????問(wèn)：你認(rèn)為核能是解決亞洲能源危機(jī)的出路嗎？

????答：如果我們真的認(rèn)真對(duì)待氣候變化問(wèn)題,，那么我們也必須認(rèn)真對(duì)待核能,。美國(guó)正走一條折中的道路，美國(guó)宣稱(chēng)：“我們不使用核能,，只需要用天然氣取代煤,。”也許這能讓美國(guó)的能源危機(jī)推遲一段時(shí)間,，但問(wèn)題是天然氣碳排放量很高,。如果不使用核能,，世界將很難在繼續(xù)滿(mǎn)足能源需求增長(zhǎng)的同時(shí)避免對(duì)氣候產(chǎn)生破壞性影響的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。核能是目前唯一既能提供我們生存所需的能源,，同時(shí)又能將成本控制在合理范圍內(nèi)的技術(shù),。如果利用得當(dāng)，核能可以實(shí)現(xiàn)零碳排放,。

????問(wèn)：迄今為止,，中國(guó)是世界上核電擴(kuò)張最快的國(guó)家，有28個(gè)新核電站在規(guī)劃中,，有的或已開(kāi)建,。這樣做，我們是否需要擔(dān)心核能使用的安全問(wèn)題,？

????答：中國(guó)很重視各國(guó)的看法,，正努力確保核電項(xiàng)目的萬(wàn)無(wú)一失。我們?cè)诖髞啚澈穗娬卷?xiàng)目上看到了極高的安全記錄及安全意識(shí),，安全并沒(méi)有只是停留在口號(hào)上,。你看到《南華早報(bào)》（South China Morning Post）的頭條新聞了嗎? 四天中在同一個(gè)煤礦發(fā)生了二次爆炸，其中有29人在星期五爆炸中喪生,，另外7人則在昨天的爆炸中身亡,。可是有多少人直接死于福島核電站的核泄漏危機(jī)呢,？零,。海嘯造成3萬(wàn)人死亡，但福島核泄露事故并沒(méi)有直接造成人員死亡,。任何選擇都有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，只能兩害相權(quán)取其輕,。

????問(wèn)：現(xiàn)在核電是否要依靠亞洲引領(lǐng),？

????答：是的。世界電力需求增長(zhǎng)的大部分都來(lái)自亞洲,。中國(guó)每年新建8萬(wàn)兆瓦裝機(jī)容量,。中電集團(tuán)是一家市值200億美元的大公司，我們?cè)趤喼薜难b機(jī)容量為2萬(wàn)兆瓦,。也就是說(shuō),，中國(guó)每個(gè)季度的新增裝機(jī)容量就抵得上中電集團(tuán)的所有裝機(jī)容量了。中國(guó)每年的新增裝機(jī)容量中有6萬(wàn)兆瓦都是煤電,。好在這些電廠(chǎng)都將使用清潔煤技術(shù),，有利于常規(guī)排放量的減少。

????問(wèn)：北京是否還會(huì)出現(xiàn)霧霾天氣,？

????答：一段時(shí)間內(nèi)肯定是有的,。中國(guó)正在建設(shè)高效,、現(xiàn)代的火力發(fā)電廠(chǎng)，但碳排放量仍然較高,。氣候變化是一個(gè)不容忽視的問(wèn)題,，需要想辦法解決，但是他們首先要解決的是在滿(mǎn)足能源需求的同時(shí)減少常規(guī)碳排放量,。

