莫須有

過了週末後，我決定不要再回那位CO2先生的文章。好像是認輸了，但我不想繼續回答無知識背景問題。

書念得多，會發現知道的其實很少。

一開始抱持著「也是學習」的心態，開始漫長的核能答客問，藉著大家對核能的疑問，了解大家對核能的誤解。其實我都回答的很開心也回答的很認真，每一字每一句我都要確定是正確的訊息，才敢寫下，為了回答一篇兩三百字的文章有時候要花三四個小時尋找和閱讀文章。

就這每天一來一往之後，對方竟然丟出一篇環保聯盟寫的十問。我覺得我已經飽了，我並不是一位老師也不是佛心來著的師姐。從日本地震到現在，媒體的新聞只看了幾天，就已經足夠，足夠證明即時新聞提供的是娛樂效果，而且說是新聞卻是舊聞，還是狗屁倒竈的廢聞。物理上常說，用什麼方法觀察就會得到什麼結果，新的舊聞也是如此，用不專業的眼光看就得到不專業的答案。那篇環保聯盟的十問跟所有核災新聞一樣，東拼西湊，即使有正確的訊息，也被錯誤訊息掩蓋，真假混雜成了一篇不三不四的文章，最後整篇的主旨就是─核能百害而無一利，該廢。

放出駭人聽聞的煙幕彈後，人的思想就很容易操縱。當你想仔細檢視其中不尋常的部分，很快就被唬弄過去，甚至再放另一顆煙幕彈。有人提出充滿專業字眼的長篇報告，就說是故意拿這來嚇人，根本就不看。看不懂，不是報告的錯，因為本來就不是寫給一般人看，如果專業人士間要從核廢料為何無法除去輻射開始解釋，每一篇博士論文光是要解釋背景知識就得從居禮夫人和倫琴先生說起。(但是，親愛的朋友，如果你很好奇，可以好好的問，我很樂意解釋給你聽。)

也因此(對此人)越回答就覺得不需要再回答。如果是純提問，我的回答絕對省下他好幾個小時的閱讀，如果在抹黑幾十年後要證明清白，岳飛的清白也沒機會從莫須有中救他一命。

更令人覺得匪夷所思的是，文章的開頭就說了：「Ask a stupid question and you'll get a stupid answer。」「核能危險嗎？」那「搭飛機危險嗎？」「你要核能嗎？」「你要太陽能嗎？」「你要開車嗎？」「你要搭火車嗎？」「你要自來水民營化嗎？」有人問我：「輻射有危險嗎？」這個深奧的問題，真的沒辦法用有或沒有來回答。一般生活環境中都有輻射，我們身在世上就在接收輻射，好奇的話可以用美國核能委員會的計算機算一算。這樣的輻射有危險嗎？沒有！問題是，當你在高劑量下曝曬時間過長，曝曬面積大，部位敏感，這就很危險。如此大家就會忘記前面那不危險的解釋，一直覺得核電廠就是後者。

我一直沒有時間好好去看核電廠附近孩童白血病比例較高的文章。在德國一直有個爭議，就是核電廠附近孩童白血病比例偏高。然而，放到眼前卻出現好幾個疑問，像是核電廠附近的輻射源是什麼？輻射源是不是核電廠所排放的？比例偏高是與誰相比？附近又有什麼其他可疑的致癌因子？之前有所耳聞，這篇報告有提及輻射源來自住戶屋頂上的沉積物而不是核電廠，後面的事情沒人繼續追究下去。哪天有幸可以讀到此篇文章，一定好好介紹一番。

有時候，看著塑膠瓶裡的飲用水，塑膠包裝裡的即食排餐(這些只有在非吃不可時候才吃的東西)，很好奇當年繼續念食科我會怎麼說。這幾天正在讀侯文詠的白色巨塔，麻醉師堅持自己沒錯卻被推上前去當人頭，當他說：「人體都有不可預期的過敏反應。」想起前幾天，對醫生開的藥過敏，想試第二次確認是不是真的過敏、不是蚊子咬的，竟把藥吐了出來，沒有過敏的人不能了解隨時過敏的恐懼。打電話給醫生，她說：「每種藥都可能有過敏反應。」突然覺得自己有點白痴，這是常識吧，又很難下台，只好問是過敏怎麼辦，又是另一個笨問題，停藥就好啦，只是想知道會多慘，最慘就是送到急診打抗敏劑、或是當場死亡。過敏就是奇妙人體的產物。

或許白色巨塔結局會急轉直下，是麻醉師的錯。然而，在急救的當下，我能想像醫師的腦海中只有盡力。就像小時候學心肺復甦術，護理老師說：「要按在劍突上面一點，乳頭連線中間下方，不要按錯囉，按錯內臟會破裂。」學生：「那遇到亂按的人不救慘了？」老師：「那就是你的命！他盡力了，但你為什麼沒遇到會心肺復甦術的人？」

