2023考研英语阅读核能烟雾消散之后
The Fukushima crisis will slow the growth of nuclearpower. Might it reverse it?
福岛危机将减缓核能的增长，但它是否会扭转其发展势头?
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.
与任何核辐射相比，恐惧与惶惑的传播速度更快，范围更远。迄今为止，因311海啸而陷入瘫痪的日本福岛第一核电站，看起来并没有对除电厂毗邻区域以外的环境和公众健康造成多大的长期伤害。伴随着事态的种种反复，福岛核电站的状况已在曲折中更加趋于受控。
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.
不过，眼下的危机远未结束。三座堆芯中心受损的反应堆的温度仍起伏不定，而乏燃料池供水系统也顶多只是被应急修复而已。人们在远方发现了受污染的食物，其与核电站相距之远令人不安，不过这些食物看起来被排除在了食物链以外。而遥远的东京也出现了对自来水的担忧。
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.
更加持久的影响也必将出现。数年的清理工作将会延长为数十年;永久无人区的范围可能最终将超出核电站厂区之外;受到严重辐射的工人们在其余生中罹患癌症的几率可能会更高。在关于未来能源的讨论中，诸如惶惑以及恐惧等长期顾虑也是核能必然引入的事项之一。
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.
对于众多环保主义者而言，其首要考虑是将核能一劳永逸地排除在这些讨论之外。简而言之，人们不能相信核能。总归会有某处的反应堆将要失控。1979年，宾夕法尼亚州三里岛有一座反应堆失控;1986年，切尔诺贝利有一座反应堆失控; 如今，又有三座重蹈覆辙，而且一种曾经似已偃旗息鼓的说法，如今又重获生机。尽管此次灾难迄今为止，还根本不像切尔诺贝利事故那样恶劣，但从某些意义上说，它却远远糟于三里岛核事故它有些类似于连续发生三次的三里岛事故，外加乏燃料贮存池所受的损害。
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.
的确，福岛第一核电站灭顶之灾的元凶是一场规模极为宏大的自然灾难。不过这种说法却是双刃剑。核能规划者们显然未能认识到在震区地势低洼的海岸边，情况能够变得多糟;而拙劣的设计正是问题的一部分。近年来，日本人对核能的信心之所以越发高涨，其原因之一在于往日的丑闻以辞职收场，并带来了规划者、电力公司和监管者进行改革的前景。根据日本内阁府的调查，2005年时仅有四分之一的民众认为核能是安全的，而去年持此观点者已超过四成。为新反应堆选址虽并不容易，但看起来也并非毫无可能。
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.
核能产业在其他地区也在重现生机。来自行业组织世界核协会的数据已经表明，计划或提议开发的核能大于现有产能。如今看来，这种产能扩张中可能将有许多会被削减，甚至连反应堆的替换或许都得打上问号。
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.
当去年一座火山令欧洲空域关闭，一座失控爆炸的石油钻井平台将墨西哥湾染成黑色时，人们并未对放弃石油或航空旅行产生过广泛的热情。不过，与石油或飞机相比，核能对世界运行的基础性作用要弱得多。核反应堆发电量仅为全球总发电量的14%，而其年龄中位数为27年，设计寿命一般为40年，许多反应堆正临近退役。尽管世界急欲飞行而又渴求石油，但在过去的25年中，它对新增核能却并无多大胃口。
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.
这并不只是切尔诺贝利事故的直接后果。新核电站的成本非常巨大，在福岛核事故之后，由于至少会在授予许可和批准两方面出现额外的不确定性，因此新核电站的成本或许还会上升。另一个如今显而易见的问题则是：如果一座与你的设备相隔万里、但设计相同的反应堆，因操作人员错误操作或豆腐渣工程而发生事故的话，那么你所拥有的反应堆可能也将被关闭。这种情况并非只在理论上存在可能。德国有7座在3月中旬之前被官方认为安全的核反应堆已被关闭。人们普遍认为，其中至少有几座再也不会重新运行。
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.
而如果这种情况成真，德国也不会深受其害。当核能产业自切尔诺贝利事故以来便已陷入停滞之时，天然气和可再生能源却以惊人的速度发展。德国电价或许将会上升，在一定程度上这取决于天然气和碳燃料的价格，这是因为尽管新核电站造价高昂，但折旧的老核电站却在生产着廉价的电能。不过，世界也不会因此而陷入穷途末路。
The 14% solution14%解决方案
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?
有鉴于此，核能看起来既危险而不受欢迎，又昂贵且存在风险。人们可以相对轻松地用其他能源取而代之，而放弃核能又不会对世界的运行模式带来巨大的结构性变化。那么，没有核能的世界又将是怎样一番模样呢?
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.
最明显的答案便是：世界将变得更温暖一些。 2009年，全球发电设备共排放二氧化碳90亿吨左右，工业总排放量为300亿吨，而将毁林和其他气体效应包含在内的排放总量约等于500亿吨。当核能被放弃，而其份额被其他燃料按比例填补时，发电所排放的二氧化碳将达到110亿吨左右。两者差额几乎等于德国和日本的年排放总量。
The Fukushima crisis will slow the growth of nuclearpower. Might it reverse it?
