欧盟专家表示，核能符合绿色投资的标签
EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label
译文简介
“核废料处理仍然是一个亟待解决的问题，目前专家们还没有考虑到环保问题。虽然还是比煤要好。”
正文翻译
EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label
欧盟专家表示，核能符合绿色投资的标签
欧盟专家表示，核能符合绿色投资的标签
(An exterior view of a part of the nuclear power plant of energy company RWE in Biblis, Germany.)
（德国比布里斯的莱茵集团能源公司核电站一角的外部照片。）
新闻：
Experts tasked with assessing whether the European unx should label nuclear power as a green investment will say that the fuel qualifies as sustainable, according to a leaked document.
根据一份泄露的文件，负责评估欧盟是否应该将核能列为绿色投资的专家将会说，这种燃料具有可持续发展的资格。
根据一份泄露的文件，负责评估欧盟是否应该将核能列为绿色投资的专家将会说，这种燃料具有可持续发展的资格。
The European Commission is attempting to finish its sustainable finance taxonomy, which will decide which economic activities can be labelled as a sustainable investment in the EU, based on whether they meet strict environmental criteria.
欧盟委员会正试图完成其“可持续金融分类法”，该分类法将根据经济活动是否符合严格的环境标准，决定哪些经济活动可以被贴上欧盟可持续投资的标签。
欧盟委员会正试图完成其“可持续金融分类法”，该分类法将根据经济活动是否符合严格的环境标准，决定哪些经济活动可以被贴上欧盟可持续投资的标签。
EU expert advisors last year split over whether nuclear power deserved a green label, recognising that while it produces very low planet-warming CO2 emissions, more analysis was needed on the environmental impact of radioactive waste disposal.
去年，欧盟专家顾问在是否应该给核能贴上绿色标签的问题上产生了分歧，他们认识到，尽管核能产生的温室气体二氧化碳排放量非常低，但需要对放射性废料处理对环境的影响进行更多的分析。
去年，欧盟专家顾问在是否应该给核能贴上绿色标签的问题上产生了分歧，他们认识到，尽管核能产生的温室气体二氧化碳排放量非常低，但需要对放射性废料处理对环境的影响进行更多的分析。
The Commission asked the Joint Research Centre (JRC), its scientific expert arm, to report on the issue.
委员会要求联合研究中心（附属科学专家机构）就这个问题发表报告。
委员会要求联合研究中心（附属科学专家机构）就这个问题发表报告。
A draft of the JRC report, seen by EURACTIV and other media outlets and due to be published this week, said nuclear deserves a green label.
《欧洲动态》和其他媒体看到了联合研究中心报告的草案，该报告将于本周发布，草案称核能应该被贴上绿色标签。
《欧洲动态》和其他媒体看到了联合研究中心报告的草案，该报告将于本周发布，草案称核能应该被贴上绿色标签。
“The analyses did not reveal any science-based evidence that nuclear energy does more harm to human health or to the environment than other electricity production technologies,” the report said.
报告称：“这些分析并没有揭示出任何基于科学的证据，证明核能比其他发电技术对人类健康或环境的危害更大。”
报告称：“这些分析并没有揭示出任何基于科学的证据，证明核能比其他发电技术对人类健康或环境的危害更大。”
Storage of nuclear waste in deep geologic formations is deemed “appropriate and safe,” it added, although it admitted that “no long-term operational experience is presently available as technologies and solutions are still in demonstration and testing phase”.
该报告还说，将核废料储存在深层地质构造中被认为是“适当和安全的”，尽管它承认“目前没有长期的操作经验，因为技术和解决方案仍处于演示和测试阶段”。
该报告还说，将核废料储存在深层地质构造中被认为是“适当和安全的”，尽管它承认“目前没有长期的操作经验，因为技术和解决方案仍处于演示和测试阶段”。
However, the report cited countries including France, Sweden and Finland which are “in an advanced stage of implementation of their national deep geological disposal facilities,” saying those are “expected to start operation within the present decade.”