我盡力了，只是遇到不想聽的人。

[問答紀錄]義大利公投翻譯文

以下為facebook上的問答紀錄，用意在於紀錄我自己的回答。

我想問co2排放量可以控制，但是如何控制核廢污染，二氧化碳可以大自然分解，核廢汙染要經過萬年才可以，還會使基因突變，誰要擔這個責任

答：CO2排放量固然能掌控，卻沒有人在自制，大家都不覺得二氧化碳對生命有威脅，根本就不在意全世界一天增加多少台車，也不在意多少二氧化碳被排放到大氣中，溫室氣體就一天比一天多，多到地球已經沒辦法全數自然分解，二氧化碳的累積產生了溫室效應，造成全球暖化。再說使基因突變的輻射，使用過的燃料棒輻射強度高，一次放射的劑量大，短時間曝曬對人體的影響高。然而，文中有提到煤炭中的碳14同位素，也會產生輻射，劑量相對低很多，但卻是24小時不斷排放，長時間暴露在這樣的環境中也會不知不覺地累積輻射接受量。再者核能廢料中輻射最強的就是用過的燃料棒，很驚人的是，核電廠營運二三十年來用過的燃料棒都還在核電廠裡，但是核電廠附近的輻射量依舊與大自然中的背景輻射量相同。核廢料的問題用科技能夠解決，但是全球暖化到目前為止卻是無可救藥。

是這樣嗎？如果核廢料可以用科技解決，二氧化碳為何不行，同樣都是科技之下的產物，那為何核廢棒廢料只能是用封存的方法，卻不是用科技使其百分百失去活性，因為科學家只能讓其經過萬年才能失去活性的一半，也就是說我們處在一個隨時可能的天災發生，都會可能讓核污染外流，車諾比事件到現在，德國森林還是暴露在高輻射值之下，野豬野菇都無一不污染，法國人得癌症還是很高，日本核電爆炸不只污染方圓二三十公里而已，土地海洋都污染，很多都不能吃，吃了會讓人不健康產生病變，但是二氧化碳不會，如果核電可以百分百控制，不會對環境下一代造成影響，我百分百支持，但也不是任由二氧化碳繼續無限制排放，因此要發展不同的乾淨能源，如太陽能、風電，地熱，沼氣等，政府也要發展便捷大眾運輸，減少行車排放廢氣，制定政策迫使大企業大工廠發展低碳低耗能製程，市井小民的排碳遠遠不及企業工廠的多，但我們都是能源消費者，所以我們當然有責任維護地球的健康，要迫使政府發展不同的能源政策，而不是只想發展核能而已

答：核廢料有輻射，不是科學家不想控制，而是物理性質如此，就像你往上跳只能等著往下掉一樣無法改變。以目前的二氧化碳封存技術想要除去大氣中的二氧化碳，就像放空氣清靜機在馬路上試圖改變該路段的空氣品質是一樣的意思，被大氣稀釋的二氧化碳濃度不能使用碳封存技術，否則所需的能量將付出更高的二氧化碳代價。德國森林的高輻射，來自於自然的背景輻射，因為底下有礦脈。有很多傳說中的輻射地區，輻射來源都跟車諾比無關。這就是為什麼翻譯文中有「抹黑」一說，許多資料仔細閱讀都會發現證據薄弱，但是媒體捕風捉影，只要有一句話就能生出一篇文章。如果說法國人得癌症比例高，台灣似乎比較高？我身邊的人至少有四五個親戚朋友得過癌症，我問過法國人，他們想得起來身邊的人不見得有一個。曾經有一個非常害怕核電廠的德國同學，聖誕禮物買了一個輻射計量器，因為他們家在德法邊界，旁邊就有一座營運中的核電廠，量完之後發現他家輻射並沒有比較高。現在所有替代能源出的問題在於他們無法確保持續供應大量的基礎用電，但是人類並不會因為這樣就停止用電。核能只是一個能夠持續供應電力的方法而已，但是民眾的反應猶如歐洲各國公投一般，他們希望「停止」發展核電，那是因為他們有鄰居可以買電，如果全歐洲都停止核電，他們將燒炭燒個不停甚至於走上電力短缺的路，如果核能是基礎的一部分，為什麼要阻礙它的技術？核電廠安全每代都在精進，但現在在營運大部分是舊的技術，靠外加的系統增強防護，如果淘汰舊電廠，換上更安全的新一代電廠，對人民來說不是很好嗎？


CO2是一個穩定態的物質,不會傷害人體及動物,但是核廢料及汙染會,這是一個無法改變的事實,為什麼科學家無法控制,也無法預防及補救天災可能造成核電廠爆炸所帶來的後遺症,為什麼要蓋,德國是一個物資缺乏的國家,不可能因為煤礦就造成森林有高輻射值,那中國有大量煤礦及稀有金屬礦產.智利有全世界第一個銅礦含量,怎麼沒有聽說會有高輻射劑量對生態造成的影響,而且法國得癌症的比例升高是跟自己國家車諾比事件後所造成的比較,不是拿台灣人來做比較,台灣有因為車諾比事件之後,癌症比例升高嗎?這樣比較才...有意義,而且現在二氧化碳排放量大增,是因為人類過度開發破壞大自然,以及過度浪費能源,政府的政策制定方向是開發乾淨安全的能源以及教導企業工廠民眾節省能源吧!
沒錯,核電廠附近的背景輻射值或許是不高,因為核電廠有超級厚的鉛板跟水泥可以擋住正常情況下的輻射外洩,但是卻擋不住爆炸後的輻射粉塵及輻射水外漏,日本蓋了一個全世界最長最大的海嘯防波堤,核電廠防震係數也很高,都擋不住大自然的力量,誰能保證核電廠百分之百的安全

