核能為何突然卷土重來？

 
 
In the 2010s, US nuclear plants were struggling to compete against cheap natural gas and renewable energy sources. But the intensifying threat of climate change and the rise of AI have changed the conversation. To bridge the gap to a carbon-free future, America is debating whether or not to build out its atomic power industry.
 
在2010年代，美國核電站難以與廉價的天然氣和可再生能源競爭，但氣候變化威脅的加劇以及人工智能的興起改變了討論的焦點(diǎn)。為了邁向無碳未來，美國正在激烈爭論是否應(yīng)該大力發(fā)展核能產(chǎn)業(yè)。
 
 
@meganhutchinson6435
We never should have given up on nuclear in the first place
 
我們當(dāng)初壓根就不該放棄核能。
 
@TheGrindcorps
It says a lot when some of the biggest supporters of the anti-nuclear movement have been fossil fuel companies. It’s sad because the arguments against nuclear generally don’t hold water anymore like safety concerns, or exist primarily because of decades of anti-nuclear policies. Cost would fall into the latter category.
You see a company like Germany go back to coal, meanwhile Russia and China have done a ton to master modern commercial nuclear power.
 
反核運(yùn)動的最大支持者竟然是化石燃料公司，這說明了很多問題。真的挺悲哀的，因為反對核能的理由，比如安全問題，現(xiàn)在大多站不住腳，或者主要是因為幾十年的反核政策導(dǎo)致的。成本問題就屬于后者。
你看看像德國這樣的國家又開始燒煤了，而與此同時，俄羅斯和中國在現(xiàn)代商用核能技術(shù)上已經(jīng)投入巨大并取得了不少突破。
 
@rockets4kids
There was a time when people thought nuclear would be "too cheap to meter" but that is not at all how the economics turned out. Nuclear needs to be cheaper than the alternatives for it to gain traction again.
 
曾經(jīng)有人覺得核能會“便宜到不用計量”，但經(jīng)濟(jì)賬完全不是這么算的。核能要想重新站穩(wěn)腳跟，其成本必須比其他替代能源更低。
 
@marcoz6801
Germany Go back to coal? No, Germanys use of coal was 2023 the lowest in history since 1959.
 
德國又開始燒煤了？不，2023年德國的煤炭使用量是1959年以來最低的。
 
@TheGrindcorps
They had to reopen some coal plants because they turned off nuclear but don’t have enough natural gas or renewables.
 
他們不得不重啟一些煤電廠，因為他們關(guān)了核電站，但天然氣和可再生能源又不夠用。
 
@marcoz6801
In 2022, some coal mines were taken out of reserve because half of France's nuclear power plants were out of operation, meaning that Germany had to supply a lot of electricity to France. In 2023, historically low coal was used to generate electricity.
 
2022年，一些煤礦被從儲備中啟用，因為法國一半的核電站停運(yùn)，德國不得不向法國供應(yīng)大量電力。2023年，發(fā)電用煤量達(dá)到了歷史最低。
 
@TheGrindcorps
Germany has some of the worst electricity prices in the world and their industry is moving as much of their infrastructure as they can out of Germany because of it. Realistically it is either coal or deindustrializing at this point. How is that a success? Adequate nuclear power would have created a drastically different situation and not made them reliant on Russian gas.
 
德國的電價在全球算是最貴的了，他們的企業(yè)正盡可能把基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施搬出德國。現(xiàn)實點(diǎn)說，現(xiàn)在要么燒煤，要么去工業(yè)化。這算哪門子成功？如果有足夠的核能，情況會完全不同，他們也不會那么依賴俄羅斯的天然氣。
 
@okoljskoinzinirstvo9353
I disagree with the last part, fusion should not be tossed in the same bag as fision.
 
我不同意最后那部分，核聚變不該跟核裂變混為一談。
 
@Buran01
Fussion is mostly a research project, leaded by the ITER. But the ITER is a reserach facility, and even if reaches its goals will never have a practical aplitation before the second half of this century, so is not part of the solution to the climate crisis.
 
核聚變主要還是個研究項目，由國際熱核聚變實驗堆（ITER）主導(dǎo)。但I(xiàn)TER只是個研究設(shè)施，即便達(dá)到了目標(biāo)，也得等到本世紀(jì)下半葉才能實際應(yīng)用，所以它不是解決氣候危機(jī)的辦法。
 
@yensteel
They briefly generated more energy than injected in 2022. The problem now is achieving the same with energy collection, then lowering down the costs. Maybe in 100+ years it's developed enough to be practical.
 