然而，该报告援引包括法国、瑞典和芬兰在内的一些国家的话说，这些国家的“国家深部地质处置设施”正处于“实施的后期阶段”，并称这些设施“预计将在最近10年内投入使用”。
然而，该报告援引包括法国、瑞典和芬兰在内的一些国家的话说，这些国家的“国家深部地质处置设施”正处于“实施的后期阶段”，并称这些设施“预计将在最近10年内投入使用”。
“For high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel, there is a broad consensus amongst the scientific, technological and regulatory communities that final disposal in deep geological repositories is the most effective and safest feasible solution which can ensure that no significant harm is caused to human life and the environment for the required timespan,” the report says.
该报告称：“对于高放射性废物和乏燃料，科学界、科技界和管制界有一项广泛的共识，即在深层地质储存库中进行最终处置是最有效和最安全的可行解决办法，可确保在所需的时间内不对人类生命和环境造成重大损害。”
该报告称：“对于高放射性废物和乏燃料，科学界、科技界和管制界有一项广泛的共识，即在深层地质储存库中进行最终处置是最有效和最安全的可行解决办法，可确保在所需的时间内不对人类生命和环境造成重大损害。”
And although severe nuclear accidents “cannot be ruled out with 100% certainty,” they are “events with extremely low probability,” the report added, pointing out that only third generation reactors are now being commissioned worldwide in the last 15 years after the Chernobyl disaster.
报告还指出，虽然严重的核事故“不能100%排除”，但它们是“可能性极低的事件”。报告指出，在切尔诺贝利灾难发生后的15年里，世界范围内只有第三代反应堆投入使用。
报告还指出，虽然严重的核事故“不能100%排除”，但它们是“可能性极低的事件”。报告指出，在切尔诺贝利灾难发生后的15年里，世界范围内只有第三代反应堆投入使用。
“The fatality rates characterising state-of-the art [third generation nuclear power plants] are the lowest of all the electricity generation technologies,” the report concludes.
报告总结说：“最先进的（第三代核电站）的致死率是所有发电技术中最低的。”
报告总结说：“最先进的（第三代核电站）的致死率是所有发电技术中最低的。”
Further expert advice
进一步的专家建议
进一步的专家建议
Two expert committees will now scrutinise the JRC’s findings for three months, before the Commission takes a final decision.
在委员会做出最终决定之前，两个专家委员会将对联合研究中心的调查结果进行三个月的仔细审查。
在委员会做出最终决定之前，两个专家委员会将对联合研究中心的调查结果进行三个月的仔细审查。
“This is one step in the process,” a Commission spokesperson reminded EURACTIV, saying the JRC report will now be reviewed by experts on radiation protection and waste management under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty, as well as by experts on environmental impacts from the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks.
“这只是过程中的一步，” 委员会的一位发言人提醒《欧洲动态》说，根据欧洲原子能条约第31条，联合研究中心的报告将由辐射防护和废物管理方面的专家，以及健康、环境和新风险科学委员会的环境影响专家进行审查。
“这只是过程中的一步，” 委员会的一位发言人提醒《欧洲动态》说，根据欧洲原子能条约第31条，联合研究中心的报告将由辐射防护和废物管理方面的专家，以及健康、环境和新风险科学委员会的环境影响专家进行审查。
The uation will be “rigorous,” the spokesperson added, saying “the credibility of this assessment is crucial.”
这位发言人补充说，评估将是“严格的”，“评估的可信度至关重要。”
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
这位发言人补充说，评估将是“严格的”，“评估的可信度至关重要。”
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
EU countries are split over nuclear. Ahead of an EU summit last week, a group of seven countries including France, Hungary, and Poland urged the Commission to support nuclear in policies, including the taxonomy.
欧盟国家在核问题上存在分歧。在上周的欧盟峰会之前，包括法国、匈牙利和波兰在内的七国集团敦促欧盟委员会在政策上支持核能，包括其分类。
欧盟国家在核问题上存在分歧。在上周的欧盟峰会之前，包括法国、匈牙利和波兰在内的七国集团敦促欧盟委员会在政策上支持核能，包括其分类。
Other states including Austria, and some environmental groups, oppose the fuel, pointing to its hazardous waste and the delays and spiralling costs of recent projects.
