英國(guó)家庭燃?xì)忮仩t排放的二氧化碳量是全國(guó)所有發(fā)電站排放總量的兩倍
UK’s home gas boilers emit twice as much CO2 as all power stations
譯文簡(jiǎn)介
“我們應(yīng)該恢復(fù)所有的燃煤電廠，這樣取暖器產(chǎn)生的二氧化碳就不會(huì)超過(guò)所有電廠排放量的兩倍了。這樣就行了，問(wèn)題解決了?！薄缎l(wèi)報(bào)》報(bào)道。
正文翻譯
UK’s home gas boilers emit twice as much CO2 as all power stations
-Data highlights urgent need for government action to introduce low-carbon heat pumps, researchers say
英國(guó)家庭燃?xì)忮仩t排放的二氧化碳量是全國(guó)所有發(fā)電站排放總量的兩倍
——研究人員稱，數(shù)據(jù)顯示，政府迫切需要采取行動(dòng)推廣低碳熱泵
-Data highlights urgent need for government action to introduce low-carbon heat pumps, researchers say
英國(guó)家庭燃?xì)忮仩t排放的二氧化碳量是全國(guó)所有發(fā)電站排放總量的兩倍
——研究人員稱，數(shù)據(jù)顯示，政府迫切需要采取行動(dòng)推廣低碳熱泵
(High gas prices mean the energy bills of people living in poorly insulated homes will rise by up to ￡246 a year, research shows.)
（研究顯示，高油價(jià)意味著，居住在隔熱性能差的房屋里的人每年的電費(fèi)將上漲246英鎊。）
新聞簡(jiǎn)介：
一項(xiàng)分析顯示，英國(guó)家庭中用于供暖的數(shù)以百萬(wàn)計(jì)的燃?xì)忮仩t產(chǎn)生的碳排放是全國(guó)燃?xì)獍l(fā)電站的總排放量的兩倍。
研究人員說(shuō)，這一發(fā)現(xiàn)突顯出迫切需要強(qiáng)有力的政府政策來(lái)迅速推廣熱泵等低碳供暖方式。
數(shù)據(jù)還顯示，家用燃?xì)忮仩t產(chǎn)生的二氧化氮總量是發(fā)電廠的8倍。二氧化氮是一種空氣污染物，與每年英國(guó)數(shù)萬(wàn)人的早逝有關(guān)。
一個(gè)名為“隔熱英國(guó)”的抗議組織要求政府制定一項(xiàng)具有法律約束力的國(guó)家計(jì)劃，在2030年前為英國(guó)所有家庭的低碳改造提供全額資金。該組織最近幾周多次封鎖了高速公路、A級(jí)公路以及多佛港口。
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 0 )
收藏
UK’s home gas boilers emit twice as much CO2 as all power stations – study
Oh, okay. But, wait:
The millions of gas boilers in the UK’s homes produce twice as much climate-heating carbon emissions as all the nation’s gas-fired power stations combined, according to an analysis.
Oh, so not as stated at all, then. I realise gas represents the bulk of our fossil fuel producing stations, but even so, that's rather fucking misleading
“英國(guó)家庭燃?xì)忮仩t排放的二氧化碳量是全國(guó)所有發(fā)電站排放總量的兩倍”
哦，好吧。但是，等一下：
“一項(xiàng)分析顯示，英國(guó)家庭中用于供暖的數(shù)以百萬(wàn)計(jì)的燃?xì)忮仩t產(chǎn)生的碳排放是全國(guó)燃?xì)獍l(fā)電站的總排放量的兩倍?！?br /> 所以根本不是標(biāo)題里說(shuō)的那樣。我知道我們大部分的化石燃料發(fā)電廠都使用天然氣，但即便如此，這種標(biāo)題也太tm誤導(dǎo)人了
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
I had to replace my gas boiler but reluctantly went for another gas one. There simply wasn't anything close to competitive in either purchase or running. The new technology simply isn't there yet. Give it a few years maybe, just like all electric cars. I'm currently feeling bad about putting the heating on, but needs must.
我不得不更換我的燃?xì)忮仩t，但我實(shí)在不想換。不管是購(gòu)買還是運(yùn)營(yíng)，都沒(méi)有任何與其堪比的東西。新技術(shù)還沒(méi)有出現(xiàn)。也許還得再過(guò)幾年，就像所有的電動(dòng)汽車一樣。我現(xiàn)在對(duì)開(kāi)暖氣感覺(jué)很不好，但我必須開(kāi)暖氣。
You can't really do much with the technology.