????問(wèn)：你覺(jué)得未來(lái)會(huì)如何發(fā)展,？我們是否終將難逃一劫？

????答：碳排放量將在未來(lái)20到30年急劇上升,。到了某一時(shí)刻,，可能需要一場(chǎng)大的危機(jī)才能使全球齊心協(xié)力。很難說(shuō)危機(jī)將以什么樣的形式出現(xiàn),，但破壞性需要特別大,。相比之下，颶風(fēng)桑迪或卡特里娜那樣的災(zāi)害力度還不夠大,。不需要成為專(zhuān)家就能明白氣候不穩(wěn)定所引起的巨大風(fēng)險(xiǎn),。應(yīng)該是提前應(yīng)對(duì)，而不是等到災(zāi)難發(fā)生以后,。但是政客們面臨的問(wèn)題是,，選舉周期太短，無(wú)法認(rèn)真處理,。如何去對(duì)選民說(shuō)：“我們現(xiàn)在要過(guò)點(diǎn)苦日子,，因?yàn)槲覀円捶怕?jīng)濟(jì)增速，要么提高能源生產(chǎn)成本,，而這也將導(dǎo)致增長(zhǎng)減緩,。不過(guò)不用擔(dān)心，到2050年,，你們的子孫將會(huì)因此受益良多,。”選民肯定很難接受,。英國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家尼克?斯特恩在他的《斯特恩報(bào)告》（Stern Report）中曾試圖兜售這樣的想法,。他說(shuō)：到2050年，這么做的成本可能只占GDP的1%,，人們甚至感覺(jué)不到,。話(huà)雖如此，但要轉(zhuǎn)換成目前要實(shí)施的具體政策就要難得多了,。在西方自由民主國(guó)家中,，這在民意上很難行得通。

????Do you think nuclear is the answer to Asia's energy dilemma?

????If you're serious about climate change, I think you've got to be serious about nuclear. The U.S. is going down an intermediate path, saying "We don't need nuclear, we'll just back out of coal and we'll use natural gas." That will defer the problem in the U.S. for a period of time. But gas is still pretty carbon intensive. Without nuclear it's hard to see how the world will continue to meet energy demand growth without catastrophic risk to the climate. Nuclear is the only technology that exists today that can provide base-load power at a reasonable cost -- if you get the program right -- with zero carbon emissions.

????China has by far the most aggressive nuclear buildout underway in the world today, with 28 new plants planned or already under construction. Can we trust them to do this safely?

????They are very sensitive about the world's perception, and they want to make sure they are getting it right. Everything we've seen on the ground at Daya Bay suggests it's not just rhetoric. The safety record and the safety culture are extremely high. Did you see the headline in the South China Morning Post? Second explosion in one coal mine in four days. Twenty-nine people killed Friday and another seven people killed yesterday. How many people were directly killed by the meltdown at Fukushima? Zero. Well, the tsunami killed 30,000 people; the nuclear accident itself hasn't killed anybody. We have choices to make. None of them are easy.

????And it's up to Asia to take the lead on this?

????Yes, because the majority of the growth in power demand is going to come from this part of the world. China builds 80,000 megawatts a year new capacity. We're a big company -- $20 billion market cap -- and we are 20,000 megawatts across the region. But every quarter China builds another CLP. And something like 60,000 megawatts is coming from coal. The good news is that the coal will be done cleanly, in the sense of conventional emissions.

????No more yellow smog in Beijing?

????After a while, sure. China is building efficient, modern coal-fired plants, but they are still carbon-intensive. Climate change is not something they're ignoring but it's a problem to be dealt with later. They have to deal with the conventional emissions first and meet the demand for energy.

????What do you think is going to happen? Are we doomed?

????Carbon emissions are going to rise quite dramatically in the next 20 to 30 years. At some stage it will need a major crisis in order for the world to get its act together. Hard to say what form that will take. You need something really catastrophic. Hurricane Sandy or Katrina, that's not a big enough crisis. You do not have to be an expert to understand there's a major risk of climate destabilization that requires action today, not after it hits you. But the problem the politicians face is the electoral cycle is just too short to deal with that. It's very hard to say to voters, "Look, I have to make you poorer now because we're going to have to slow down growth or increase costs of energy production which will have the consequence of slowing down growth. But don't worry, it's going to benefit your children or your grandchildren by the year 2050." That's a difficult sell. [British economist] Nick Stern tried it in his Stern report; he said it's only 1% of GDP by 2050, you won't even notice. But translate that into specific policies that you have to implement today, and it is much harder. It's a difficult political sell in a liberal western democracy.