包括奥地利在内的其他国家和一些环保组织反对这种燃料，指出其产生有害废物，以及近期核电项目的拖延和不断上升的成本。
包括奥地利在内的其他国家和一些环保组织反对这种燃料，指出其产生有害废物，以及近期核电项目的拖延和不断上升的成本。
“The nuclear industry is desperate for funds as nuclear power is too expensive and new projects are evaporating,” said Greenpeace EU policy adviser Silvia Pastorelli.
绿色和平组织欧盟政策顾问西尔维亚· 帕斯托雷利表示：“核工业就是吞金兽，核电过于昂贵，新项目正在消失。”
绿色和平组织欧盟政策顾问西尔维亚· 帕斯托雷利表示：“核工业就是吞金兽，核电过于昂贵，新项目正在消失。”
Foratom, the nuclear power industry lobby group, welcomed the report, saying “it makes it clear that nuclear does not cause more harm to human health nor the environment than any other power-producing technology which is currently considered as sustainable under the taxonomy.”
核能工业游说团体Foratom则对这份报告表示欢迎，称“它清楚地表明，核能对人类健康和环境的危害并不比任何其他目前被认为是可持续发展的发电技术更大。”
核能工业游说团体Foratom则对这份报告表示欢迎，称“它清楚地表明，核能对人类健康和环境的危害并不比任何其他目前被认为是可持续发展的发电技术更大。”
“Now that this assessment is available, we hope that the Commission will quickly come forward with a clear indication as to how and when it will include nuclear under the taxonomy,” said Foratom director general Yves Desbazeille.
Foratom总干事伊夫·德斯巴泽尔说：“既然这份评估已经出炉，我们希望委员会能够迅速提出一个明确的指示，说明如何以及何时将核能列入分类。”
Foratom总干事伊夫·德斯巴泽尔说：“既然这份评估已经出炉，我们希望委员会能够迅速提出一个明确的指示，说明如何以及何时将核能列入分类。”
“We trust the ongoing process to issue a report based on scientific bases and caution against any interference that could jeopardize a timely outcome,” added Erkki Maillard, senior vice-president for EU affairs at EDF, the French electricity company.
法国电力公司负责欧盟事务的高级副总裁埃尔基·美拉德补充称：“我们相信正在进行的发布基于科学基础的报告的进程，并对可能危及及时结果的任何干预发出警告。”
法国电力公司负责欧盟事务的高级副总裁埃尔基·美拉德补充称：“我们相信正在进行的发布基于科学基础的报告的进程，并对可能危及及时结果的任何干预发出警告。”
JRC critique
联合研究中心的批判
联合研究中心的批判
Greenpeace meanwhile questioned the independence of the JRC report, saying it is “a structurally pro-nuclear Commission service” that was initially set up in 1957 under Article 8 of the Euratom treaty, to “create the conditions necessary for the speedy establishment and growth of nuclear industries”.
与此同时，绿色和平组织质疑联合研究中心报告的独立性，称它是“一个在结构上支持核能的委员会服务机构”，该机构最初是在1957年根据欧洲原子联盟条约第八条成立的，目的是“为核工业的迅速建立和发展创造必要条件”。
与此同时，绿色和平组织质疑联合研究中心报告的独立性，称它是“一个在结构上支持核能的委员会服务机构”，该机构最初是在1957年根据欧洲原子联盟条约第八条成立的，目的是“为核工业的迅速建立和发展创造必要条件”。
And although the JRC has since branched out into other areas, Greenpeace claims that “nuclear research still represents 25% of its activity,” with Euratom providing €532 million to the JRC for the period 2021-2025.
尽管联合研究中心已经扩展到其他领域，但绿色和平组织声称“核研究仍占其活动的25%”，在2021-2025年期间，欧洲原子能机构将向联合研究中心提供5.32亿欧元。
尽管联合研究中心已经扩展到其他领域，但绿色和平组织声称“核研究仍占其活动的25%”，在2021-2025年期间，欧洲原子能机构将向联合研究中心提供5.32亿欧元。
The European Commission however brushed aside those claims, saying the JRC has acquired “extensive technical expertise on nuclear energy” since its creation in 1957. “The JRC has been requested to deliver a thorough, independent evidence-based report on Nuclear energy and technology, which, together with the two expert Committees’ opinions, will ensure a rigorous process where all relevant perspectives and facts are considered,” a Commission spokesperson told EURACTIV.