Air source heat pumps rely on air conditioning tech that has been around for decades, and can't get much more efficient.
The problem is, per kWh equivalent, electricity costs 4 to 5 times as much as gas.
Unless you have solar panels, it will almost always be cheaper to heat your house with a gas boiler unless you spend 10s of thousands on a ground source heat pump (a cost you will never recoup unless it's spread over multiple properties).
This is particularly bad in winter, as a lot of houses in the UK effectively need radiators on for most of the day due to shit insulation/old construction.
Unless the government just wants us to suck it up and double/triple our energy bills to run on lecky only, then the options are:
1、increase the cost of gas (simply to force the changeover, with the same cost problem)
2、hugely reduce the cost of electricity (but we'll pay for it through taxes or solar panel/battery installations)
3、subsidise serious insulation programmes and installation of air source heat pumps, such that the increased cost per BTU is made less of an issue by an overall decrease in power usage.
Whatever we do, it's going to cost an absolute shit-ton, and someone has to bear that cost. The question we now have to answer is 'who'?
這種技術(shù)沒(méi)什么挖掘潛力了。
空氣源熱泵依賴的空調(diào)技術(shù)已經(jīng)存在了幾十年，已經(jīng)榨不出更多的效率了。
問(wèn)題是，每度電的成本是天然氣的4到5倍。
除非你有太陽(yáng)能電池板，否則用燃?xì)忮仩t給你的房子供暖幾乎總是更便宜的，除非你花幾萬(wàn)美元買一個(gè)地源熱泵（除非它分散在多個(gè)房子上，否則你永遠(yuǎn)無(wú)法收回成本）。
這在冬天尤其糟糕，因?yàn)樵谟?guó)，由于糟糕的保溫效果/房子老舊，很多房子實(shí)際上需要在一天的大部分時(shí)間打開(kāi)取暖器。
除非政府只是想讓我們?nèi)虤馔虤?，把我們的能源賬單翻倍或三倍，然后選擇：
1、增加燃?xì)獬杀荆ê?jiǎn)單地強(qiáng)制轉(zhuǎn)換，同成本問(wèn)題相同）
2、大幅降低電力成本（但我們將通過(guò)稅收或安裝太陽(yáng)能電池板/電池來(lái)支付）
3、補(bǔ)貼嚴(yán)重的保溫項(xiàng)目和空氣源熱泵的安裝，這樣每熱量單位成本的增加就不會(huì)因?yàn)殡娏κ褂昧康恼w減少而成為問(wèn)題。
不管我們做什么，都要花一大筆錢，總得有人來(lái)承擔(dān)。我們現(xiàn)在要回答的問(wèn)題是“誰(shuí)”來(lái)承擔(dān)？
Heat pumps require a fair bit of electricity to run, anywhere between 16A and 32A if not higher for larger systems.
Given a UK household has either a 60A, 80A or (increasingly rarely) a 100A supply, that's quite a bit of demand on the household, plus heat pumps replacing boilers means millions more homes with millions more new 16A supplies, all likely being used at similar times.
It'd be interesting to see National Grid's plan for this, I'd hazard a guess that we'd need a hell of a lot more electrical generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure before we can start this as a national programme.
熱泵需要相當(dāng)多的電力來(lái)運(yùn)行，在16A到32A之間，如果不是更大的系統(tǒng)，用電更高的話。
考慮到一個(gè)英國(guó)家庭有60A、80A或（越來(lái)越少）100A的電力供應(yīng)，這對(duì)家庭來(lái)說(shuō)是相當(dāng)大的需求，加上熱泵取代了鍋爐，意味著數(shù)以百萬(wàn)計(jì)的家庭有更多的新增16A電力供應(yīng)，而且所有這些可能都會(huì)在相同的時(shí)間使用。
看看國(guó)家電網(wǎng)對(duì)此的計(jì)劃會(huì)很有趣，我敢打賭，在我們開(kāi)始將其作為一個(gè)國(guó)家項(xiàng)目之前，我們需要更多的發(fā)電、輸電和配電基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施提前就位。
If for every 2 gas boilers replaced with a heat pump, you also replace 1 resistive heater with a heat pump, you should end up with a comparable energy draw. These is assuming all things being equal with heating requirements between those homes of course.