答:CO2無色無味好似沒有傷害,但是卻悄悄讓地球溫度升高,改變許多生態,除此之外,CO2產生過程幾乎都伴隨其他環境荷爾蒙,悄悄影響生物體內化學反應,更糟糕的是升到高空後破壞大氣層,我們無法將其還原,這都是目前束手無策的問題.德國的輻射很高?我唸書的時候就住在黑森林旁,大家都愛黑森林,沒事還去騎馬,踏青,如果那真是一個死亡之地,相信沒有人會到那去,更不用說打獵.如果要說法國人的癌症是受車諾比影響,何不問羅馬尼亞人或是奧地利人得癌症比例,他們離車諾比更近.過度開發,是因為人口膨脹.不消耗資源,不使用能源,不開發,科技要往什麼方向發展?人類科技的路一路走到今天,就是因為日新又新,五年前的冰箱耗電量是現在冰箱的4倍,換不換新冰箱,我們無法替每個人做決定.政府可以推行節能政策,市場上有許多公司能為一座城市省下30%的用電量,但我們依舊不能阻止任何一個人辛勤工作之餘,拿薪水買東西作為獎賞.電還是要用,但是要從哪來?全世界多少科學家投注在這件事情上,卻依舊不能讓太陽能或風力取代任何一座電廠,如果真的仔細閱讀那篇翻譯文,德國太陽能的路走的有多辛苦,換來的是全國2%的用電量.還有多少地要用來架設太陽能板才能增加成4%,德國還有多少場地一年有足量的陽光?水力發電受限於水量以及高低差,每條河的水力都受限制,何況能開發的河段都已經開發.風力受場地影響,每個國家也都只有一定量的發電量.目前實驗階段的潮汐發電,日夜運轉對海洋生態的衝擊,遠比發生一次核災意外還要頻繁還要高.一個國家的能源政策,必須使用混合型的發電方式,混合各式電廠的優缺點,才能確保穩定供電.日本這次意外,最後停留在鋼圍阻體龜裂已填合的狀態,爆炸是氫氣散逸到機房後產生的爆炸,與燃料本身無關.輻射粉塵與輻射水的外漏會由大自然稀釋.如果日本怎麼都擋不住大自然的力量,所以不能保證核電廠百分之百的安全,這世界上還有更多不安全的事情,難道我們都因噎廢食了嗎?無法保證核電廠百分之百的安全就像無法保證今天路上有沒有車禍一樣.然而核電廠的意外以及致死率遠比每天路上車禍和飛航意外還要低,但是我們還是每天坐車,每年搭飛機,每天還是開燈用電腦.如果今天哪個政府願意出錢開發乾淨安全百分之百無後患的能源,大家都樂見,但是要從政府口袋掏預算,比登天還難,政客只作對選票有利的決定,而且必須立竿見影,沒有人開口提出新興能源,因為他無法對政府保證後面的洞有多大.這就是目前能源政策瓶頸.

[閱讀資料庫]How Carbon Capture Works

original article: http://www.maritimesun.com/news/how-carbon-capture-works/

Carbon Storage Concerns

Introduction to How Carbon Capture Works

Imagine a scenario where an evil super-genius finds a way to suck all the oxygen out of the air, then buries it in the ground. Sound like the stuff of comic books? Well, yes, if we’re talking about oxygen. But scientists are working on a way to do just that with carbon dioxide. Why capture carbon dioxide from the air? To combat global warming.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a natural gas that allows sunlight to reach the Earth but also prevents some of the sun’s heat from radiating back into space, thus warming the planet. Scientists call this warming the greenhouse effect. When t­his effect occurs naturally, it warms the Earth enough to sustain life. In fact, if we had no greenhouse effect, our planet would be an average temperature of minus 22 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 30 degrees Celsius) [source: UNEP]. Sure, the skiing might be great, but we’d all be too dead to enjoy it.

Yes, carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect are necessary for Earth to survive. But human inventions like power plants and transportation vehicles, which burn fossil fuels, release extra CO2 into the air. Because we’ve added (and continue to add) this carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, more heat is stored on Earth, which causes the temperature of the planet to slowly rise, a phenomenon called global warming.

Carbon dioxide isn’t the only greenhouse gas (GHG). Others include water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Scientists estimate that global GHG emissions due to human activities increased 70 percent between 1970 and 2004. Carbon dioxide emissions alone grew 80 percent in the same period [source: IPCC]. Many researchers believe that the process of carbon capture and storage can help us to get this number down to a healthy level.

Carbon capture involves trapping the carbon dioxide at its emission source, transporting it to a storage location (usually deep underground) and isolating it. This means we could potentially grab excess CO2 right from the power plant, creating greener energy.
In this article, we’ll look at some of the existing and emerging carbon capture and storage methods. How could a device snatch CO2 out of the air? And where in the world is it stored? Keep reading to find out.

Trapping Carbon Dioxide: Carbon Capture Technology

Carbon capture has actually been in use for years. The oil and gas industries have used carbon capture for decades as a way to enhance oil and gas recovery [source: CSS]. Only recently have we started thinking about capturing carbon for environmental reasons.
Currently, most research focuses on carbon capture at fossil fuel-powered energy plants, the source of the majority of man-made CO2 emissions. Many of these power plants rely on coal to create energy, and the burning of coal emits CO2 into the atmosphere. Some researchers envision a future where all new power plants employ carbon capture.

There are three main steps to carbon capture and storage (CCS) — trapping and separating the CO2 from other gases, transporting this captured CO2 to a storage location, and storing that CO2 far away from the atmosphere (underground or deep in the ocean). Let’s take a more detailed look at the trapping and separation process­:

Carbon is taken from a power plant source in three basic ways — post-combustion, precombustion and oxy-fuel combustion. A fossil fuel power plant generates power by burning fossil fuel (coal, oil or natural gas), which generates heat that turns into steam. That steam turns a turbine connected to anelectricity generator. We call the process that turns the turbine combustion.

