723683910
096-693546737
导航

您的位置:主页 > 摄影业务 >

「龙腾网」研究:若改用100%可再生能源每年将节约数千亿美元

本文摘要:正文翻译(A worker performs maintenance at the BlueWave Community Solar Farm in Grafton, Massachusetts on December 4, 2017.)(2017年12月4日,马萨诸塞州格拉夫顿市,一名工人在蓝潮社区太阳能农场举行维护。

亚博yabo

正文翻译(A worker performs maintenance at the BlueWave Community Solar Farm in Grafton, Massachusetts on December 4, 2017.)(2017年12月4日,马萨诸塞州格拉夫顿市,一名工人在蓝潮社区太阳能农场举行维护。)新闻:The report (pdf), No Place Like Home: Fighting Climate Change (And Saving Money) by Electrifying America's Households, published Wednesday by Rewiring America shows that a complete switch to clean energy sources like solar and wind would not only put the U.S. on a path toward zero emissions, but it would also save each household on average between $1,050 to $2,585 per year on utility bills. 周三公布的这份陈诉(pdf)(译注:链接)——《没有一个地方比家好:通过给美国家庭通电来应对气候变化(和省钱)》显示:完全改用太阳能和风能等清洁能源不仅会让美国走上零排放的门路,还会平均为每个家庭每年节约1050美元至2585美元的公用事业用度。"Too often we are told doing the right thing for the environment requires sacrifice and costs more," Adam Zurofsky, executive director of the energy policy organization, told The Guardian. "But no one is talking about the upside—we can actually make a better economy and save people money and a byproduct will be to cut emissions from residential buildings."能源政策组织执行主任亚当·祖罗夫斯基在接受《卫报》采访时表现:“我们经常被见告,为情况做正确的事情需要牺牲和花费更多。

但没有人在谈论反面——但我们实际上可以缔造更好的经济,节约人们的钱,而副产物将是淘汰排放。”But, the researchers explain, the process of extracting and delivering dirty energy to households and communities is enourmously wasteful and costly.可是,研究人员解释说,提取并将污染能源输送抵家庭和社区的历程却是很是浪费和昂贵的。If we "electrify" residential buildings and "decarbonize" what the authors call "life infrastructure" by lixing household consumption to renewable sources of power, we can reduce energy use, costs, and emissions, they say, and therefore "fight climate change starting right in our own homes."他们说,如果我们“电气化”住宅修建,并通过将家庭消费与可再生能源电力联系起来,使陈诉作者所称的“生活基础设施”“脱碳”,那我们就能淘汰能源的使用、成本和排放,从而“从我们自己的家里开始反抗气候变化”。The report states that "electrification is the only viable pathway to decarbonizing a household." The authors say that doing so "is possible with the technology we have now," giving several examples of changes that could be adopted:陈诉指出,“电气化是家庭脱碳的唯一可行途径。

”两位作者说,“在我们现有的技术条件下,”这样做是可能的,并给出了几个可以接纳的改变案例:"To make this all work," the report notes, "we need to install a bigger load center, wire in electric car chargers, and attach a battery capable of running the loads in the house for a half day or so."陈诉指出,“为了让所有这些行得通,我们需要在电动汽车充电器上安装一个更大的负荷中心、电线,并附加一个电池,使负载能够在家里运行半天左右。”One of the biggest barriers to change may be the high upfront costs associated with upgrading household infrastructure—yet, as the report points out, "we only succeed in fighting climate change if all households can transition to the new economy."改变的最大障碍之一可能是与升级家庭基础设施相关的高昂前期成本——然而,正如陈诉所指出的:“我们只有在所有家庭都能过渡到新(清洁)经济的情况下才气乐成应对气候变化。”In order to ensure an equitable and environmentally just future, the authors advocate harnessing the power of the state to implement "creative policy solutions," from low-cost financing to direct purchasing assistance for low- and moderate-income households and those with low credit scores. 为了确保一个公正和情况公正的未来,作者主张使用国家的气力来实施“缔造性的政策解决方案”,从低成本融资到对中低收入家庭和低信用评分居庭的直接购置援助。Transforming household energy consumption would not only result in the decarbonization of more that 40% of the U.S. economy, but the efficiency gains would also generate savings that "are more than enough to return money to households," Zurofsky said. 祖罗夫斯基说,转变家庭能源消费,不仅能使占美国经济40%以上的人口脱碳,而且能效的提高还能带来节约,“足以让家庭赚回更多的钱”。

As the report notes, "It is the poorest households that have the most to gain from household energy savings."正如陈诉所指出的那样:“最贫穷的家庭从家庭节能中获益最多。”The authors write that "if we apply the same technologies and approaches to the commercial sector, it would eliminate around 65% of emissions."作者写道:“如果我们将同样的技术和方法应用到商业领域,将淘汰约65%的排放。

