英国家庭燃气锅炉排放的二氧化碳量是全国所有发电站排放总量的两倍
UK’s home gas boilers emit twice as much CO2 as all power stations
译文简介
“我们应该恢复所有的燃煤电厂，这样取暖器产生的二氧化碳就不会超过所有电厂排放量的两倍了。这样就行了，问题解决了。”——《卫报》报道。
正文翻译
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
英国家庭燃气锅炉排放的二氧化碳量是全国所有发电站排放总量的两倍
——研究人员称，数据显示，政府迫切需要采取行动推广低碳热泵
-Data highlights urgent need for government action to introduce low-carbon heat pumps, researchers say
英国家庭燃气锅炉排放的二氧化碳量是全国所有发电站排放总量的两倍
——研究人员称，数据显示，政府迫切需要采取行动推广低碳热泵
(High gas prices mean the energy bills of people living in poorly insulated homes will rise by up to £246 a year, research shows.)
（研究显示，高油价意味着，居住在隔热性能差的房屋里的人每年的电费将上涨246英镑。）
新闻简介：
一项分析显示，英国家庭中用于供暖的数以百万计的燃气锅炉产生的碳排放是全国燃气发电站的总排放量的两倍。
研究人员说，这一发现突显出迫切需要强有力的政府政策来迅速推广热泵等低碳供暖方式。
数据还显示，家用燃气锅炉产生的二氧化氮总量是发电厂的8倍。二氧化氮是一种空气污染物，与每年英国数万人的早逝有关。
一个名为“隔热英国”的抗议组织要求政府制定一项具有法律约束力的国家计划，在2030年前为英国所有家庭的低碳改造提供全额资金。该组织最近几周多次封锁了高速公路、A级公路以及多佛港口。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 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
“英国家庭燃气锅炉排放的二氧化碳量是全国所有发电站排放总量的两倍”
哦，好吧。但是，等一下：
“一项分析显示，英国家庭中用于供暖的数以百万计的燃气锅炉产生的碳排放是全国燃气发电站的总排放量的两倍。”
所以根本不是标题里说的那样。我知道我们大部分的化石燃料发电厂都使用天然气，但即便如此，这种标题也太tm误导人了
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.
我不得不更换我的燃气锅炉，但我实在不想换。不管是购买还是运营，都没有任何与其堪比的东西。新技术还没有出现。也许还得再过几年，就像所有的电动汽车一样。我现在对开暖气感觉很不好，但我必须开暖气。
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'?
这种技术没什么挖掘潜力了。
空气源热泵依赖的空调技术已经存在了几十年，已经榨不出更多的效率了。
问题是，每度电的成本是天然气的4到5倍。
除非你有太阳能电池板，否则用燃气锅炉给你的房子供暖几乎总是更便宜的，除非你花几万美元买一个地源热泵（除非它分散在多个房子上，否则你永远无法收回成本）。
这在冬天尤其糟糕，因为在英国，由于糟糕的保温效果/房子老旧，很多房子实际上需要在一天的大部分时间打开取暖器。
除非政府只是想让我们忍气吞气，把我们的能源账单翻倍或三倍，然后选择：
1、增加燃气成本（简单地强制转换，同成本问题相同）
2、大幅降低电力成本（但我们将通过税收或安装太阳能电池板/电池来支付）
3、补贴严重的保温项目和空气源热泵的安装，这样每热量单位成本的增加就不会因为电力使用量的整体减少而成为问题。
不管我们做什么，都要花一大笔钱，总得有人来承担。我们现在要回答的问题是“谁”来承担？
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.
热泵需要相当多的电力来运行，在16A到32A之间，如果不是更大的系统，用电更高的话。
考虑到一个英国家庭有60A、80A或（越来越少）100A的电力供应，这对家庭来说是相当大的需求，加上热泵取代了锅炉，意味着数以百万计的家庭有更多的新增16A电力供应，而且所有这些可能都会在相同的时间使用。
看看国家电网对此的计划会很有趣，我敢打赌，在我们开始将其作为一个国家项目之前，我们需要更多的发电、输电和配电基础设施提前就位。
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个燃气锅炉更换一个热泵，你也用一个热泵更换一个电阻取暖器，那你应该会得到一个相同的能量消耗。当然，这是在所有条件都相同，并且这些家庭之间的供暖需求都一样的前提下。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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，英国大约80%的供暖是由天然气提供的，更多的是由其他化石燃料锅炉提供的。电阻取暖器大约只占5%，所以你不会从这个公式中得到这么理想的结果。
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.