然而，欧盟委员会对这些说法不予理会，称联合研究中心自1957年成立以来，已经获得了“广泛的核能技术专长”。委员会一位发言人告诉《欧洲动态》：“联合研究中心已被要求提交一份全面、独立、以证据为基础的核能和技术报告，这份报告加上两个专家委员会的意见，将确保所有相关观点和事实都得到考虑的严格程序。”
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
然而，欧盟委员会对这些说法不予理会，称联合研究中心自1957年成立以来，已经获得了“广泛的核能技术专长”。委员会一位发言人告诉《欧洲动态》：“联合研究中心已被要求提交一份全面、独立、以证据为基础的核能和技术报告，这份报告加上两个专家委员会的意见，将确保所有相关观点和事实都得到考虑的严格程序。”
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
EU countries are also split over how the taxonomy should treat investments in natural gas.
对于天然气投资的应该怎么分类，欧盟国家也存在分歧。
对于天然气投资的应该怎么分类，欧盟国家也存在分歧。
After a plan to exclude gas faced push back from pro-gas countries, the Commission this month drafted plans to label some gas as sustainable – splintering countries between those who support the fuel as an alternative to more-polluting coal, and those who say new gas plants risk locking in emissions for decades, thwarting climate goals.
在一项将天然气排除在外的计划遭到支持天然气国家的反对后，该委员会本月起草了一份计划，将一些天然气定义为“可持续的”——有些国家支持将天然气作为污染更严重的煤炭的替代品，而有些国家则认为新建天然气工厂可能会在未来几十年内固化排放，阻碍气候目标的实现。
在一项将天然气排除在外的计划遭到支持天然气国家的反对后，该委员会本月起草了一份计划，将一些天然气定义为“可持续的”——有些国家支持将天然气作为污染更严重的煤炭的替代品，而有些国家则认为新建天然气工厂可能会在未来几十年内固化排放，阻碍气候目标的实现。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 0 )
收藏
It’s about time.
时间问题。
Half a century too late, IMO.
Had the green movement not politically poisoned nuclear power, we could have avoided half a century of carbon emissions.
Thanks to the environmentalists of the 60's and 70's, we abandoned nuclear and instead embraced coal, oil, and gas. Good job, environmentalists! Way to save the planet.
在我看来，已经晚了半个世纪。
如果绿色运动没有在政治上毒害核能，我们本可以避免半个世纪的碳排放。
多亏了60年代和70年代的环保主义者，我们放弃了核能，转而使用煤炭、石油和天然气。干得好，环保主义者们！真是拯救地球的好办法。
Yup. IMO if any "green" group isn't pro-nuclear they aren't worth listening to. If they truly believed their own claims about how dire the situation is they'd be willing to use nuclear now.
是的。在我看来，如果任何一个“绿色”组织不支持核能，他们就不值得倾听。如果他们真的相信自己所说的情况有多可怕，他们会愿意现在就使用核能。
Green as a political color has been anti-nuclear by definition since the late 60s. It has been a consequence of how the environmentalist movement evolved, and having strong anti-nuclear opinions has become part of it. Only now you can start to see certain green parties or organizations dropping their anti-nuclear stance, but it is very much the exception. Opposing it is still a dogmatic component of green politics.
从60年代末开始，绿色作为一种政治颜色就被定义为“反核”。这是环保运动演变的结果，而强烈的反核观点已经成为其中的一部分。直到现在，你才开始看到某些绿色政党或组织放弃了他们的反核立场，但这在很大程度上是例外。反对核能仍然是绿色政治的教条组成部分。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Oh I know, that's why I disregard pretty much every "green" activist group and political party out there. Their disdain for nuclear proves quite conclusively that they don't actually believe what they're saying and are just grifting off the easily panicked.