”Bryan Snyder, an energy and environment expert at Louisiana State University, told The Guardian that such an undertaking would be difficult because it would require the country "to build an electrical generation system on top of our roofs that is the same size as contemporary U.S. generation," while regional inconsistencies in sunlight would add to the challenge. 路易斯安娜州立大学的能源和情况专家布莱恩·斯奈德在接受《卫报》采访时表现,这一任务很难题,因为这将要求美国“在我们的屋顶上建设一个与今世美国发电系统容量同样巨细的发电系统”,而地域间阳光的纷歧致性将增加挑战。Zurofsky retorted that the widespread adoption of rooftop solar power is feasible. "That does not mean it will be easy to do," he said, "or that we won't have to stretch our existing capacities to make it happen."祖罗夫斯基反驳说,广泛接纳屋顶太阳能是可行的。

“这并不意味着这很容易做到,”他说,“也不意味着我们不必动用现有的能力来实现它。”评论翻译thecoffeejesus We could use that money to create thousands of sustainable jobs.We won't, but we could.我们能用这笔钱缔造数千个可连续的就业时机。

我们不会,虽然我们能。AnaiekOne yeah...it wouldn't just SAVE hundreds of billions. it would DIVERT AND CREATE hundreds of billions.it would also AVERT potential TRILLIONS in losses and damages in the future. it's a no brainer.是的…这不仅能节约数千亿美元。它将转变能源结构并缔造数千亿美元。它还将制止未来可能泛起的数万亿美元的损失和损害。

这是显而易见的。YupYupDog That’s what I don’t get. They have to have noticed the shift away from fossil fuels. So why aren’t they transitioning away from it, even enough to make a hybrid business model? It doesn’t make sense to me.这就是我不明确的。他们必须注意到人们不再使用化石燃料的大趋势。那么,他们为什么还不转型,甚至不转酿成一种混淆的商业模式呢?这在我看来无法明白。

antiquated_bookworm Spot on. For the profit seekers, they look for short term rewards not sustainability.If only shareholders turn away from Friedmanite "greed is good", we would do better as society in tackling climate change. We're facing the biggest tragedy of the commons the world has ever seen.说到点上了。对于追求利润的人来说,他们追求的是短期回报,而不是可连续性。除非股东们摒弃弗里德曼的“贪婪是好事”,我们整个社会就会在应对气候变化方面做得更好。

但我们正面临着世界上有史以来最大的悲剧。nonotan Unfortunately, it's not really something shareholders can just one day decide to turn away from. It's an issue deep-rooted in the system itself. Fixing it will require basically tearing down our entire economic system and rebuilding it from scratch. And we should do just that, as soon as possible. Of course, those with the power to push for such a thing are precisely the ones benefiting from the status quo, so it doesn't take a genius to see why it's not going to happen short of a revolution.不幸的是,这并不是股东们哪天就能决议放弃的工具。

亚博yabo

这是一个根深蒂固的问题。要解决这个问题,基本上需要摧毁我们整个经济体系,然后重新开始重建。我们应该尽快这么做。

固然,那些有能力推动这样一件事的人恰恰是那些从现状中受益的人,所以不需要天才就能明确为什么不来一场革命它就不会发生。brickmaster32000 2 In the US it isn't just shareholders, it is the entire population. We continually pass on the message to each other that ultimately greed is what matters, greed makes things better, empathy is a thing of weakness and will only result in you being taken advantage of. When we choose to teach each new generation to be horrible people it should come as no surprise that we end up with a broken system.在美国,问题不只是股东,而是整小我私家口。我们不停地向相互通报这样的信息:终极的贪婪才是最重要的,贪婪让事情变得更好,同理心是一种软弱的工具,只会导致你被使用。当我们选择教诲新一代成为恐怖的人时,我们最终获得的是一个破碎的体系,这一点也不奇怪。

Knack-Jack I am not a climate denier but there is like 0% content in this article. It just has a single statistic citing how the average household could save money. Just a bit misleading of a title as there is zero breakdown of the study they reference. The details do matter, the article says it would create millions of jobs.... that’s really quite a bold statement in reality. So down vote me all you want but I had to mention this as it is a bit misleading.我不是一个气候变化否认者,但在这篇文章似乎全是空话。它只有一个统计数据来说明普通家庭是如何省钱的。

