????問：你認為核能是解決亞洲能源危機的出路嗎？

????答：如果我們真的認真對待氣候變化問題，那么我們也必須認真對待核能。美國正走一條折中的道路，美國宣稱：“我們不使用核能，只需要用天然氣取代煤?！币苍S這能讓美國的能源危機推遲一段時間，但問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)滿足能源需求增長的同時避免對氣候產(chǎn)生破壞性影響的風險。核能是目前唯一既能提供我們生存所需的能源，同時又能將成本控制在合理范圍內(nèi)的技術(shù)。如果利用得當，核能可以實現(xiàn)零碳排放。

????問：迄今為止，中國是世界上核電擴張最快的國家，有28個新核電站在規(guī)劃中，有的或已開建。這樣做，我們是否需要擔心核能使用的安全問題？

????答：中國很重視各國的看法，正努力確保核電項目的萬無一失。我們在大亞灣核電站項目上看到了極高的安全記錄及安全意識，安全并沒有只是停留在口號上。你看到《南華早報》（South China Morning Post）的頭條新聞了嗎? 四天中在同一個煤礦發(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?？墒怯卸嗌偃酥苯铀烙诟u核電站的核泄漏危機呢？零。海嘯造成3萬人死亡，但福島核泄露事故并沒有直接造成人員死亡。任何選擇都有風險，只能兩害相權(quán)取其輕。

????問：現(xiàn)在核電是否要依靠亞洲引領(lǐng)？

????答：是的。世界電力需求增長的大部分都來自亞洲。中國每年新建8萬兆瓦裝機容量。中電集團是一家市值200億美元的大公司，我們在亞洲的裝機容量為2萬兆瓦。也就是說，中國每個季度的新增裝機容量就抵得上中電集團的所有裝機容量了。中國每年的新增裝機容量中有6萬兆瓦都是煤電。好在這些電廠都將使用清潔煤技術(shù)，有利于常規(guī)排放量的減少。

????問：北京是否還會出現(xiàn)霧霾天氣？

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

????問：你覺得未來會如何發(fā)展？我們是否終將難逃一劫？

????答：碳排放量將在未來20到30年急劇上升。到了某一時刻，可能需要一場大的危機才能使全球齊心協(xié)力。很難說危機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。不需要成為專家就能明白氣候不穩(wěn)定所引起的巨大風險。應(yīng)該是提前應(yīng)對，而不是等到災(zāi)難發(fā)生以后。但是政客們面臨的問題是，選舉周期太短，無法認真處理。如何去對選民說：“我們現(xiàn)在要過點苦日子，因為我們要么放慢經(jīng)濟增速，要么提高能源生產(chǎn)成本，而這也將導致增長減緩。不過不用擔心，到2050年，你們的子孫將會因此受益良多?！边x民肯定很難接受。英國經(jīng)濟學家尼克?斯特恩在他的《斯特恩報告》（Stern Report）中曾試圖兜售這樣的想法。他說：到2050年，這么做的成本可能只占GDP的1%，人們甚至感覺不到。話雖如此，但要轉(zhuǎn)換成目前要實施的具體政策就要難得多了。在西方自由民主國家中，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.