如果每2個(gè)燃?xì)忮仩t更換一個(gè)熱泵，你也用一個(gè)熱泵更換一個(gè)電阻取暖器，那你應(yīng)該會(huì)得到一個(gè)相同的能量消耗。當(dāng)然，這是在所有條件都相同，并且這些家庭之間的供暖需求都一樣的前提下。
Unfortunately somewhere around 80% of the UK's heating is done by gas, and some more by other fossil boilers. Electric resistive accounts for something like 5% so you wouldn't get that far with that formula.
不幸的是，英國(guó)大約80%的供暖是由天然氣提供的，更多的是由其他化石燃料鍋爐提供的。電阻取暖器大約只占5%，所以你不會(huì)從這個(gè)公式中得到這么理想的結(jié)果。
Don't forget to also add the additional generation needed for all the electric cars too. And the decomm of our nuclear stations causing huge holes in our capacity.
We are at risk of out-running our current supply already, add a switchover to heat pumps etc and it's just not doable in any sensible time-frx.
別忘了還要為所有的電動(dòng)汽車增加額外的一代用電需求。我們的核電站的退役給我們的能源造成了巨大的缺口。
我們面臨著超出現(xiàn)有供應(yīng)能力的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，再加上熱泵替換等等，這在任何合理的時(shí)間框架內(nèi)都是不可能實(shí)現(xiàn)的。
We have 24 hours to use the grid, but we only really use 12 hours. While you are semi right, your comments are common and somewhat overplayed.
The priority is to get smart charging fully underway, so that we can maximise the utility of our existing infrastructure. That needs to be done first.
我們有24小時(shí)的可使用電網(wǎng)，但我們實(shí)際上只用了12小時(shí)。雖然你說(shuō)對(duì)了一半，但你的評(píng)論很老生常談，而且有些言過(guò)其實(shí)。
當(dāng)務(wù)之急是全面開(kāi)展智能供電，這樣我們就可以最大限度地利用現(xiàn)有的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。需要首先做到這一點(diǎn)。
The Cambridge report in 2008 IIRC said that basically our power needs as a country were roughly half on travel and half electrical. So the move to electric cars was going to require a doubling of electrical capacity, in terms of every home, the grid as a whole and generation. They made determinations that nuclear must therefore be in the mix as we both had to dramatically decrease CO2 production while at the same time enormously scaling up electricity production in the space of 20 years and economic growth was also going to continue to put its own pressure.
Heat pumps and electrical boilers is just another way in which power usage is moved from a fossil fuel to electricity which we have to assume will be forced to transition to greener sources.
如果我沒(méi)記錯(cuò)，2008年的劍橋報(bào)告稱，基本上我們國(guó)家的電力需求大約一半來(lái)自出行，一半來(lái)自用電。因此，向電動(dòng)汽車的轉(zhuǎn)變將需要供電能力翻倍，對(duì)每個(gè)家庭來(lái)說(shuō)，電網(wǎng)是作為一個(gè)整體發(fā)電的。他們認(rèn)定，核能必須被納入其中，因?yàn)槲覀兌急仨氃?0年的時(shí)間里大幅減少二氧化碳的排放，同時(shí)大幅增加電力生產(chǎn)，經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)也將繼續(xù)給我們（的能源供應(yīng)）帶來(lái)壓力。
熱泵和電鍋爐只是將能源的使用從化石燃料轉(zhuǎn)移到了電力上的另一種方式，而且我們必須假定，電力供應(yīng)也將被迫過(guò)渡到更綠色的來(lái)源上。
This makes one misconception. An electric car has far less energy wastage (in terms of heat) than a petrol/diesel car. Around 80% of the energy put into a petrol/diesel car is wasted. IIRC fuelling a Tesla and an average petrol car to travel the same distance only requires around 25% of the energy for the Tesla in terms of electricity to the amount of energy released by consuming the petrol. So by switching to electric cars we will reduce the total energy requirement significantly (because even if the electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels in power plants, the efficiency is much higher). So in reality we won't require anything like a doubling of electricity generation. Of course we can also continue to make efficiency savings in other places where we use electricity, further reducing the overall increase in energy demand.