2022年，他們短暫實現(xiàn)了輸出能量超過輸入能量。現(xiàn)在的問題是怎么在能量收集上做到同樣的效果，然后再把成本降下來?？赡艿?00多年后，技術(shù)才夠成熟到能實際應(yīng)用。
 
@stickynorth
Only in the USA does it take decades to build nuclear. In S Korea I believe the average is 4.5 years. They are built with standardized off-the-shelf designs which is 100% the opposite of the USA... And the delays are what make nuclear uneconomical right now and that's probably by design much the same way extra red tape purposefully dooms solar and wind in Oil Cuntry...
 
只有在美國建核電站要花幾十年。在韓國，我覺得平均只要4.5年。他們用的是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的現(xiàn)成設(shè)計，跟美國完全相反……現(xiàn)在的延誤讓核能變得不劃算，這很可能是有意為之，就像在石油國家里，額外的官僚程序故意拖垮太陽能和風(fēng)能一樣。
 
@skierpage
Nope, huge delays and cost overruns in the one and only nuclear plant built recently in the UK, Finland, France.
 
不，最近在英國、芬蘭、法國建的唯一的核電站也面臨巨大的延誤和成本超支。
 
@_september_4799
Specialized labor and experience same issue with chip manufacturing experienced engineers will be coming over for 3 years to get new engineers ready after a 2 year oversees training program already.
 
專業(yè)勞動力和經(jīng)驗問題跟芯片制造一樣，經(jīng)驗豐富的工程師得過來三年，才能讓新工程師準(zhǔn)備好，這還是在他們已經(jīng)接受了兩年海外培訓(xùn)之后。
 
@TheBooban
because its just one. They keep stopping and forgetting how to build the next! Its the same for any large project now. Hey keep hiring slick talking bs managers and then workers who never built such a thing before.
 
因為就建了一個。他們總是停下來，忘了怎么建下一個！現(xiàn)在所有大型項目都這樣。他們老是雇些花言巧語的廢話經(jīng)理，再加上從沒干過這活兒的工人。
 
@skierpage
sure. But no country, and certainly no private utility, is going to commit $50+? billion to build 10 nuclear plants in a row of the same design. Not when a dozen liquid salt molten sodium thorium graphite blah blah SMR designs threaten to obsolete the conventional design, while wind and solar increasingly backed by storage get ever cheaper.
 
確實。但沒有哪個國家，更別提私營公用事業(yè)公司，會砸500多億美元一口氣建10個相同設(shè)計的核電站。尤其是在有十幾種液態(tài)鹽、熔融鈉、釷石墨之類的小型模塊化反應(yīng)堆設(shè)計威脅要淘汰傳統(tǒng)設(shè)計，而風(fēng)能和太陽能加上儲能還在變得越來越便宜的情況下。
 
@yensteel
China lowered costs by mass producing the same parts and reusing the same designs. 5th generation nuclear is also safer. They even achieved meltdown proofness without any external or internal power. So Fukushima won't happen with that design.
 
中國通過大規(guī)模生產(chǎn)相同的部件和重復(fù)使用相同的設(shè)計降低了成本。第五代核能技術(shù)也更安全。他們甚至實現(xiàn)了無需外部或內(nèi)部電源的防熔毀設(shè)計，所以福島那樣的災(zāi)難不會發(fā)生。
 
@andrewjoy7044
The last 3 reactors completed in South Korea took abouy 10 years each to complete. Each of the reactors built by the South Koreans for the UAE took about 8 years each. Even in China, which has built more reactors than any other country this century has taken beteen 5 to 8 years to build each reactor.
 
韓國最近完成的3座反應(yīng)堆每座花了大約10年。韓國人為阿聯(lián)酋建的每座反應(yīng)堆花了大約8年。即使是這個世紀(jì)建了最多反應(yīng)堆的國家中國，其建設(shè)每座反應(yīng)堆也需要5到8年。
 
@plessis2023
Maybe governments will get their heads out their bums and start funding meaningful research on nuclear power generation and other future fulels and storage for modern world.
 
或許政府能清醒過來，開始為核能發(fā)電、其他未來燃料和現(xiàn)代世界的儲能技術(shù)投入有意義的研究經(jīng)費(fèi)。
 
@AstroGremlinAmerican
What's in it for the politicians? Planning for more than their next term in office is not their thing.
 