别忘了还要为所有的电动汽车增加额外的一代用电需求。我们的核电站的退役给我们的能源造成了巨大的缺口。
我们面临着超出现有供应能力的风险，再加上热泵替换等等，这在任何合理的时间框架内都是不可能实现的。
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.
我们有24小时的可使用电网，但我们实际上只用了12小时。虽然你说对了一半，但你的评论很老生常谈，而且有些言过其实。
当务之急是全面开展智能供电，这样我们就可以最大限度地利用现有的基础设施。需要首先做到这一点。
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.
如果我没记错，2008年的剑桥报告称，基本上我们国家的电力需求大约一半来自出行，一半来自用电。因此，向电动汽车的转变将需要供电能力翻倍，对每个家庭来说，电网是作为一个整体发电的。他们认定，核能必须被纳入其中，因为我们都必须在20年的时间里大幅减少二氧化碳的排放，同时大幅增加电力生产，经济增长也将继续给我们（的能源供应）带来压力。
热泵和电锅炉只是将能源的使用从化石燃料转移到了电力上的另一种方式，而且我们必须假定，电力供应也将被迫过渡到更绿色的来源上。
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.
你造成了一个误解。电动汽车的能量消耗（就热量而言）比汽油/柴油汽车少得多。一辆汽油/柴油汽车大约80%的能量都被浪费了（变成了热能而非动能）。如果我没记错，为一辆特斯拉和一辆普通汽油汽车充电/加油，以消耗汽油所释放的能量为计算标准，行驶相同的距离特斯拉只需要（燃油车）大约25%的能量。因此，通过转变为电动汽车，我们将大大减少总能源需求（因为即使是在发电厂燃烧化石燃料发电，效率也要比汽车发动机燃烧高得多）。所以在现实中，我们不需要增加一倍的发电量。当然，我们也可以继续在我们使用电力的其他场景进行效率节约，进一步减少能源需求的总体增长。
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.
没有“高得多”。
燃气轮机的发电效率非常低——在传输和供电过程中额外的能量损失。
我认为电动车总体来讲看仍然是很棒的，但与现代内燃机放一起就没有可比性了。
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.
重点是，即使你一夜之间把所有汽车都换成电动汽车，我们也不需要将发电量增加一倍，也不需要应对两倍于当前电网的电力。当然，最大的改进将是我们能否用非化石燃料产生的能源为汽车充电。
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.
考虑到大型发电厂的效率更高，我们这样做可以在减少污染的情况下获得同样的能源。
电动汽车也有同样的好处，用一个大引擎驱动100辆汽车比用100个小引擎驱动100辆汽车更好。
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.
这是不正确的。
你的说法对汽车来说可能是正确的，因为内燃机在将能量转化为动能时效率相当低。电动汽车效率高得多。尽管我们在任何发电长都不会燃烧汽油来发电，我们实际上无法比较这两个过程中哪个消耗的汽油量最少。
但对于燃气锅炉来说，情况就完全不同了。它们在家庭供暖方面非常高效（90%以上）。而另一方面，天然气发电长的发电效率非常低，只有20-35%。尽管电力锅炉的效率是100%，但首先发电的成本意味着要燃烧4倍的天然气。
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
你根本不知道你在说什么——20-35%是老燃煤电厂的效率水平。现代天然气发电厂的效率是50-60%。
伙计，别评论了
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.
想想从100年前到今天发电和输电的增长规模吧，这是可以做到的，不会有问题的。
而且房子也不会突然都装上了热泵，这个推广进程会非常缓慢。
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.
美国国家电网正计划广泛采用电动汽车，这是可以接受的，因为这只会增加约25%的用电量，而其中大部分可以通过激励措施或监管措施转移到夜间。
但热泵就是一个非常不同的问题了。它们会使我们的电力需求翻倍，而且在电力已经短缺的冬天，你还需要在白天取暖。
到目前为止，还没有任何可行的靠谱方案。
statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
统计数据就像比基尼。它们所呈现的是暗示性的，但它们所掩盖的才是至关重要的。
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.
我们应该恢复所有的燃煤电厂，这样取暖器产生的二氧化碳就不会超过所有电厂排放量的两倍了。这样就行了，问题解决了。
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!!
抛开玩笑不谈，所谓“绿色能源”就是在“洗绿”。如果我们用这么多天然气来取暖，那么我们现在还是在高度依赖化石燃料！！
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.