你造成了一個(gè)誤解。電動(dòng)汽車的能量消耗（就熱量而言）比汽油/柴油汽車少得多。一輛汽油/柴油汽車大約80%的能量都被浪費(fèi)了（變成了熱能而非動(dòng)能）。如果我沒(méi)記錯(cuò)，為一輛特斯拉和一輛普通汽油汽車充電/加油，以消耗汽油所釋放的能量為計(jì)算標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，行駛相同的距離特斯拉只需要（燃油車）大約25%的能量。因此，通過(guò)轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)殡妱?dòng)汽車，我們將大大減少總能源需求（因?yàn)榧词故窃诎l(fā)電廠燃燒化石燃料發(fā)電，效率也要比汽車發(fā)動(dòng)機(jī)燃燒高得多）。所以在現(xiàn)實(shí)中，我們不需要增加一倍的發(fā)電量。當(dāng)然，我們也可以繼續(xù)在我們使用電力的其他場(chǎng)景進(jìn)行效率節(jié)約，進(jìn)一步減少能源需求的總體增長(zhǎng)。
Not "much higher".
The production of electricity in a gas turbine plant is highly inefficient - additional energy losses in transmission and charging the battery.
I think an EV still comes out top overall, but barely compared to a modern ICE.
沒(méi)有“高得多”。
燃?xì)廨啓C(jī)的發(fā)電效率非常低——在傳輸和供電過(guò)程中額外的能量損失。
我認(rèn)為電動(dòng)車總體來(lái)講看仍然是很棒的，但與現(xiàn)代內(nèi)燃機(jī)放一起就沒(méi)有可比性了。
The main point is that even if you replaced every car with an electric car overnight we wouldn't need to double the amount of electricity generated or be able to handle twice as much electricity across the grid. Of course the biggest improvement will be if we can charge the cars with non-fossil fuel derived energy.
重點(diǎn)是，即使你一夜之間把所有汽車都換成電動(dòng)汽車，我們也不需要將發(fā)電量增加一倍，也不需要應(yīng)對(duì)兩倍于當(dāng)前電網(wǎng)的電力。當(dāng)然，最大的改進(jìn)將是我們能否用非化石燃料產(chǎn)生的能源為汽車充電。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Considering a large power plant will be more efficient, we'll get the same power for less pollution by doing that.
Electric cars have the same benefit, better to power 100 cars from one big engine than 100 cars from 100 little engines.
考慮到大型發(fā)電廠的效率更高，我們這樣做可以在減少污染的情況下獲得同樣的能源。
電動(dòng)汽車也有同樣的好處，用一個(gè)大引擎驅(qū)動(dòng)100輛汽車比用100個(gè)小引擎驅(qū)動(dòng)100輛汽車更好。
This is incorrect.
Your statement may be true for cars because an ICE is quite inefficient at converting energy into motion. Electrical cars are much more efficient. Although since we don't burn petrol in any power station, we can't actually compare the two processes in terms of which would use the least petrol overall.
But with gas boilers it's a different kettle of fish. They're VERY efficient at heating a home (90%+). On the flip side, gas power stations are very inefficient at producing electricity - just 20-35%. Although an electrical powered boiler would be 100% efficient, the cost to produce the electricity in the first place would mean burning ~4x as much gas.
這是不正確的。
你的說(shuō)法對(duì)汽車來(lái)說(shuō)可能是正確的，因?yàn)閮?nèi)燃機(jī)在將能量轉(zhuǎn)化為動(dòng)能時(shí)效率相當(dāng)?shù)?。電?dòng)汽車效率高得多。盡管我們?cè)谌魏伟l(fā)電長(zhǎng)都不會(huì)燃燒汽油來(lái)發(fā)電，我們實(shí)際上無(wú)法比較這兩個(gè)過(guò)程中哪個(gè)消耗的汽油量最少。
但對(duì)于燃?xì)忮仩t來(lái)說(shuō)，情況就完全不同了。它們?cè)诩彝ス┡矫娣浅８咝В?0%以上）。而另一方面，天然氣發(fā)電長(zhǎng)的發(fā)電效率非常低，只有20-35%。盡管電力鍋爐的效率是100%，但首先發(fā)電的成本意味著要燃燒4倍的天然氣。
You literally have no idea what you are talking about - 20-35% is old coal plants level of efficiency. Modern gas plants are 50-60% efficient.
Dude, just stop commenting
你根本不知道你在說(shuō)什么——20-35%是老燃煤電廠的效率水平。現(xiàn)代天然氣發(fā)電廠的效率是50-60%。
伙計(jì)，別評(píng)論了
Just think about the growth in electricity generation and transmission from 100 years ago until today, it can be done and there won't be a problem.