政客們能從中得到啥？他們的計劃周期從來不會超過下一次選舉。
 
@xspager
We NEED nuclear power and solar, we can't avoid the worse of climate change without them.
 
我們必須要有核能和太陽能，沒有它們，我們沒法避免氣候變化的最壞后果。
 
@beyondfossil
Yes, solar we need, but nuclear we don't. Every dollar and staff hour spent on nuclear instead of renewables just slows down the global energy transition.
Solar + grid-scale storage will dominate the global grids by 2035. Wind turbines as well but to a lesser degree.
 
對，我們需要太陽能，但核能就不必了。每花一美元或一個人力小時在核能上而不是可再生能源上都會減緩全球能源轉(zhuǎn)型的步伐。
到2035年，太陽能加上電網(wǎng)級儲能將主導(dǎo)全球電網(wǎng)。風(fēng)力渦輪機(jī)也是，但影響力稍小。
 
@skierpage
No, we need low-carbon electricity. It will only come from nuclear if it's cheaper than alternatives. Solar wind + storage get cheaper every year.
 
不，我們需要的是低碳電力。只有當(dāng)核能比其他替代能源更便宜時，它才會有用。太陽能、風(fēng)能加上儲能的成本每年都在下降。
 
@mattmccallum2007
Imagine a car from the 1970s, and a car from the 2020s. Now try to do the same with a technical process like a nuclear power plant.
 
想象一下1970年代的車和2020年代的車，現(xiàn)在試著把這個對比用到核電站這樣的技術(shù)流程上。
 
@frua97
Countries with less public phobia, like France or South Korea, still face high costs but manage them better through standardized designs and streamlined approvals. France’s nuclear fleet, built in the ’70s and ’80s, came in at $1-2 billion per reactor (adjusted for inflation), far below today’s U.S. figures. Less paranoia helps, but so does consistency—America’s bespoke plants and litigious delays (thanks, in part, to activist lawsuits) jack up expenses.
 
公眾對核能恐懼較少的國家，像法國或韓國，成本雖然高，但通過標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化設(shè)計和簡化的審批流程管理得更好。法國在上世紀(jì)70、80年代建的核電站，每座反應(yīng)堆的成本（按通脹調(diào)整）在10到20億美元，遠(yuǎn)低于現(xiàn)在美國的數(shù)據(jù)。少點(diǎn)恐慌當(dāng)然有幫助，但一致性也很重要——美國定制化的核電站和訴訟拖延（部分歸咎于激進(jìn)分子的官司）大大推高了成本。
 
@EVANERV
I think the new driving force for nuclear energy will likely come from tech companies.
These AI, big data companies such as Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, OpenAI or even Tesla will need stable continuous power delivery.
Unlike utilities, these tech companies are flushed with cash, what better investment to make than to secure their own energy needs for the next few decades years?
On average nuclear power plants become a net gain on investment after 25 years. So even if AI doesn't pan out, these tech companies could simply start selling excess electricity to the grid.
 
我認(rèn)為核能的新推動力很可能會來自科技公司。
像亞馬遜、微軟、臉書、蘋果、OpenAI甚至特斯拉這樣的人工智能和大數(shù)據(jù)公司需要穩(wěn)定持續(xù)的電力供應(yīng)。
跟公用事業(yè)公司不同，這些科技公司現(xiàn)金充裕，還有什么比確保未來幾十年能源需求更好的投資？
平均來看，核電站25年后就能實現(xiàn)投資凈收益。所以即便沒搞成人工智能，這些科技公司也可以把多余的電賣給電網(wǎng)。
 
@bige8549
I think we need to combine technologies to get the most out of investments, e.g. utilizing the steam to generate extra energy or storing the waste heat for later or installing solar panels around the stacks.
 
我認(rèn)為我們得結(jié)合多種技術(shù)來最大化投資回報，比如利用蒸汽產(chǎn)生額外的能量，或者儲存余熱供以后使用，或者在核電站周圍安裝太陽能板。
 
@InformedKiwi
The U.S. is still caught up in 1960s PWR technology, building, operating and costly decommissioning. The latest tech is so much more advanced. The development of Thorium reactors ceased back in the 1960s. There has been lots of talk in recent times but little to no action. In the meantime the Chinese have developed an operational Thorium reactors and will bring the tech to scale manufacturing of Thorium SMRs for their own use and to sell to the world.
 