这是一个心理行动，旨在让你去指责你的邻居，并在自己的家里挨冻。当大部队都在向大气中倾倒垃圾时，个人的行动毫无意义。
政府可以提供帮助，让房屋更好地保暖，并通过减少热量损失使锅炉更高效，但这样你就不会因为4号房子的锅炉多久开一次而和隔壁的老王争吵了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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，又有一篇文章将气候变化归咎于大众，而不是关注真正最重要的问题。
最糟糕的是，在英国，许多贫困的人甚至负担不起升级和使用天然气取暖的费用。
这一切都是通过企业和政府的决定产生的，尽管媒体只是想让我们所有人在我们自己之间内斗，这样压力就不会转移到它应该去的地方了。
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
所以我们的想法是在接下来的8年里安装2000多万个电加热系统并完全保温化改造这些房子？这是不可能做到的
Trying to do it is better than doing nothing
做总比什么都不做强吧
That rather depends. Inappropriate solutions can create more problems than they solve.
那得看了。不恰当的解决方案产生的问题比它们解决的问题还要多。
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!
如果我们投入了足够的资源，这可能并不是“不可能做到的”，但我同意你的观点，那将是困难的。
但为什么不试试呢？即使我们在接下来的8年里只完成了几百万个改造，这也比一个小数字要好，尝试了会比不尝试让我们能更快达到2000万个！
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.
前提是我们愿意调动如此大规模的资源，尽管我怀疑这是不是最有效的利用资源的方式。即使只是更换旧锅炉也会产生很大的不同，然后你可以做一些事情，比如公共交通基础设施，改善保温。
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
只有通过武力和奴役才能获得所需的物资和人力。
90%的新锅炉被设计为使用氢气和天然气。这是一个相当容易实现的现实选择，并且已经开始行动了。制造氢气的问题是存在的，但这与需要通过可再生能源解决的电力使用量增加没有什么不同。
天然气锅炉本身在整体上也是相当高效的，以现代锅炉系统取代旧的锅炉系统将会产生巨大的不同。使用更高效的取暖器，并对人们的房屋进行基本的保暖改进也会产生很大的不同。增加窗户和门的升级资金。通过所有我们可以合理做的事情来提高效率和降低使用率
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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，把所有人都转换成电力供暖系统……那么，给每个人的家供暖和给电动汽车充电的电力要从哪里来呢？
热泵需要电才能工作，存储加热器/电取暖器需要电才能工作，汽车充电需要电才能工作，工厂等也需要电才能工作。
对于英国来说，一场完美风暴（类似于德克萨斯州发生的情况）会是一周的寒冷、阴天和无风的冬季天气。人们试图给家庭供暖，给汽车充电，但风力涡轮机和太阳能电池板无法产生足够的电力。如果人们恐慌性给他们的车充电会发生什么？
如果我们要（在不靠天然气发电厂的情况下）实现这一转变，那么我们就必须大规模投资核能和可再生能源的存储技术。
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.
事实上，电网的峰值需求将在未来几十年里大幅增长，这一点现在已经得到了很好的证实。毫无疑问，在新一代、传输和存储能力方面将会有各种各样的投资。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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.
当然。在销售和安装了数千台所谓的节能型燃气锅炉之后。现在它们要被拆了，要换掉它们。这是多大的浪费啊。汽车也一样。“环保-推销”的骗局。
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.
我不确定这是不是浪费。冷凝燃气锅炉比之前的老锅炉更高效，当我们在下一个十年取代它们时，将换成更低排放的设备。他们并不是说要退回去购买新的锅炉，而是说要最终停止新锅炉的销售。
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.
谁将为此买单，这是一个大问题。如果政府愿意支付，那么你的税就会增加。我因为说（增加）30%的税而被嘲笑，但像这样的事情总归是要买单的。
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 $$$
这整个“把责任推到个人身上”是愚蠢的。
如果所有发展中国家都盯着我们说“我们也想像你们这样”而我们却转过身说“不行，你们得限制你们的发展”那么这样做就没有意义了
去tmd。
我们需要真正研究新技术，政府需要大量投资新的有风险的绿色技术，并向发展中国家表明，如果它们变得绿色，它们就会得到更多的钱
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，如果我们现在停止使用它们，发电站要产生多少二氧化碳来为我们供暖呢？还是说我们直接都被冻死就好了？
None, if we actually built enough nuclear power stations like France.
如果我们真的像法国那样建造足够多的核电站，就不会是这个结果了。
Yet heating home using the power produced at said stations loses 40-60% of energy efficiency.
然而，使用这些发电厂产生的电力为家庭供暖会损失40-60%的能源效率。
Whats the alternative? A heat pump is not a possibility for many.
替代方案是什么？热泵对许多人来说是不可能的。
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，所以现在我们的基础设施是狗屎，我们的政府没有投资可再生能源都是公众的错了。