只是标题有点误导,因为他们引用的研究没有细分。细节很重要,文章说它将缔造数百万个事情岗位。

事实上,这是一个相当斗胆的声明。所以请踩我吧,但我不得不提到这一点,因为这有点误导人。

Typically_Ok Why does everyone who cares about the environment push for a complete wind and solar system? And then they completely avoid the issue of increased energy demand to switch to electric water heaters and furnaces?Nuclear energy and natural gas is far more efficient, much better for the environment, AND will reduce energy costs in the long term.为什么每个体贴情况的人都要推动一个彻底的风能和太阳能替代计划呢?然后他们完全回避了改用电热水器和电炉子带来的能源需求增加的问题?核能和天然气的效率要高得多,对情况也有利得多,而且从久远来看还会降低能源成本。yourmomz69420 We either leverage the potential of nuclear power (including developing fusion [hopefully], developing more and better nuclear powered spacecraft, and developing Helium 3 mining on the moon) or we never progress from our present situation and eventually regress, possibly all the way to extinction.Humanity has no progressive future without nuclear power.我们要么使用核能的潜力(包罗生长核聚变[希望如此],开发更多更好的核动力宇宙飞船,以及在月球上开发氦3矿),要么就永远无法从现在的状况中进步,最终倒退,甚至可能走向死亡。没有核能,人类就没有进步的未来。Tjj226_Angel This is not a study. This is basically a dubious advertisement for putting solar panels on your house. The only thing stopping most people from installing solar on their house in america isn't the cost of the solar panels. Its not the cost of installation. Its the damn permits that take up almost 33% of the budget.If state and local governments would stop taxing the shit out of people, maybe more people would have solar panels.这不是一项研究。

这基本上是一个在你的屋子上安装太阳能板的可疑广告。大多数人在他们的屋子上安装太阳能的唯一原因不是太阳能板的成本。不是安装用度。而是活该的许可证——险些占了预算的33%。

如果州政府和地方政府停止向人们征税,也许会有更多的人安装太阳能板。TerryScarchuk I don’t know what permits you’re pulling, but where I live the average cost of a whole-house solar array is around $15-20k installed while the electrical permit for the job is about $250. Solar panels are prohibitively expense for most consumers still. Which is unfortunate because if they weren’t I’d put them in tomorrow.我不知道你在拿什么许可证,但在我住的地方,安装一套太阳能电池板的平均成本约莫是1.5-2万美元,而这项事情的电气许可证约莫是250美元。对于大多数消费者来说,太阳能电池板的价钱仍然过高。这是很不幸的,因为如果不这么贵的话,我明天就会把它们安上去。

IO_engineer We can save billions if we spend trillions. I think we need to have an honest conversation what it really takes to go green. This is why it fails. We need fossil fuel to breach the gap and significant finance investment won't be cheap. But it is still worth it. Each side wins a little and the earth wins a lot.如果我们花费数万亿美元,就可以节约数十亿美元。我认为我们需要举行一个老实的对话,什么才是真正的绿色。这就是它失败的原因。我们需要化石燃料来填补这一缺口,大量的金融投资不会自制。

但这还是值得的。(新老能源)双方都赢了一点,而地球赢了许多。

yabo888vip

Mortar_Maggot But the it wouldn't make the right people rich! So we can't have it. The oil companies have known for decades that this is environmentally required, economically feasible, and that they could make more money by slowing it down as much as possible.但它的致富目的不“正确”!所以我们不能这么干。石油公司几十年前就知道,这在情况上是须要的,在经济上是可行的,可是他们可以通过尽可能地放慢改变速度来赚更多的钱。

DocsDelorean 100% renewable is a fucking pipe dream. It would take 600 years for all the battery factories in the world to make enough batteries to store enough energy to power the US for 1 day. Nuclear energy is the only way to go but democrats and liberals are against it. Idiots100%可再生能源只是个白天梦。世界上所有的电池工厂需要600年的时间才气制造出足够的电池来储存足够的为美国提供一天电力的能量。核能是唯一的出路,但民主党人和自由派人士都阻挡它。

呆子Tdanger78 The issue is that money isn’t going into the pockets of the super rich but the middle class. They don’t want this. They want to erase the middle class and turn this country into the haves and have nots like a feudal society. Look at what they’ve done at every opportunity to grab more money since Nixon was in office.问题在于,钱不是流入了超级富豪的口袋,而是流入了中产阶级的口袋。他们不想这样。

他们想消灭中产阶级,把这个国家酿成要么有要么没有的封建社会。看看自尼克松当政以来,他们抓住每一个时机攫取更多的钱所做的事情吧。buckeyebearcat Nuclear as our main source with some solar and wind. Clearly the way forward把核能作为我们的主要能源,再加一些太阳能和风能。很显着,这才是未来的门路MarkPapermasterHaving a grid that runs a 100% on renewable energy is currently impossible as demand and supply on a grid have to be equal. If battery technology keeps improving maybe in 10 - 20 years it will be possible.由于电网的需求和供应必须是相等的,要想让电网100%使用可再生能源现在是不行能的。

如果电池技术连续革新,在10 - 20年内这也许将成为可能。


本文关键词:「,龙腾,亚博yabo,网,」,研究,若,改用,100%,可,再生,能源

本文来源:亚博yabo-www.gdevergrande.com