美國還停留在1960年代的壓水堆技術(shù)上，建造、運(yùn)營和昂貴的退役成本都甩不掉。最新的技術(shù)已經(jīng)先進(jìn)得多。釷反應(yīng)堆的開發(fā)早在1960年代就停了。最近雖然討論很多，但幾乎沒啥行動。與此同時，中國已經(jīng)開發(fā)出可運(yùn)行的釷反應(yīng)堆，還將實現(xiàn)釷基小型模塊化反應(yīng)堆的規(guī)模化生產(chǎn)，供自己使用并賣給全世界。
 
@dougsheldon5560
I still can't see how they can get the cost down to fields of solar panels.
 
我還是看不出他們怎么能把成本降到跟太陽能板一樣低。
 
@WinterXR7
A nuclear power plant takes up less space and produces and incredible amount of energy. Oh also they run 24/7 for a decade straight.
For solar you need to take up large swaths of land which could have been used for farming, housing, manufacturing, ect. There is literally no way of wiggling your way around it.
 
核電站占地少，產(chǎn)能量卻驚人。哦，對了，它們還能24小時不間斷運(yùn)行十幾年。
太陽能發(fā)電廠得占用大片土地，那些地本來可以用來種田、蓋房、建廠啥的。根本沒法繞過去。
 
@mutantryeff
Radiactive waste? Just recycle it instead of treating it like the head of an ostrich buried in the sand.
 
放射性廢料？直接回收利用就行了，別像鴕鳥把頭埋在沙子里。
 
@spacemanspiff1
"just recycle it" said the random youtuber who watched a 15minute videon Thorium SMRs. Recycling waste is not simple nor economical.
 
“直接回收唄”，某個看了15分鐘釷基小型模塊化反應(yīng)堆視頻的油管網(wǎng)友這么說道。廢料回收可沒那么簡單，也不劃算。
 
@mutantryeff
Look at the history of why radioactive waste isn't recycled in the USA. The US simply wanted to protect the miners from the competition of secondary supply. Congress had a major discussion about this situation about 8 or 9 years ago to repeal that law. I know more about this subject that you are projecting.
 
看看美國為什么不回收放射性廢料的歷史吧，美國只是想保護(hù)礦商免受二次供應(yīng)的競爭。大約8、9年前，國會還就廢除那條法律展開過激烈的討論。我對這個話題的了解比你想的要多。
 
@adrianthoroughgood1191
Reprocessing nuclear waste is very hard and expensive. The UK used to do it but has shut down that plant now because it's cheaper to store the waste and mine new uranium.
 
再處理核廢料非常困難，成本也高。英國以前干過這事兒，但現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)關(guān)了那家工廠，因為儲存廢料和開采新鈾礦更便宜。
 
@Ripsticker45
Why are Nuclear using molten salt?
ChatGPT said:
Molten salt is being used in some new nuclear reactor designs because it offers several significant advantages over traditional reactor coolants and fuels. These benefits can improve reactor safety, efficiency, and flexibility. Here’s why molten salt is becoming a popular choice:
Higher Operating Temperatures Benefit: Molten salt can operate at much higher temperatures (up to 700–900°C) compared to water-cooled reactors, which are typically limited to ~300°C. Advantage: Higher temperatures improve thermal efficiency, allowing reactors to generate more electricity per unit of fuel. This also makes molten salt reactors suitable for industrial processes requiring high-temperature heat, such as hydrogen production and desalination.
Inherent Safety Features Low Pressure: Molten salts operate at or near atmospheric pressure, unlike water-cooled reactors that require high-pressure systems to prevent boiling. This reduces the risk of catastrophic leaks or explosions. Passive Safety: In the event of overheating, molten salt reactors are designed to drain the liquid fuel or coolant into a passive cooling tank, where the reaction stops naturally.
 