Houses also won't suddenly all have heat pumps, it'll be very gradual.
想想從100年前到今天發(fā)電和輸電的增長(zhǎng)規(guī)模吧，這是可以做到的，不會(huì)有問(wèn)題的。
而且房子也不會(huì)突然都裝上了熱泵，這個(gè)推廣進(jìn)程會(huì)非常緩慢。
The National Grid is planning for widespread EV adoption, which is ok, because it only increases elecricity use by about 25%, and most of that can be shifted to the night via incentives or regulation.
Heat pumps are a very different problem. They would double our electricity demand, and you need the heat during the day in the winter, when electricity is already scarce.
So far, no credible scenario has been produced that would work.
美國(guó)國(guó)家電網(wǎng)正計(jì)劃廣泛采用電動(dòng)汽車，這是可以接受的，因?yàn)檫@只會(huì)增加約25%的用電量，而其中大部分可以通過(guò)激勵(lì)措施或監(jiān)管措施轉(zhuǎn)移到夜間。
但熱泵就是一個(gè)非常不同的問(wèn)題了。它們會(huì)使我們的電力需求翻倍，而且在電力已經(jīng)短缺的冬天，你還需要在白天取暖。
到目前為止，還沒(méi)有任何可行的靠譜方案。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)就像比基尼。它們所呈現(xiàn)的是暗示性的，但它們所掩蓋的才是至關(guān)重要的。
We should bring back all the coal power plants so the CO2 produced by the heaters is less than double of all the power stations. That'll do the trick, problem solved.
我們應(yīng)該恢復(fù)所有的燃煤電廠，這樣取暖器產(chǎn)生的二氧化碳就不會(huì)超過(guò)所有電廠排放量的兩倍了。這樣就行了，問(wèn)題解決了。
Joking aside it just brings home "green energy" is greenwashing.. If we use this much gas fot heating then we are still highly dependent on fossil fuels this late it in game!!
拋開(kāi)玩笑不談，所謂“綠色能源”就是在“洗綠”。如果我們用這么多天然氣來(lái)取暖，那么我們現(xiàn)在還是在高度依賴化石燃料??！
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
This is a psy op to get you blaming your neighbour and freezing in your own homes. Individual action is borderline meaningless while mega-corps dump their bs into the atmosphere.
The govt could offer assistance to insulate homes better and make the boilers more efficient by reducing heat loss, but then you wont be bickering with karen next door about how often no 4 seem to have their boiler on.
這是一個(gè)心理行動(dòng)，旨在讓你去指責(zé)你的鄰居，并在自己的家里挨凍。當(dāng)大部隊(duì)都在向大氣中傾倒垃圾時(shí)，個(gè)人的行動(dòng)毫無(wú)意義。
政府可以提供幫助，讓房屋更好地保暖，并通過(guò)減少熱量損失使鍋爐更高效，但這樣你就不會(huì)因?yàn)?號(hào)房子的鍋爐多久開(kāi)一次而和隔壁的老王爭(zhēng)吵了。
Another day, another article blaming climate change on the population rather than focusing on the issues that start at the top.
The worst part is, many people in poverty in the UK can't even afford to upgrade and heat their homes with gas.
It all comes about through corporations and government decisions, though the media just want us all to fight amongst ourselves so the pressure never diverts to where it should go.
又是一天，又有一篇文章將氣候變化歸咎于大眾，而不是關(guān)注真正最重要的問(wèn)題。
最糟糕的是，在英國(guó)，許多貧困的人甚至負(fù)擔(dān)不起升級(jí)和使用天然氣取暖的費(fèi)用。
這一切都是通過(guò)企業(yè)和政府的決定產(chǎn)生的，盡管媒體只是想讓我們所有人在我們自己之間內(nèi)斗，這樣壓力就不會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)移到它應(yīng)該去的地方了。
So the idea is to fit 20 odd million electrical heating systems and fully insulate those houses in the next 8 years? That's literally impossible to do
所以我們的想法是在接下來(lái)的8年里安裝2000多萬(wàn)個(gè)電加熱系統(tǒng)并完全保溫化改造這些房子？這是不可能做到的
Trying to do it is better than doing nothing
做總比什么都不做強(qiáng)吧
That rather depends. Inappropriate solutions can create more problems than they solve.