With post-combustion ­carbon capture, the CO2 is grabbed after the fossil fuel is burned. The burning of fossil fuels­ produces something called flue gase­s, which include CO2, water vapor, sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides. In a post-combustion process, CO2 is separated and captured from the flue gases that result from the combustion of fossil fuel. This process is currently in use to remove CO2 from natural gas. The biggest benefit to using this process is that it allows us to retrofit older power plants, by adding a “filter” that helps trap the CO2 as it travels up a chimney or smokestack. This filter is actually a solvent that absorbs carbon dioxide. The solvent can later be heated, which will release water vapor and leave behind a concentrated stream of CO2.­ Post-combustion carbon capture can prevent 80 to 90 percent of a power plant’s carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere [source: GreenFacts]. But the post-combustion process requires a lot of energy to compress the gas enough for transport.

With precombustion carbon capture,­ CO2 is trapped before the fossil fuel is burned. That means the CO2 is trapped before it’s diluted by other flue gases. Coal, oil or natural gas is heated in pure oxygen, resulting in a mix of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This mix is then treated in a catalytic converter with steam, which then produces more hyd­rogen, along with carbon dioxide. These gases are fed into the bottom of a flask. The gases in the flask will naturally begin to rise, so a chemical called amine is poured into the top. The amine binds with the CO2, falling to the bottom of the flask. The hydrogen continues rising, up and out of the flask. Next, the amine/CO2 mixt­ure is heated. The CO2 rises to the top for collection, and the amine drops to the bottom for reuse [source:­ Allen]. The excess hydrogen also can be used for other energy production processes.

Precombustion carbon capture is already in use for natural gas, and provides a much higher concentration of CO2 than post-combustion. The precombustion process is lower in cost, but it’s not a retrofit for older power plant generators. As with post-combustion, precombustion carbon capture can prevent 80 to 90 percent of a power plant’s emissions from entering the atmosphere [source: GreenFacts].

With oxy-fuel combustion carbon capture, the power plant burns fossil fuel in oxygen. This results in a gas mixture comprising mostly steam and CO2. The steam and carbon dioxide are separated by cooling and compressing the gas stream. The oxygen required for this technique increases costs, but researchers are developing new techniques in hopes of bringing this cost down. Oxy-fuel combustion can prevent 90 percent of a power plant’s emissions from entering the atmosphere [source: GreenFacts].

Once the carbon is captured, how is it transported to a storage location? Keep reading to find out.

Transporting Carbon Dioxide

After carbon dioxide (CO2) is captured, the next step is transporting it to a storage site. The current method of transporting CO2 is through a pipeline. Pipelines have been in use for decades, and large volumes of gases, oil and water flow through pipelines every day. Carbon dioxide pipelines are an existing part of the U.S. infrastructure — in fact, there are more than 1,500 miles (2,414 km) of CO2 pipelines in the U.S. today, mostly for enhancing oil production[source: IPCC]. You can put a pipeline just about anywhere — underground or underwater — with depths ranging from a few feet to a mile.

A CO2 pipeline usually begins at the source of capture and travels directly to the storage site — although, in some cases, it might travel as far as it can in the pipe, then transition to a tanker or ship to finish off its journey. It all depends on where the source, pipeline and storage site are located. Both the public and private sector can own pipelines.

Pipelines can transport CO2 in three states: gaseous, liquid and solid. Solid CO2 is commonly known as dry ice, and it’s not cost-effective to transport CO2 as a solid. Pipelines commonly transport carbon dioxide in its gaseous state. A compressor “pushes” the gas through the pipeline. Sometimes a pipeline will have intermittent compressors to keep the gas moving. The CO2 must be clean (free of hydrogen sulfide) and dry. Otherwise, it can corrode a typical pipeline, which is made of carbon manganese steel. As of yet, there are no standards in place for “pipeline quality” carbon dioxide, but experts say that pipelines built from stainless steel would have a lowered risk of corrosion. This, however, may not be economical, since we would have to build brand new pipelines just for CO2.Accidents with pipelines are rare, as we’ve found in decades of use. Only 12 CO2 pipeline leaks occurred from 1986 to 2006, with no human injuries reported. Contrast that with natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines, which had more than 5,000 accidents and 107 fatalities in the same period [source: Parfomak]. Of course, one reason carbon dioxide pipeline accidents are rare is because we don’t really have that many CO2 pipelines in use. Accidents will likely increase as the number of pipelines rises. As CO2 is odorless and colorless, though, adding an odor to the gas could help to detect leaks. Regardless, experts recommend construction of pipelines in low-population areas to minimize any impact.

Pipeline costs fluctuate depending on the route of the pipeline (through heavily congested areas, mountains, offshore). It’s also possible to transport carbon dioxide as a liquid, using ships or tanker trucks. Liquid CO2 requires low pressure and a constant low temperature, so cargo tanks need to be both pressurized and refrigerated. You might be wondering what happens if a ship or truck carrying a tank of CO2 gets into an accident. Unfortunately, there isn’t much data on the subject, but we do know there is an asphyxiation risk if a massive amount of CO2 escapes into the atmosphere. As with tanks that transport natural gas and other hazardous materials, good construction is key. That, and good driving.

Continue reading to learn how carbon dioxide can be stored underground or underwater.

Carbon Storage

After we collect and transport all that carbon dioxide (CO2), we’re going to need somewhere to put it. But where? In some sort of giant storage unit? A huge tank out in the desert? Will we need more landfills to hold our CO2 waste?

