuclear reactors which were officially safe until mid-March have been shut down. It iswidely thought that at least some will not open again.

　　這并不只是切爾諾貝利事故的直接后果。新核電站的成本非常巨大，在福島核事故之后，由于至少會在授予許可和批準兩方面出現額外的不確定性，因此新核電站的成本或許還會上升。另一個如今顯而易見的問題則是：如果一座與你的設備相隔萬里、但設計相同的反應堆，因操作人員錯誤操作或豆腐渣工程而發生事故的話，那么你所擁有的反應堆可能也將被關閉。這種情況并非只在理論上存在可能。德國有7座在3月中旬之前被官方認為安全的核反應堆已被關閉。人們普遍認為，其中至少有幾座再也不會重新運行。

　　And if that happens, Germany will not suffer much. While the nuclear industry has stalled sinceChernobyl, natural gas and renewables have come on impressively. German electricity priceswould probably go up, depending to some extent on the price of gas and carbon, becausealthough new nuclear plants are expensive, old, depreciated ones make cheap electricity. But itwould not be the end of the world.

　　而如果這種情況成真，德國也不會深受其害。當核能產業自切爾諾貝利事故以來便已陷入停滯之時，天然氣和可再生能源卻以驚人的速度發展。德國電價或許將會上升，在一定程度上這取決于天然氣和碳燃料的價格，這是因為盡管新核電站造價高昂，但折舊的老核電站卻在生產著廉價的電能。不過，世界也不會因此而陷入窮途末路。

　　The 14% solution14%解決方案

　　Nuclear power thus looks dangerous, unpopular, expensive and risky. It is replaceable withrelative ease and could be forgone with no huge structural shifts in the way the world works. Sowhat would the world be like without it?

　　有鑒于此，核能看起來既危險而不受歡迎，又昂貴且存在風險。人們可以相對輕松地用其他能源取而代之，而放棄核能又不會對世界的運行模式帶來巨大的結構性變化。那么，沒有核能的世界又將是怎樣一番模樣呢?

　　The most obvious answer is: a bit warmer. In 2009 the worlds electricity generators emittedabout 9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, out of an industrial total of 30 billion tonnes and agrand total, including deforestation and the effects of other gases, equivalent to some 50billion. Without nuclear power and with other fuels filling in its share pro rata, emissions fromgeneration would have been about 11 billion tonnes. The difference is roughly equal to the totalannual emissions of Germany and Japan combined.

　　最明顯的答案便是：世界將變得更溫暖一些。 2009年，全球發電設備共排放二氧化碳90億噸左右，工業總排放量為300億噸，而將毀林和其他氣體效應包含在內的排放總量約等于500億噸。當核能被放棄，而其份額被其他燃料按比例填補時，發電所排放的二氧化碳將達到110億噸左右。兩者差額幾乎等于德國和日本的年排放總量。

　　The Fukushima crisis will slow the growth of nuclearpower. Might it reverse it?

　　福島危機將減緩核能的增長，但它是否會扭轉其發展勢頭?

　　FEAR and uncertainty spread faster and fartherthan any nuclear fallout. To date the crisis at theFukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant in Japan, laid low bythe tsunami of March 11th, seems to have done littleif any long-term damage to the environmentbeyond the plants immediate vicinity or to publichealth. In fits and starts, and with various reverses,the situation at the plant has come closer to beingunder control.

　　與任何核輻射相比，恐懼與惶惑的傳播速度更快，范圍更遠。迄今為止，因311海嘯而陷入癱瘓的日本福島第一核電站，看起來并沒有對除電廠毗鄰區域以外的環境和公眾健康造成多大的長期傷害。伴隨著事態的種種反復，福島核電站的狀況已在曲折中更加趨于受控。

　　But the immediate crisis is far from over. The temperature of the three reactors withdamaged central cores still fluctuates and water systems for the spent-fuel pools are jury-rigged at best. Contaminated food has been found a disconcertingly long way away, although itseems to be being kept out of the food chain. There are worries about tap water in distantTokyo.