那得看了。不恰當(dāng)?shù)慕鉀Q方案產(chǎn)生的問(wèn)題比它們解決的問(wèn)題還要多。
It probably wouldn't be "literally impossible" if we threw enough resources at it, but I take your point that it would be difficult.
But why not try? Even if we only get a few million done in the next eight years, that's better than a smaller number and it would get us to 20 million faster than not trying!
如果我們投入了足夠的資源，這可能并不是“不可能做到的”，但我同意你的觀點(diǎn)，那將是困難的。
但為什么不試試呢？即使我們?cè)诮酉聛?lái)的8年里只完成了幾百萬(wàn)個(gè)改造，這也比一個(gè)小數(shù)字要好，嘗試了會(huì)比不嘗試讓我們能更快達(dá)到2000萬(wàn)個(gè)！
If we were willing to mobilise resources at that scale though I do wonder if that'd actually be the most efficient use of it. Even just replacing old boilers would make a massive chunk of the difference, and then you could do things like public transport infrastructure, improving insulation.
前提是我們?cè)敢庹{(diào)動(dòng)如此大規(guī)模的資源，盡管我懷疑這是不是最有效的利用資源的方式。即使只是更換舊鍋爐也會(huì)產(chǎn)生很大的不同，然后你可以做一些事情，比如公共交通基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，改善保溫。
Getting a hold of the materials and man power required would only be possible through force and slavery.
90ish percent of all new boilers are designed to run on hydrogen as well as natural gas. This is a realistic option that's fairly easy to implement and already has the ball rolling. The issue of creating hydrogen is there but it's no different to the increases in electricity usage that would need to be solved by renewables.
The NG boilers themselves are also pretty efficient on the whole and targeting the replace of old boiler systems to modern ones would make a massive difference. Getting more efficient radiators with basic insulation improvements to people is also huge. Increase funding for window and door upgrades as well. All things that we can reasonably do to push efficiency up and usage down
只有通過(guò)武力和奴役才能獲得所需的物資和人力。
90%的新鍋爐被設(shè)計(jì)為使用氫氣和天然氣。這是一個(gè)相當(dāng)容易實(shí)現(xiàn)的現(xiàn)實(shí)選擇，并且已經(jīng)開(kāi)始行動(dòng)了。制造氫氣的問(wèn)題是存在的，但這與需要通過(guò)可再生能源解決的電力使用量增加沒(méi)有什么不同。
天然氣鍋爐本身在整體上也是相當(dāng)高效的，以現(xiàn)代鍋爐系統(tǒng)取代舊的鍋爐系統(tǒng)將會(huì)產(chǎn)生巨大的不同。使用更高效的取暖器，并對(duì)人們的房屋進(jìn)行基本的保暖改進(jìn)也會(huì)產(chǎn)生很大的不同。增加窗戶和門(mén)的升級(jí)資金。通過(guò)所有我們可以合理做的事情來(lái)提高效率和降低使用率
OK, move everyone to electricity powered heating... Now where is the electricity going to come from to heat everyone's home and charge their electric cars?
Heat pumps need electricity to function, storage heaters / electric radiators need electricity to function, car charges need electricity to function, factories etc. will need electricity to function.
A perfect storm (similar to what happened in Texas) for the UK would be a week of cold, overcast and windless winter weather. With people trying to heat homes and charge cars but with wind turbines and solar panels not generating enough electricity. What'll happen if people try to panic charge their cars?
If we're to make this switch (without gas power stations) then we must invest massively in nuclear power and storage technologies for renewables.
好了，把所有人都轉(zhuǎn)換成電力供暖系統(tǒng)……那么，給每個(gè)人的家供暖和給電動(dòng)汽車充電的電力要從哪里來(lái)呢？
熱泵需要電才能工作，存儲(chǔ)加熱器/電取暖器需要電才能工作，汽車充電需要電才能工作，工廠等也需要電才能工作。
對(duì)于英國(guó)來(lái)說(shuō)，一場(chǎng)完美風(fēng)暴（類似于德克薩斯州發(fā)生的情況）會(huì)是一周的寒冷、陰天和無(wú)風(fēng)的冬季天氣。人們?cè)噲D給家庭供暖，給汽車充電，但風(fēng)力渦輪機(jī)和太陽(yáng)能電池板無(wú)法產(chǎn)生足夠的電力。如果人們恐慌性給他們的車充電會(huì)發(fā)生什么？
如果我們要（在不靠天然氣發(fā)電廠的情況下）實(shí)現(xiàn)這一轉(zhuǎn)變，那么我們就必須大規(guī)模投資核能和可再生能源的存儲(chǔ)技術(shù)。
The fact that peak demand on the electrical grid is going to increase a lot in the next couple of decades is pretty well established by now. There's no doubt that there's going to be all kinds of investment into new generation, transmission and storage capacity.