Don’t worry, the answer to all those questions is “no.” There are two places we’ve found to store CO2 — underground and underwater. In fact, estimates project that the planet can store up to 10 trillion tons of carbon dioxide. This would allow 100 years of storage of all human-created emissions [source: Science Daily]. (Though we’ll obviously survive much longer than that.)

First, we’ll talk about underground storage. The pressure found deep underground causes CO2 to behave more like a liquid than a gas. Because it can seep into the spaces in porous rocks, a great amount of CO2 can be stored in a relatively small area. Underground storage, also called geological sequestration, is already in use by the oil and gas industries to squeeze out extra oil or gas from depleted reservoirs. Oil and gas reservoirs are well suited to store CO2 as they consist of layers of porous rock formations that have trapped oil and gas for years. Geological sequestration involves injecting CO2 into underground rock formations below the Earth’s surface. These natural reservoirs have overlying rocks that form a seal, keeping the gas contained. There can be risks to underground storage, though, and we’ll discuss those a bit later.
Basalt formations (volcanic rock) also appear to be suitable for storing CO2. In fact, basalt is one of the most common types of rock in the Earth’s crust — even the ocean floor is made of basalt [source: USGS]. Researchers have found that when they inject CO2 into basalt, it eventually turns into limestone — essentially converting to rock. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington State currently has a team devoted to running a pilot project to test basalt carbon storage [source: MSNBC].

Another project, called CO2 Sink, is testing geological sequestration in a location near Berlin, Germany. The project, started in 2004, aims to create a standard for CO2 injection. After injecting CO2 into a sandstone reservoir, scientists will actively study the area for long-term integrity and safety, leakage concerns, and movement of the CO2 within the reservoir [source: CO2Sink]. Also, the Sleipner gas field offshore in Norway has been injecting carbon dioxide into the sea floor since 1996 [source: Solomon].

In addition to underground storage, we’re also looking at the ocean for permanent CO2 storage. Some experts claim that we can safely dump CO2 directly into the ocean — provided we release it at depths greater than 11,482 feet (3500 meters). At these depths, they think the CO2 will compress to a slushy material that will fall to the ocean’s floor. Ocean carbon storage is largely untested, and there are many concerns about the safety of marine life and the possibility that the carbon dioxide would eventually make its way back into the environment. For more information on this topic, read Can we bury our CO2 problem in the ocean?.

Next, we’ll look at some of these concerns in more detail and find out if carbon ca­pture and storage is a viable solution for our future.

Carbon Storage Concerns

Although carbon capture and storage may seem like a miracle solution, it’s not without concern or controversy. To begin, it’s important to remember that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is not a license to continue emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. We need to use CCS in addition to other emission-reduction efforts. However, CCS provides a way to clean up our existing power plants.

Opponents of CCS believe that, while it may be viable, the focus is all wrong. They argue that we should be coming up with ways to wean ourselves off fossil fuels instead of spending time and money on ways to continue using fossil fuels. According to the environmental group Greenpeace, widespread deployment of CCS isn’t even possible until at least 2030.

Another drawback? Current CCS technologies actually require a lot of energy to implement and run — up to 40 percent of a power station’s capacity [source:Greenpeace]. Additionally, if we transport that captured CO2 by truck or ship, those vehicles will require fuel. And, the burning of fossil fuels is what got us into this predicament in the first place.

Creating a CCS-enabled power plant also requires a lot of money. For example, the United States has its own CCS project in the works. FutureGen hopes to build the first coal-fueled zero-emissions power plant. Its goal is to create a power plant that runs on coal but stores carbon emissions underground. The plant would power 150,000 homes and generate 275 megawatts of electricity [source: FutureGen]. Private partnerships and federal monies helped support the project. But President Bush pulled support when projected costs topped $1.8 billion. The government had already sunk $50 million into the project when it pulled its backing [source: Wald]. FutureGen continues to seek private and federal funding today.

The biggest concern with CCS, though, is the environmental risk. What happens if the carbon dioxide leaks out underground? We can’t really answer this question. Because the process is so new, we don’t know its long-term effects. Proponents, however, point to the Sleipner gas field, which has been in operation for more than 10 years without any detectable underground leakage.

What if the carbon dioxide leaks out in the ocean? We do have a little bit of knowledge on this one. In 1986, a natural volcanic eruption of carbon dioxide from a lake in Cameroon killed nearly 2,000 people. They died of asphyxiation from being in close vicinity to the release of CO2. These numbers don’t even take into account the death toll of marine life that called the lake home [source: BBC].

Another effect of excess CO2 in the water is increased acidity. The ocean actually absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere — a phenomenon known as carbon sink. Scientists have recently discovered that some oceans aren’t absorbing as much CO2 as they did in the past. The Southern Ocean, in particular, no longer soaks up as much carbon dioxide, a fact that alarms scientists. The excess CO2 from human emissions appears to be staying on the surface of the oceans instead of sinking. And the more CO2 an ocean surface absorbs, the more acidic it becomes [source: Rincon]. Higher water acidity adversely affects marine life. For example, it reduces the amount of vital calcium carbonate marine creatures need to build their shells.

There are still many questions about whether carbon capture and storage will help to alleviate the greenhouse effect and slow climate change. But one thing’s for certain: carbon dioxide emissions are a worldwide problem.

For more information about carbon, dig your way into the links on the next page.