哦，我知道，这就是为什么我无视了几乎所有的“绿色”激进组织和政党。他们对核能的蔑视相当决定性地证明了他们实际上并不相信他们所说的，只是在欺骗那些容易恐慌的人。
To be fair, it all started with the belief (mistaken, but "honest") that the operation of nuclear power plants poisons the environment to an unacceptable level. Not referring to accidents, or even waste (although the movements have leveraged those elements to great effect too), but just the operation itself. In fact I'm quite sure that still a majority of people in general think this way. The status quo is nuclear=pollution.
公平地说，这一切都始于一种信念（错误的，但却是“诚实的”），即核电站的运行对环境的毒害达到了不可接受的水平。这里指的不是事故，甚至浪费（尽管这些运动也利用了这些因素发挥了巨大的作用），而是指运行本身。事实上，我很确定仍然有大多数人这样想。目前的现状就是“核能 = 污染”。
The waste disposal is still an issue and not concerned green yet by the experts in this article. Though still better than coal
核废料处理仍然是一个亟待解决的问题，目前专家们还没有考虑到环保问题。虽然还是比煤要好
The waste disposal issue is due almost entirely to outdated Cold War de-escalation treaties restricting the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. upxe those treaties with agreements on reprocessing locations, international inspections, and technology sharing and we can start making old fuel into new fuel.
Less than 10% of a fuel rod is waste, the rest is unburned uranium or fissionable transuranics. Of the >10% that is waste, after the ten years that a spent fuel assembly spends cooling off in a storage pool, the majority of the fission products decay to stability.
Its a fraction of a fraction that is still radioactive for hundreds or thousands of years, and if you are reprocessing the waste anyway, you can partition out the long lived stuff, vitrify it in glass and bury it in deep geological shafts drilled into continental craton 15,000 feet below the water table, then film the shaft with concrete and forget it's down there.
The nuclear waste problem is a political problem, not a engineering or technology problem. We can fix it with the stroke of a pen if we had the collective will to do so. We'd rather keep killing ourselves and par boiling the world with coal.
废料处理问题几乎完全是由于限制核燃料再加工的过时的冷战降级条约造成的。更新这些条约，签订关于再加工地点、国际检查和技术共享的协议，我们就可以开始将旧燃料转化为新燃料。
燃料棒中只有不到10%是废料，其余都是未燃烧的铀或可裂变的超铀物质。10%以外的部分都是浪费，一个乏燃料组件在存储池中冷却十年之后，大部分的裂变产物都会衰变到稳定状态。
放射性会持续几百年甚至几千年的只是非常非常小的部分，如果你再处理这些废料，你可以把那些放射很长时间的东西分割出来，用玻璃把它玻璃化，把它埋在地下水位以下一万五千英尺的大陆克拉通深处的地质竖井里，然后用混凝土把竖井盖上，然后就别管它了。
核废料问题是一个政治问题，而不是一个工程或技术问题。如果我们有集体的意愿，我们可以大笔一挥来解决这个问题。但我们宁愿继续自杀，用煤来加热世界。
The pro-nuclear lobbying on reddit is so grotesque. While I completely agree that nuclear is an option for some countries. The situation is a lot more complicated as is usually written. First of all, while there are some modern designs that would be great. There are currently absolutely none that are commercially usable (I love the design Bill Gates tried to push, but besides China no one seems interested in it). Also nuclear plants won't work in countries that have high level democratic instruments, because people will always vote against having a nuclear waste deposit somewhere in their backyard. If you factor in the disposal costs and costs of the nuclear plant including decommissioning; it is by far the most expensive power source available. In fact it may not even be commercially successful without government funding. Building a plant now, which planning and getting permits and so on somewhere in europe takes at least 20 years time, most likely more. Solar and wind can be built now.