　　不過，眼下的危機遠未結束。三座堆芯中心受損的反應堆的溫度仍起伏不定，而乏燃料池供水系統也頂多只是被應急修復而已。人們在遠方發現了受污染的食物，其與核電站相距之遠令人不安，不過這些食物看起來被排除在了食物鏈以外。而遙遠的東京也出現了對自來水的擔憂。

　　There will certainly be more durable effects too. Years of clean-up will drag into decades. Apermanent exclusion zone could end up stretching beyond the plants perimeter. Seriouslyexposed workers may be at increased risk of cancers for the rest of their lives . A concern for the long term, like uncertainty and fear, is one of thethings that nuclear power invariably brings to discussions of future energy.

　　更加持久的影響也必將出現。數年的清理工作將會延長為數十年;永久無人區的范圍可能最終將超出核電站廠區之外;受到嚴重輻射的工人們在其余生中罹患癌癥的幾率可能會更高。在關于未來能源的討論中，諸如惶惑以及恐懼等長期顧慮也是核能必然引入的事項之一。

　　To a lot of environmentalists, the priority is to get nuclear power out of those discussions onceand for all. Simply put, you cant trust the stuff. Somewhere, eventually, reactors will get outof control. One did at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979. One did at Chernobyl in 1986.Now three have done so again, and an argument that had seemed to be running short of puff is revived. Though this disaster has beennothing like as bad as Chernobyl, it is in some ways a lot worse than Three Mile Islanda bit likethree Three Mile Islands in a row, with added damage in the spent-fuel stores.

　　對于眾多環保主義者而言，其首要考慮是將核能一勞永逸地排除在這些討論之外。簡而言之，人們不能相信核能。總歸會有某處的反應堆將要失控。1979年，賓夕法尼亞州三里島有一座反應堆失控;1986年，切爾諾貝利有一座反應堆失控; 如今，又有三座重蹈覆轍，而且一種曾經似已偃旗息鼓的說法，如今又重獲生機。盡管此次災難迄今為止，還根本不像切爾諾貝利事故那樣惡劣，但從某些意義上說，它卻遠遠糟于三里島核事故它有些類似于連續發生三次的三里島事故，外加乏燃料貯存池所受的損害。

　　Fukushima Dai-ichi, it is true, was swamped by a natural catastrophe of biblical proportions.But this argument cuts both ways. Nuclear planners clearly did not appreciate how bad thingscould get on a low-lying coast in a seismic zone; and poor planning is part of the problem. Onereason why Japanese confidence in nuclear power had been growing in recent years was thatpast scandals led to resignations and the prospect of reform among planners, powercompanies and regulators. Whereas in 2005 only a quarter of people felt nuclear energy wassafe, by last year more than 40% did, according to a survey by Japans Cabinet Office. Findingsites for new reactors was not proving easyand old reactors stayed online as a resultbut itdid not seem impossible.

　　的確，福島第一核電站滅頂之災的元兇是一場規模極為宏大的自然災難。不過這種說法卻是雙刃劍。核能規劃者們顯然未能認識到在震區地勢低洼的海岸邊，情況能夠變得多糟;而拙劣的設計正是問題的一部分。近年來，日本人對核能的信心之所以越發高漲，其原因之一在于往日的丑聞以辭職收場，并帶來了規劃者、電力公司和監管者進行改革的前景。根據日本內閣府的調查，2005年時僅有四分之一的民眾認為核能是安全的，而去年持此觀點者已超過四成。為新反應堆選址雖并不容易，但看起來也并非毫無可能。

　　Elsewhere, too, the industry was reviving. Figuresfrom the World Nuclear Association, a trade body,have shown more capacity planned and proposedthan on the ground. Now much of this expansionlooks likely to be curtailed. Even the replacement ofreactors may be in question.

　　核能產業在其他地區也在重現生機。來自行業組織世界核協會的數據已經表明，計劃或提議開發的核能大于現有產能。如今看來，這種產能擴張中可能將有許多會被削減，甚至連反應堆的替換或許都得打上問號。

　　When last year a volcano closed the skies over Europe and a blown-out oil-rig turned the Gulfof Mexico black, there was no widespread enthusiasm for giving up oil or air travel. Butnuclear power is much less fundamental to the workings of the world than petrol oraeroplanes. Nuclear reactors generate only 14% of the worlds electricity, and with a medianage of about 27 years and a typical design life of 40 a lot are nearing retirement.Although the world is eager to fly and thirsts for oil, it has had little appetite for new nuclearpower for the past quarter of a century.