Source: Ronca, Debra. “How Carbon Capture Works” 09 July 2008. HowStuffWorks.com. 23 March 2011.

翻譯後感言

by Hsiaowei Chan on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at 12:00am

之前我住德國人家裡，問過他們對再生能源與核能的看法。

我問道：「但是政府強迫電力公司跟民眾高價買電，會反應在電力公司賣電價格上，也就是說你們要付比較多的錢。」
他們說：「那一點點，我們付得起。」

如果真如文中的學者所說，德國用電者已經在未來二十年負債1200歐元，德國的電力市場已經自由化，如此一來政府不用付錢蓋核電廠、也不用政府的錢補助買電，這些錢就在有賣電跟沒賣電的消費者間流動，政府真是無事一身輕啊。

最近核四通過140億的預算還是臺灣人民不情不怨繳的稅，德國政府輕輕鬆鬆就能在20年內從人民口袋中擠出1200億歐元，這1200億歐元可以蓋好幾座核電廠，新一代核電廠營運的壽命都是60年以上，每營運20年就從太陽能那擠出1200億來，再蓋電廠，就這樣生生不息一直流傳下去。

(結尾銅臭味好重，賣電真的是致富之道。)

後記:某同學讀完翻譯後,丟出了余光中的文章.值得警惕.
http://blog.yam.com/soliloque/article/4938270

(翻譯)What Italy's nuclear referendum means for climate change/義大利核能公投一事對氣候變異的意義

(同時發布於facebook)

by Hsiaowei Chan on Monday, June 20, 2011 at 11:10pm
(歡迎轉載，請註明出處)

義大利核能公投一事對氣候變異的意義
投票者壓倒性支持反核能運動者欲斷絕義大利境內一切新核能建設的訴求。

如果你問了一個很笨的問題，你當然得到一個很笨的答案。這就發生在星期一的義大利核能公投。投票者壓倒性支持反核能運動者斷絕義大利境內一切新核能建設的訴求。公投既非決定能源政策也非決定任何其他國家政策的好方法。如果在英國以公投決定極刑執行的方式，那麼絕大多數人都會支持恢復絞刑。

在義大利的核能公投結果必須以更上層的歐洲政治爭議來看待，此即由環保人士(greens)所支持的反核能運動者成功地抹黑了核能。當瑞士與德國政府已經因日本福島核災意外而決定廢除核能，在奧地利的公投無疑地有了相同結果。

(作者)終生身為環境學家且於2009出版一書陳述失控地全球暖化的駭人前景，我(作者)深深覺得德國與瑞士政府(的廢核)決定是近年來排行最劣的氣候政策。不但決定廢除核能─陸上最大的無碳能源來源，並且是在國際能源組織發布2010年排碳量上升至近乎犯罪程度之後的一星期做了這項決定。

這個事實或許令人不快，但解決全球暖化的最好選擇恰好是環保人士幾十年來即使全球暖化已經到來卻依舊反對的科技。我已經數不清多少次自己聽到環保團體堅持氣候變異是「人類面臨最大的挑戰」。現在，他們繼承前策拒絕重新評估核能，說明了他們無人相信之前自己所說的話，或者即使地球的未來已經危亡，多數環境學家亦準備好在思想上積極地一廂情願地作思想避難。

如果德國環保人士真的認真看待全球暖化，他們會轉向廢燃煤火力發電，其為德國現今最大發電來源並因此而為最大排碳來源。反觀新的廢核計畫，將會造成在未來幾年裡必須蓋起11GW(1100萬千瓦)(註一)的燃碳火力發電廠，加上5GW(500萬千瓦)的燃氣火力發電廠。唯一控制這些火力發電廠廢氣的方法將是碳收集封存法(Carbon Capture and Storage, CCS)。而綠色和平組織已經在德國成功地植入危言聳聽的運動反對這項新科技，此舉更確保未來石化廢氣將不減地排放入大氣。

不幸地，這些新燃煤火力發電廠將排放比德國這些即將廢除的核電廠如果繼續營運所能排放還要更多輻射物質進入附近的區域，這都要感謝裝置在燃煤發電廠煙囪上的碳排放同位素追蹤技術(註二)。對福島核災一事的回應─它是一個非毀滅性的意外，至今沒有傷及任何人(註三)，更不用說那些勇敢接下穩定被海嘯衝擊的反應爐的志願者─又，一個應該對待科學合理性非常嚴謹的國家卻非理性地將(災變)指導原則交付由政治策略引導。

的確，基於預防災害的原則，因追蹤到德國有機農場所生產的豆芽菜造成最近大腸桿菌(E coli)大流行一事，其已造成幾乎與車諾比事件相同的死亡人數(作者撰寫本文時為36人，700多人將因此而終身洗腎)廢除有機農業將是一個理性的抉擇。當然，我並沒有聽到任何人如此建議德國環保人士。而且想像大家只針對豆芽菜是基因改造而非「健康」有機蔬菜而喧囂。

德國政府堅持廢核計畫是全面符合其減碳目標。現在這個政府正是最近批准延長補助連連虧損的煤礦業至2018年的那個政府。數學邏輯在面前劃過：2008年德國有23%的電力依賴核能。近年來德國才大幅地提高了再生能源的比例(2010年為17%)，現在又欲以再生能源取代核能並且取代火力發電，此將為德國對氣候變異所定的目標無疑地增加困難，因此又使其更加倍的無法兌現。