红迪网上支持核能的游说太荒唐了。虽然我完全同意核能是一些国家的一种选择。情况要比通常写的复杂得多。首先，虽然有一些现代的核能设计会很好。目前绝对没有一个可以用于商业用途（我喜欢比尔·盖茨试图推动的设计，但除了中国，似乎没人对它感兴趣）。而且，核电厂在拥有高级民主体制的国家也行不通，因为人们总是会投票反对在自家后院的某个地方存放核废料。如果你考虑到处置成本和核电站的成本，包括废弃，会发现它是目前为止最昂贵的能源。事实上，如果没有政府的资助，它甚至可能无法取得商业上的成功。现在建一个核电厂，在欧洲的某个地方规划和获得许可等至少需要20年的时间，很可能更长。而太阳能和风能电厂现在就可以建造。
Nuclear power plants are not economically viable anymore and a waste of money compared to renewable energy sources
与可再生能源相比，核电站在经济上不再可行，是一种浪费金钱的行为
Nuclear power is not energy efficient and not as clean as people believe it to be. Obviously France there in the list of supporters since they are like worlds 3rd largest in the business.
Don't follow headlines, follow the money.
核能并不像人们认为的那样节能和清洁。法国显然在支持者名单上，因为他们是世界第三大商业国家。
不要看新闻，要看钱。
Nuclear is extremely efficient, and far cleaner than any hydrocarbon based method. Modern Nuclear reactor designs that run on thorium produce almost zero radioactive waste and are much safer than older technologies. If we are going to solve the climate problem nuclear is going to part of the solution, but it’s going to require huge amounts of investment and a ton of work to change the public’s mind.
核能是非常高效的，而且比任何基于碳氢化合物的发电方法都要清洁得多。以钍为燃料的现代核反应堆设计几乎不会产生放射性废料，而且比旧技术安全得多。如果我们要解决气候问题，核能将是解决方案的一部分，但它需要大量的投资和大量的工作来改变公众的想法。
There are nuclear plants that use Plutonium
有使用钚的核电站
We definitely need nuclear to save the world from global warming. China definitely needs to build the plants they are planning.
我们绝对需要核能来拯救世界，使其免于全球变暖。中国肯定需要建造他们正在计划的核电厂。
its not worth it, why do you think nuclear plants don't allow planes flying over them? You need to dig more into the matter.
不值得的，你觉得为什么核电站不允许飞机飞越它们？你需要进一步调查这件事。
Nuclear is way greener than the current renewable. People really need to be properly educated on this
核能比目前的可再生能源环保得多。人们真的需要在这方面接受适当的教育
Nuclear is way greener than the current renewable
Is it though? Maybe the steam production is 'greener' than hydro, solar & wind production for the amounts of energy it produces. But if you factor in the Waste disposal - as of yet we have no solution for what so ever - i doubt its 'greener' than any other energy production.
“核能比目前的可再生能源环保得多”
然而是这样吗？也许蒸汽生产比水能、太阳能和风能生产更“绿色”。但如果你考虑到废料处理——到目前为止，我们还没有解决办法——我怀疑说它比任何其他能源生产“更环保”。
It's greener because the disposal of solar/wind etc equipment which only last all of 10 years or so is just as damaging to the environment. That's the part where most renewable energy advocate forgot. Also renewables are not reliable source of constant energy, very often countries using it actually need another source as backup. I'm not saying it's not good, it's just not as good as nuclear
它更环保，因为处理只能使用10年左右的太阳能/风能等设备对环境的破坏是一样的。这是大多数可再生能源倡导者忘记的部分。此外，可再生能源也不是稳定的能源来源，通常使用它的国家实际上需要另一种能源作为后备。我不是说可再生能源不好，只是它不如核能好
That's the party where most renewable energy advocate forgot.
What nuclear power advocates forget is the cost. Since Fukushima the cost for a new nuclear power plants skyrocketed due to new safety standards. Building one takes a decade & costs so much that they're not sustainable. Nuclear Energy is the most expensive energy you can produce, making it unattractive to build & run a power plant.
“这是大多数可再生能源倡导者忘记的部分”
核能倡导者忘记的是成本。自福岛核事故以来，由于新的安全标准，新建核电站的成本飙升。建造一座需要10年时间，成本太高，无法持续。核能是你能生产的最昂贵的能源，这使得建造和运行一个核电厂没有吸引力。
Stupid that this wasn’t a given from day one, but at least they’re getting it right in the end.