事實(shí)上，電網(wǎng)的峰值需求將在未來(lái)幾十年里大幅增長(zhǎng)，這一點(diǎn)現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)得到了很好的證實(shí)。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，在新一代、傳輸和存儲(chǔ)能力方面將會(huì)有各種各樣的投資。
Sure. Having sold and installed thousands of so called energy efficient planet saving gas boilers. Now they’re to be ripped out and replaced. What a waste. Same with cars. Eco-sales scam.
當(dāng)然。在銷售和安裝了數(shù)千臺(tái)所謂的節(jié)能型燃?xì)忮仩t之后?，F(xiàn)在它們要被拆了，要換掉它們。這是多大的浪費(fèi)啊。汽車也一樣?！碍h(huán)保-推銷”的騙局。
Not sure it's a waste. Condensing gas boilers are more efficient than what came before them, and when we come to replace those next decade, it'll be something lower emissions. They're not talking about going back and taking out new boilers, just ending the sale of new ones eventually.
我不確定這是不是浪費(fèi)。冷凝燃?xì)忮仩t比之前的老鍋爐更高效，當(dāng)我們?cè)谙乱粋€(gè)十年取代它們時(shí)，將換成更低排放的設(shè)備。他們并不是說(shuō)要退回去購(gòu)買新的鍋爐，而是說(shuō)要最終停止新鍋爐的銷售。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Who is going to pay for it that is the big question. If the Government are going to pay for it then your tax will go up. I were mocked for saying about 30% tax but it's things like this that need to be paid for one way or another.
誰(shuí)將為此買單，這是一個(gè)大問(wèn)題。如果政府愿意支付，那么你的稅就會(huì)增加。我因?yàn)檎f(shuō)（增加）30%的稅而被嘲笑，但像這樣的事情總歸是要買單的。
This whole "shift the blame on to the individual" is just stupid.
No point doing this if all the developing world are looking to us and going "We want to be like you", and us turning round going "Nah, you gotta restrict your growth"
Fuck that.
We need to really look into new technologies, governments need to heavily invest in new risky green tech, and show the developing world, if they go green, they get more $$$
這整個(gè)“把責(zé)任推到個(gè)人身上”是愚蠢的。
如果所有發(fā)展中國(guó)家都盯著我們說(shuō)“我們也想像你們這樣”而我們卻轉(zhuǎn)過(guò)身說(shuō)“不行，你們得限制你們的發(fā)展”那么這樣做就沒(méi)有意義了
去tmd。
我們需要真正研究新技術(shù)，政府需要大量投資新的有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的綠色技術(shù)，并向發(fā)展中國(guó)家表明，如果它們變得綠色，它們就會(huì)得到更多的錢
Ok, and if we stopped using them today how much more co2 would power stations have to produce to keep us warm? Or is that the solution just we all freeze to death?
好吧，如果我們現(xiàn)在停止使用它們，發(fā)電站要產(chǎn)生多少二氧化碳來(lái)為我們供暖呢？還是說(shuō)我們直接都被凍死就好了？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
None, if we actually built enough nuclear power stations like France.
如果我們真的像法國(guó)那樣建造足夠多的核電站，就不會(huì)是這個(gè)結(jié)果了。
Yet heating home using the power produced at said stations loses 40-60% of energy efficiency.
然而，使用這些發(fā)電廠產(chǎn)生的電力為家庭供暖會(huì)損失40-60%的能源效率。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Whats the alternative? A heat pump is not a possibility for many.
替代方案是什么？熱泵對(duì)許多人來(lái)說(shuō)是不可能的。
Nice, so now it's the publics fault that our infrastructure is dog shit and our government hasn't invested in renewable alternatives.
很好，所以現(xiàn)在我們的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施是狗屎，我們的政府沒(méi)有投資可再生能源都是公眾的錯(cuò)了。