愚蠢的事情不只這些。感謝慷慨的售電費率(註四)，近年來德國再生能源的資本多投注於太陽能板上。現在這些太陽能屋頂奇貨可居，價值高達每增加一噸碳就要700歐元(碳税)，而歐洲平均每增加一噸碳為15歐元不到。一位專家的研究提到直到現今為止的所有太陽能實驗已經造成德國能源消費者在未來二十年內1200億歐元的負債─只為了生產僅僅2%的德國電力，或者說少於單一座大型核電廠的電力。

相反地，最近的英國能源政策的確看起來較有道理。其雄心壯志─由傑出的氣候變異委員會監督指導─係藉由將核能與再生能源提升到約提供40%左右的電力，以在2030年降低電力部門整體所造成的排碳。在陰沉的北方國家太陽能板除了消耗地球的資源，其貢獻就是微不足道地降低排碳量，英國降低(民眾)太陽能售電費率的政策也因此合理許多。然而，不像英國，德國已經巡迴鼓吹其新政策值得其他國家效仿─讓我們看在氣候的份上，衷心期望沒有人走進德國環保人士的死胡同裡。

譯者註一：一座核能反應爐的電容約為1000MW，以台灣的單位為100萬千瓦。
譯者註二：裝置在燃煤火力發電廠煙囪的碳同位素追蹤裝置顯示燃煤火力發電廠所排放的碳同位素輻射量比一般核電廠正常營運所排放的輻射量還高。
譯者註三：作者說的應該是輻射本身沒有直接造成傷亡，而非廠房或是管線爆炸所造成的傷害。
譯者註四：售電費率(feed-in-tariff)，指得是民眾售電給電力公司的價格。在歐洲民眾可以經由申請在屋頂架設太陽能板或在空地設立的風力發電，將所得電力賣回給電力公司，每度電售電價格比從電力公司買電要高，藉此獲利(沒有規定一定要用到自己的電)。

原文在/Original article is at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jun/15/italy-nuclear-referendum

What Italy's nuclear referendum means for climate change
Voters overwhelmingly backed anti-nuclear campaigners' demands to block any new atomic power in Italy


Ask a stupid question and you'll get a stupid answer. That's what happened in the Italian referendum on nuclear power on Monday, where voters overwhelmingly backed anti-nuclear campaigners' demands to block any new atomic power in Italy. Referendums are not a good way to set energy policy, nor many other aspects of national policy either – if a referendum were held on capital punishment in Britain, a hefty majority would support bringing back hanging.

The Italian result needs to be seen in the context of a wider European political debate where anti-nuclear campaigners – led by the greens – have been successful in discrediting nuclear power. No doubt a referendum in Austria would have the same result, while the governments of Switzerland and Germany have already decided to phase out their nuclear plants altogether in response to the Fukushima accident in Japan.

As a lifelong environmentalist, and author of a 2009 book which laid out the terrifying prospects of uncontrolled global warming, I cannot help but feel that the decisions of the German and Swiss governments rank among the worst climate-related policies of recent years. Carbon emissions cannot do anything other than rise as a result of phasing out the continent's largest source of zero-carbon power – and doing this just a week after the International Energy Agency reported that 2010 carbon emissions rose to the highest levels ever is little short of criminal.

There is perhaps a certain discomfort about the fact that one of the best options for tackling global warming just so happens to be a technology that greens had spent decades opposing before climate change even hit the agenda. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard green groups insisting that climate change is the "greatest challenge ever to face humanity". Yet their refusal to reassess their inherited positions against nuclear power suggest that none of them actually believe what they are saying – or that most environmentalists are prepared to take refuge in ideologically motivated wishful thinking even when the future of the planet is at stake.

If the German greens really took climate change seriously, they would instead be pushing for a phase-out of coal – which generates by far the largest proportion of the country's power and consequent carbon emissions – from Germany's electricity grid. Instead, the new nuclear phase-out plan will see a hefty 11GW of new coal plants built in years to come, with an additional 5GW of new gas. The only way emissions from these plants could be controlled would be through "carbon capture and storage" (CCS) – yet Greenpeace in Germany has already mounted a successful scaremongering campaign against this new technology, helping to ensure that future fossil emissions will go into the atmosphere unabated.

Unfortunately, the new coal plants will spew out more radioactivity into surrounding areas than any of the German nuclear plants would have done if they stayed open, thanks to the fact that trace isotopes in coal escape up power station chimneys. That all of this has come about in response to Fukushima – a non-fatal accident which has so far injured no one, not even the workers who have bravely battled to stabilise the tsunami-stricken reactors – elevates irrationality to a guiding principle of political policy in countries which supposedly pride themselves in taking scientific rationality seriously.

Indeed, it would be far more rational on a risk-precautionary basis to phase out Germany's organic farming sector, given that the recent E coli outbreak – now traced to organic sprouts produced on a farm in Lower Saxony – has killed nearly as many people as Chernobyl (36 at the time of writing, with 700 or more suffering permanent kidney damage). I have not of course heard any suggestions to this end from the German greens. And just imagine the hullaballoo had the sprouts been genetically modified instead of the "healthy" organic option.

The German government insists that the nuclear phase-out plan is entirely compatible with its emission-reduction goals. Yet this is the same government which recently extended subsidies for loss-making coal mines until 2018. It also flies in the face of mathematical logic: in 2008 Germany relied on nuclear for 23 percent of its electricity. Renewable generation in Germany has increased substantially in recent years (to 17% in 2010) – yet to ask renewables to replace nuclear as well as fossil fuels will make the achievement of Germany's climate goals doubly difficult, and therefore twice as unlikely to actually happen.