愚蠢的是，这个结论不是第一天就得出的，但至少他们在最后得出了正确结论。
It reminds me of a saying about trees. The best time to plant one was 20 years ago. The second best time to plant one is now.
For all my life, one of the major criticisms of nuclear power is "it takes 5-10 years to build a plant". Well, if instead of that argument winning the day 5, 10, 20 years ago we'd been building them ever since, we'd be in a much different situation, I think.
这让我想起了一句关于树的谚语。种植这这株树的最佳时间是20年前。第二好的种植时机就是现在。
在我的一生中，对核能的主要批评之一是“建一座核电站需要5-10年”。好吧，如果不是那场辩论在5年，10年，20年前赢了，而是自那之后我们一直在建造它们，我们今天的情况本会大不一样的。
As someone largely opposed to nuclear power plants, I don't think many would argue that slow-to-build is their biggest flaw. Though it admittedly is a flaw to think about - if we'd built nuclear reactors all over 20 years ago, we'd currently have a world full of old, leaky, corroding nuclear reactors based on old technology that aren't economically viable to fix up. (Not to mention the other certain and potential downsides)
It might not be quite as bad as the CO2 emissions we're facing now, but it still wouldn't be great.
作为一个很反对核电站的人，我不认为很多人会认为建造缓慢是它们最大的缺陷。尽管这是一个需要考虑的缺陷——如果我们在20年前就建造了核反应堆，我们现在的世界将充斥着陈旧的、泄漏的、腐蚀的、基于旧技术的核反应堆，在经济上无法修复。（更不用说其他确定的和潜在的负面影响了）
这可能没有我们现在面临的二氧化碳排放那么糟糕，但也不会太好。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Nuclear power plant licenses are typically 40+ years so I'm not sure how you get that ones built starting 20 years ago would be old and hazardous by now. At worst they, would be replacing the power lost from decommissioning much older plants with reliable baseload power, something renewables have never been able to accomplish at the industrial scales needed.
核电站的许可证通常需要40年以上的时间，所以我不确定你怎么能让那些20年前才开始建造的核电站“今天已经很老了，很危险”。在最坏的情况下，他们将用可靠的基载电力来替代老旧电厂失去的电力，这是可再生能源无法在工业规模上做到的。
Sadly, our government's green plan includes closing all nuclear reactors before 2035. Needless to say, this will obviously not happen.
Spain is already one of the countries that has invested the most in renewable energies. The government will have to face the harsh reality, that nuclear power plants are essential to our grid, otherwise we will have to start building coal and gas plants like in Germany, which contradicts the green plan itself
遗憾的是，我们政府的绿色计划包括在2035年前关闭所有的核反应堆。不用说，这显然不会发生。
西班牙已经是可再生能源投资最多的国家之一。政府将不得不面对残酷的现实，核电站对我们的电网至关重要，否则我们将不得不像德国一样开始建造煤电厂和燃气电厂，而这么做与绿色计划本身是矛盾的
The real question is: why not? It's leagues better than a lot of other options.
真正的问题是：为什么不算绿色能源呢？这比很多其他选择都要好。
The real answer is: It's too expensive to build, too expensive to maintain, and new reactors would not be built in time to tackle our climate issues. The current amount of reactors being build, will not even able to replace the ones being taken offline - even in countries that have a lot of them (like France).
Nuclear power is simply not economically viable.
真正的答案是：建造和维护成本都太高了，而且新反应堆无法及时建成来解决我们的气候问题。目前正在建造的反应堆数量，甚至无法取代那些正在关闭的反应堆——即使在拥有大量反应堆的国家（比如法国）。
核能在经济上根本不可行。
I don't know what we're going to do about the waste later, and smarter people will say it's too little and too late, but we sure as hell need nuclear to cut down on the bloody coal power we use now.
我不知道我们以后会对这些废料做些什么，聪明的人会说这太杯水车薪了，也太迟了，但我们确实需要核能来减少我们现在正在使用的该死的煤电。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
It's not perhaps sustainable in the long run but good for now. The only sustainable solution is to reduce consumption.
从长远来看，这可能是不可持续的，但就目前而言是好的。唯一可持续的解决办法是减少消费。