福岛危机将减缓核能的增长，但它是否会扭转其发展势头?
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.
与任何核辐射相比，恐惧与惶惑的传播速度更快，范围更远。迄今为止，因311海啸而陷入瘫痪的日本福岛第一核电站，看起来并没有对除电厂毗邻区域以外的环境和公众健康造成多大的长期伤害。伴随着事态的种种反复，福岛核电站的状况已在曲折中更加趋于受控。
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.
不过，眼下的危机远未结束。三座堆芯中心受损的反应堆的温度仍起伏不定，而乏燃料池供水系统也顶多只是被应急修复而已。人们在远方发现了受污染的食物，其与核电站相距之远令人不安，不过这些食物看起来被排除在了食物链以外。而遥远的东京也出现了对自来水的担忧。
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.
更加持久的影响也必将出现。数年的清理工作将会延长为数十年;永久无人区的范围可能最终将超出核电站厂区之外;受到严重辐射的工人们在其余生中罹患癌症的几率可能会更高。在关于未来能源的讨论中，诸如惶惑以及恐惧等长期顾虑也是核能必然引入的事项之一。
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.
对于众多环保主义者而言，其首要考虑是将核能一劳永逸地排除在这些讨论之外。简而言之，人们不能相信核能。总归会有某处的反应堆将要失控。1979年，宾夕法尼亚州三里岛有一座反应堆失控;1986年，切尔诺贝利有一座反应堆失控; 如今，又有三座重蹈覆辙，而且一种曾经似已偃旗息鼓的说法，如今又重获生机。尽管此次灾难迄今为止，还根本不像切尔诺贝利事故那样恶劣，但从某些意义上说，它却远远糟于三里岛核事故它有些类似于连续发生三次的三里岛事故，外加乏燃料贮存池所受的损害。
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.
的确，福岛第一核电站灭顶之灾的元凶是一场规模极为宏大的自然灾难。不过这种说法却是双刃剑。核能规划者们显然未能认识到在震区地势低洼的海岸边，情况能够变得多糟;而拙劣的设计正是问题的一部分。近年来，日本人对核能的信心之所以越发高涨，其原因之一在于往日的丑闻以辞职收场，并带来了规划者、电力公司和监管者进行改革的前景。根据日本内阁府的调查，2005年时仅有四分之一的民众认为核能是安全的，而去年持此观点者已超过四成。为新反应堆选址虽并不容易，但看起来也并非毫无可能。
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.
核能产业在其他地区也在重现生机。来自行业组织世界核协会的数据已经表明，计划或提议开发的核能大于现有产能。如今看来，这种产能扩张中可能将有许多会被削减，甚至连反应堆的替换或许都得打上问号。
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.
当去年一座火山令欧洲空域关闭，一座失控爆炸的石油钻井平台将墨西哥湾染成黑色时，人们并未对放弃石油或航空旅行产生过广泛的热情。不过，与石油或飞机相比，核能对世界运行的基础性作用要弱得多。核反应堆发电量仅为全球总发电量的14%，而其年龄中位数为27年，设计寿命一般为40年，许多反应堆正临近退役。尽管世界急欲飞行而又渴求石油，但在过去的25年中，它对新增核能却并无多大胃口。
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.
这并不只是切尔诺贝利事故的直接后果。新核电站的成本非常巨大，在福岛核事故之后，由于至少会在授予许可和批准两方面出现额外的不确定性，因此新核电站的成本或许还会上升。另一个如今显而易见的问题则是：如果一座与你的设备相隔万里、但设计相同的反应堆，因操作人员错误操作或豆腐渣工程而发生事故的话，那么你所拥有的反应堆可能也将被关闭。这种情况并非只在理论上存在可能。德国有7座在3月中旬之前被官方认为安全的核反应堆已被关闭。人们普遍认为，其中至少有几座再也不会重新运行。
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.
而如果这种情况成真，德国也不会深受其害。当核能产业自切尔诺贝利事故以来便已陷入停滞之时，天然气和可再生能源却以惊人的速度发展。德国电价或许将会上升，在一定程度上这取决于天然气和碳燃料的价格，这是因为尽管新核电站造价高昂，但折旧的老核电站却在生产着廉价的电能。不过，世界也不会因此而陷入穷途末路。
The 14% solution14%解决方案
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?
有鉴于此，核能看起来既危险而不受欢迎，又昂贵且存在风险。人们可以相对轻松地用其他能源取而代之，而放弃核能又不会对世界的运行模式带来巨大的结构性变化。那么，没有核能的世界又将是怎样一番模样呢?
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.
最明显的答案便是：世界将变得更温暖一些。 2009年，全球发电设备共排放二氧化碳90亿吨左右，工业总排放量为300亿吨，而将毁林和其他气体效应包含在内的排放总量约等于500亿吨。当核能被放弃，而其份额被其他燃料按比例填补时，发电所排放的二氧化碳将达到110亿吨左右。两者差额几乎等于德国和日本的年排放总量。