為什么核能用熔鹽？
ChatGPT說：
一些新型核反應(yīng)堆會在設(shè)計中使用熔鹽，因為它相對于傳統(tǒng)的反應(yīng)堆冷卻劑和燃料有幾個顯著的優(yōu)勢，這些優(yōu)勢能提升反應(yīng)堆的安全性、效率和靈活性。以下是熔鹽成為熱門選擇的原因：
 
更高的運(yùn)行溫度
優(yōu)點(diǎn)：熔鹽可運(yùn)行在高達(dá)700–900°C的溫度，相比之下，水冷反應(yīng)堆通常被限制在約300°C。
優(yōu)勢：更高的溫度提升了熱效率，讓每單位燃料產(chǎn)生更多電能。這也讓熔鹽反應(yīng)堆適合需要高溫?zé)岬墓I(yè)過程，比如制氫和海水淡化。
 
固有的安全特性
低壓：熔鹽在接近常壓下運(yùn)行，不像水冷反應(yīng)堆需要高壓系統(tǒng)來防止沸騰。這降低了災(zāi)難性泄漏或爆炸的風(fēng)險。
被動安全：如果發(fā)生過熱，熔鹽反應(yīng)堆設(shè)計會讓液態(tài)燃料或冷卻劑排入被動冷卻池，反應(yīng)會自然停止。
 
@lenphil9875
Cut to the chase, it's not. With most reactors now nearing their end of life and only a few being built, the nuclear age is over.
 
直白點(diǎn)說，根本沒有卷土重來。大多數(shù)反應(yīng)堆現(xiàn)在都接近使用壽命的盡頭，新建的也沒幾個，核能時代已經(jīng)結(jié)束了。
 
@varun2250
I'm sorry, it's coming back in some parts of the world. All other major countries have never stopped using atomic power and were only increasing over every decade!
 
抱歉，核能在世界上某些地方確實在復(fù)蘇。其他主要的國家從沒停止使用核能，而且每十年都在增加！
 
@Fabian-bx5pm
Not true! Germany has phased out nuclear power plants, the number of nuclear power plants that go offline is still higher than the number of planned nuclear power plants. The iconic nuclear projects in the UK and France have become a lot more expensive than anticipated and lag behind schedule big time!
 
不是這樣！德國已經(jīng)逐步淘汰了核電站，退役的核電站數(shù)量仍然比計劃新建的多。英國和法國的標(biāo)志性核能項目成本比預(yù)期高得多，進(jìn)度也嚴(yán)重滯后！
 
@Truth-of-the-matter
Ideally we would have a vast diversification of energy generation from nuclear, solar, wind and burning trash. Ideally there should be redundancies to protect from large grid failure.
 
在理想的情況下，我們應(yīng)該有多種能源生產(chǎn)方式，包括核能、太陽能、風(fēng)能和垃圾焚燒。最好還有冗余設(shè)計以防止電網(wǎng)發(fā)生大面積故障。
 
@blue_beephang-glider5417
Solar wind and battery power can do it, In China a solar and wind plant has a 20 Gigawatt output.
In Australia Singapore is building a 70 Gigawatt one in 5 years for $3.5 billion. You talk about one Reactor $25 Billion that would make a 500 Gigawatt renewable Plant...
Wind solar and battery tech is getting cheaper and cheaper every year. Nuclear has always had ballooning crippling costs.
All nuclear power-plants produce Plutonium waste that is used to make atomic bombs.
 
太陽能、風(fēng)能和電池儲能就能搞定。在中國，一座太陽能和風(fēng)能電站的輸出功率有20吉瓦。
在澳大利亞，新加坡正在建設(shè)一座70吉瓦的電站，5年完工，成本35億美元。你說一座核反應(yīng)堆要250億美元，那都能建一座500吉瓦的可再生能源電站了……
風(fēng)能、太陽能和電池技術(shù)每年都在變得越來越便宜，而核能的成本卻一直膨脹得嚇人。
所有核電站都會產(chǎn)生可用于制造原子彈的钚廢料。
 
@mokpoly
It's not the matter of the maximum output. It's whether how consistent the energy source can be. Solar and wind power are very much dependent on weather conditions which makes them unreliable energy sources.
 
關(guān)鍵不在于最大輸出，而在于能源的穩(wěn)定性。太陽能和風(fēng)能太依賴天氣條件了，實在不是可靠的能源。
 
@martinzihlmann822
solar and nuclear serve a completely different purpose. It's like saying electric cars will replace our long-haul trucks. For sure, electric is better than ice, on a per mile basis they're cheaper too, but for freight they're simply useless, for that you need to run trains. nuclear replaces coal, not solar and wind. Germany proves that point.
 