　　當去年一座火山令歐洲空域關閉，一座失控爆炸的石油鉆井平臺將墨西哥灣染成黑色時，人們并未對放棄石油或航空旅行產生過廣泛的熱情。不過，與石油或飛機相比，核能對世界運行的基礎性作用要弱得多。核反應堆發電量僅為全球總發電量的14%，而其年齡中位數為27年，設計壽命一般為40年，許多反應堆正臨近退役。盡管世界急欲飛行而又渴求石油，但在過去的25年中，它對新增核能卻并無多大胃口。

　　This is not just the direct result of Chernobyl. New nuclear plants cost a great deal of money.After Fukushima they are likely to cost even more, thanks to extra uncertainty in licensing andapproval if nothing else. Another problem now made manifest is that if operator error orshoddy construction causes a reactor of the same design as yours halfway round the world togo wrong, yours may be shut down too. This is not a merely theoretical possibility. SevenGerman nuclear reactors which were officially safe until mid-March have been shut down. It iswidely thought that at least some will not open again.

　　這并不只是切爾諾貝利事故的直接后果。新核電站的成本非常巨大，在福島核事故之后，由于至少會在授予許可和批準兩方面出現額外的不確定性，因此新核電站的成本或許還會上升。另一個如今顯而易見的問題則是：如果一座與你的設備相隔萬里、但設計相同的反應堆，因操作人員錯誤操作或豆腐渣工程而發生事故的話，那么你所擁有的反應堆可能也將被關閉。這種情況并非只在理論上存在可能。德國有7座在3月中旬之前被官方認為安全的核反應堆已被關閉。人們普遍認為，其中至少有幾座再也不會重新運行。

　　And if that happens, Germany will not suffer much. While the nuclear industry has stalled sinceChernobyl, natural gas and renewables have come on impressively. German electricity priceswould probably go up, depending to some extent on the price of gas and carbon, becausealthough new nuclear plants are expensive, old, depreciated ones make cheap electricity. But itwould not be the end of the world.

　　而如果這種情況成真，德國也不會深受其害。當核能產業自切爾諾貝利事故以來便已陷入停滯之時，天然氣和可再生能源卻以驚人的速度發展。德國電價或許將會上升，在一定程度上這取決于天然氣和碳燃料的價格，這是因為盡管新核電站造價高昂，但折舊的老核電站卻在生產著廉價的電能。不過，世界也不會因此而陷入窮途末路。

　　The 14% solution14%解決方案

　　Nuclear power thus looks dangerous, unpopular, expensive and risky. It is replaceable withrelative ease and could be forgone with no huge structural shifts in the way the world works. Sowhat would the world be like without it?

　　有鑒于此，核能看起來既危險而不受歡迎，又昂貴且存在風險。人們可以相對輕松地用其他能源取而代之，而放棄核能又不會對世界的運行模式帶來巨大的結構性變化。那么，沒有核能的世界又將是怎樣一番模樣呢?

　　The most obvious answer is: a bit warmer. In 2009 the worlds electricity generators emittedabout 9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, out of an industrial total of 30 billion tonnes and agrand total, including deforestation and the effects of other gases, equivalent to some 50billion. Without nuclear power and with other fuels filling in its share pro rata, emissions fromgeneration would have been about 11 billion tonnes. The difference is roughly equal to the totalannual emissions of Germany and Japan combined.

　　最明顯的答案便是：世界將變得更溫暖一些。 2009年，全球發電設備共排放二氧化碳90億噸左右，工業總排放量為300億噸，而將毀林和其他氣體效應包含在內的排放總量約等于500億噸。當核能被放棄，而其份額被其他燃料按比例填補時，發電所排放的二氧化碳將達到110億噸左右。兩者差額幾乎等于德國和日本的年排放總量。