The silliness does not stop there. Much of Germany's renewables investment has been in solar photovoltaics in recent years, thanks to extraordinarily generous feed-in-tariffs. Yet these solar roofs are so expensive that they cost more than €700 per tonne of carbon abated, compared to a carbon price in Europe of €15 or less. One expert study suggests that the whole solar experiment up until this year has already landed German energy consumers with a €120bn liability for the next two decades – this in order to generate a mere 2% of the country's electricity, or less than a single large nuclear plant.

In contrast, the UK's energy policy actually looks quite sensible these days. There is a broad ambition – articulated by the excellent Climate Change Committee – to decarbonise the entire electricity sector by 2030, by deploying nuclear and renewables in roughly equal proportions of 40% or so. There is a lot of sense also in Britain's policy of ramping down feed-in-tariffs for solar PV, which cost the Earth while doing little to reduce emissions in this cloudy northern country. Unlike the UK, however, Germany has gone around trumpeting its new policy as worthy of emulation by other nations – let us hope for the sake of the climate that no-one follows down the blind alley led by the German greens.

• Discuss the future of the green movement with Mark Lynas in London on 6 July

10日的Fuerteventura之行

不知道為什麼，總覺得文章一直寫不好，寫到了某處才發現忘了前面應該要舖個梗。直到前陣子，在網路上看到一部影片，一位人類神經學家解釋他自己中風的過程，才知道我大概是只用右腦運作，所以時間邏輯太前太後的事情我都沒辦法思考，也解釋了為什麼文章總是寫不好的原因(吧)。還開啟了我們對一些沒辦法享受當下的看法：「他可能沒有右腦吧！」



這次渡假的地點是Canaria islands的Fuerteventura，大家都說他有超美的沙灘，的確如此，但如果你腦中想像的是墨西哥或是巴哈馬那種，可能要稍微修正一下，Fuerteventura有點原始、有點粗糙，就因如此而充滿了野性美。

Fuerteventura地處亞熱帶(北緯28度)，現在正值太陽北移，如果整天萬里無雲，從早上十點曬到下午七點，必死無疑。好在此島風大雲多，早上起床看見是個大陰天，下午一兩點雲就散了，變成萬里無雲的好天氣。在Fuerteventura曬太陽的心得：防曬永遠上身(不知何時雲開)、即使雲多到遮蔽了天空沙灘上還是熱的(可以先去佔位置)、風很大很容易忘情的曬傷(每個夜晚皮膚都在發燙)、曬後一定要保濕(留得青山在)。

有名的平行雲。
大陰天。
萬里無雲的黃昏。

陰天還是能曬(這就是旅館走路兩分鐘就到的沙灘)。

Fuerteventura濱海沒有丘陵旅館也都只有一兩層樓，很難找到面海的房間。這次的落腳的地方叫做Corralero，是個可愛的小鎮，不像其他的地方只有resort。住的旅館是Duna Park Atlantis(4星)，65歐/晩。看到價錢就知道，這個四星就是剛好能讓你滿意，沒有任何奢華感，服務人員非常親切，地點非常好，幾乎在市中心，走路兩分鐘到海灘，一分鐘就有餐廳，十分鐘到港口(大部分的好餐廳都在港口)，房間又很安靜。

在Fuerteventura的娛樂並沒有很多，即使已經待在比較大的Corralero，bar大概不到二十間，這裡有live music但幾乎找不到dancing club。不像Gran Canaria隨便一個點都有至少兩三間dancing clubs。在這裡很多是全家一起出遊，40%的人都有嬰兒車，沙灘上每天都有一堆挖沙的小孩。除了喝酒之外，Fuerteventura可以找到很多陽光的娛樂，像是Buggy trip(繞當地只長一堆真菌的沙漠和休火山)、surfing、wind-surfing、kite-surfing，還可以浮潛或是潛水，我跟f一個都沒去，每天就等雲開曬太陽。

Kite-surfing的沙灘。

Corralero Nature Park的沙灘。

Caleta de Fuste(這個地方只有一堆resort)。

此行的主灘，對面是Isola Lobos，很小的島，看了照片之後後悔沒去>"<

當然不是每天雲都會開，有一兩天整天都是陰天，我們就驅車往"傳說中"的當地都市La Oliva開去，眼睛所見，簡直震撼到了極點，出了Corralero，一直都是乾漠，沒有沙、就是乾。

荒漠。

荒漠。

荒漠。

荒漠。

當經過一整片荒蕪之後，我跟f都害怕了，原來這個地方什麼都沒有，路上經過一兩個小鎮都是油門踩太深就會不小心開出鎮。甚至還有很多房子蓋在很遠的地方，是經過一片荒漠後在海邊單一獨立的社區，連玻璃都沒有裝，就算裝潢好也保證你不會想住那，卻又蓋了不少(四五處)，不像是當地居民會住的地方。因此做了一個結論，就是如果沒有觀光，這個島還能幹麻？

就在離開的當天，我在機場書攤看到Corralero商店裡、旅館裡到處都能看到的一本書就叫做Fuerteventura，都已經要離開買這會不會太晚？又很怕自己錯過了什麼可能永遠都不會知道，就買了。在離開Fuerteventura的飛機上讀Fuerteventura。才知道自己真的錯過很多。書裡描述了Fuerteventura的過去與現在的地理與生態，以及每個主要小鎮的歷史與經濟來源，這個島不是什麼都沒有，他只是沒有「一般人」想要的種種。


我會不會再去一次？會，但去的話我會到南部去看一看。