太陽能和核能的用途完全不同，這就像說電動汽車能取代長途卡車。當(dāng)然，電動汽車比內(nèi)燃機(jī)車更好，每英里使用成本也更低，但運(yùn)貨它們根本沒用，得靠火車。核能是用來取代煤炭而不是太陽能和風(fēng)能的。德國就是個證明。
 
@fajarcahyono3693
Nuclear : Cheap, Reliable and Clean
Fossil Fuel : Cheap, Reliable but Dirty
Wind & Solar : Energy Source is Clean but Unreliable, Expensive and Materials needed to build is taken from very Dirty mining conditions
 
核能：便宜、可靠、清潔
化石燃料：便宜、可靠但臟
風(fēng)能與太陽能：能源本身清潔但不可靠、昂貴，建造所需的材料來自污染嚴(yán)重的采礦條件
 
@andrewjoy7044
The amount of nuclear generation added worldwide was about 10 GW (About 15 GW new added and 5 GW old shut down). The total worldwide generation capacity of nuclear is about 400 GW. There are about 64 new nuclear power stations under construction for about 80 GW. In 2022, 340 GW of new renewables were added for a total 0f 3372 GW. In 2023 about 560 GW was added for a total of 3865 GW. This year about 666 GW has been added for a total of 4530 GW. New BESS (Batteryenergy storage systems) increased by 27 GWh in 2022, 74 GWh in 2023 and in 2024 about 100 GWh. By 2030 it is expected that BESS will have reached over 400 GWh.
The World Nuclear Association expect a tripling of nuclear be 2050 to about 1200 GW. The International Energy Agency expects a 4.5 times in crease in renewables to about 20 000 GW.
I hope it is clear from these figures that, while nuclear will be around, it will still ony provide about 10% of world electricity demand in 25 years time. Nuclear is just too expensive and takes far too long to build.
 
全球新增核能發(fā)電量大約是10吉瓦（新增約15吉瓦，退役約5吉瓦）。全球核能總發(fā)電容量大約是400吉瓦。目前有大約64座新核電站正在建設(shè)，總計約80吉瓦。2022年，新增可再生能源340吉瓦，總計3372吉瓦。2023年新增約560吉瓦，總計3865吉瓦。今年新增約666吉瓦，總計4530吉瓦。新型電池儲能系統(tǒng)（BESS）在2022年增加27吉瓦時，2023年增加74吉瓦時，2024年約100吉瓦時。到2030年，預(yù)計BESS將超過400吉瓦時。
世界核能協(xié)會預(yù)計到2050年核能將增長三倍，達(dá)到約1200吉瓦。國際能源署預(yù)計可再生能源將增長4.5倍，達(dá)到約2萬吉瓦。
希望這些數(shù)據(jù)能清楚說明雖然核能還會存在，但25年后它也只能滿足全球電力需求的10%左右。核能實在是太貴，建起來也太慢了。
 
@inigoromon1937
Nuclear IS much better than gas, coal and even hydro power. I would keep them as long as possible. I would only build New technology ones, not clone the old ones.
So renewables as the main source and nuclear as a backup.
 
核能確實比天然氣、煤炭甚至水電好得多，我會盡可能保留核電站，但我只會建設(shè)新型技術(shù)的核電站而不是照抄老的。
所以，我們可以用可再生能源做主力，核能做后備。
 
@9ineth
I think the most important thing to consider is how to manage the nuclear waste, radioactive waste is not something to toil with. The contamination goes to the air we breathe & to the water underground....this is just a vast topic, imagine those waste being alive till a thousand years...that's much trouble for a little fun...The solar batteries will also be an issue in the future cos of how the waste is managed....cases of hazardous waste will soon become a factor...Think about the challenges of lithium batteries in flight I think tech is really stealing our freedom somehow.
 
我認(rèn)為最重要的問題是怎么處理核廢料，放射性廢料可不是鬧著玩的。污染會進(jìn)入我們呼吸的空氣和地下的水……這個話題太大了，想想那些廢料能“活”上千年……為了點(diǎn)短暫的好處惹這么多麻煩。太陽能電池未來也會是個問題，因為廢料處理的方式……危險廢料的案例很快會變成一個大因素……想想飛機(jī)上鋰電池的挑戰(zhàn)，我覺得技術(shù)不知不覺在偷走我們的自由。
 
@alancapes5644
Transformational technologies are the ones that are scalable and competitively priced. For the foreseeable future, nuclear is neither. Repeatability, time to deliver and Total Cost of Ownership make no sense.
 
變革性技術(shù)得是可擴(kuò)展且價格方面有競爭力的。在可預(yù)見的未來，核能兩者都不是，其可重復(fù)性、交付時間和總擁有成本都完全不合理。