比尔盖茨TED演讲
Bill Gates2010TED演讲稿
精品文档Bill Gates 2010年TED演讲稿I'm going to talk today about energy and climate.And that might seem a bit surprising becausemy full-time work at the foundation is mostly about vaccines and seeds,about the things that we need to invent and deliverto help the poorest two billion live better lives.But energy and climate are extremely important to these people,in fact, more important than to anyone else on the planet.The climate getting worse, means that many years their crops won't grow.There will be too much rain, not enough rain.Things will change in waysthat their fragile environment simply can't support.And that leads to starvation. It leads to uncertainty. It leads to unrest.So, the climate changes will be terrible for them.Also, the price of energy is very important to them.In fact, if you could pick just one thing to lower the price of,to reduce poverty, by far, you would pick energy.Now, the price of energy has come down over time.Really, advanced civilization is based on advances in energy.The coal revolution fueled the industrial revolution,and, even in the 1900's we've seen a very rapid decline in the price of electricity,and that's why we have refrigerators, air-conditioning,we can make modern materials and do so many things.And so, we're in a wonderful situation with electricity in the rich world.But, as we make it cheaper -- and let's go for making it twice as cheap --we need to meet a new constraint,and that constraint has to do with CO. 2CO is warming the planet,2and the equation on CO is actually a very straightforward one. 2If you sum up the CO that gets emitted, 2that leads to a temperature increase,and that temperature increase leads to some very negative effects.The effects on the weather and, perhaps worse, the indirect effects,in that the natural ecosystems can't adjust to these rapid changes,and so you get ecosystem collapses.Now, the exact amount of how you mapfrom a certain increase of CO to what temperature will be 2and where the positive feedbacks are, there's some uncertainty there, but not very much.And there's certainly uncertainty about how bad those effects will be,but they will be extremely bad.I asked the top scientists on this several times,do we really have to get down to near zero?Can't we just cut it in half or a quarter?.精品文档And the answer is that, until we get near to zero,the temperature will continue to rise.And so that's a big challenge.It's very different than saying we're a 12 ft high truck trying to get under a 10 ft bridge,and we can just sort of squeeze under.This is something that has to get to zero.Now, we put out a lot of carbon dioxide every year,over 26 billion tons.For each American, it's about 20 tons.For people in poor countries, it's less than one ton.It's an average of about five tons for everyone on the planet.And, somehow, we have to make changesthat will bring that down to zero.It's been constantly going up.It's only various economic changes that have even flattened it at all,so we have to go from rapidly risingto falling, and falling all the way to zero.This equation has four factors.A little bit of multiplication.So, you've got a thing on the left, CO, that you want to get to zero, 2and that's going to be based on the number of people,the services each person's using on average,the energy on average for each service,and the CO being put out per unit of energy. 2So, let's look at each one of theseand see how we can get this down to zero.Probably, one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero.Now that's back from high school algebra,but let's take a look.First we've got population.Now, the world today has 6.8 billion people.That's headed up to about nine billion.Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines,health care, reproductive health services,we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent,but there we see an increase of about 1.3.The second factor is the services we use.This encompasses everything,the food we eat, clothing, TV, heating.These are very good things,and getting rid of poverty means providing these servicesto almost everyone on the planet.And it's a great thing for this number to go up.In the rich world, perhaps the top one billion,.精品文档we probably could cut back and use less,but every year, this number, on average, is going to go up,and so, over all, that will more than doublethe services delivered per person.Here we have a very basic service.Do you have lighting in your house to be able to read your homework,and, in fact, these kids don't, so they're going outand reading their school work under the street lamps.Now, efficiency, E, the energy for each service,here, finally we have some good news.We have something that's not going up.Through various inventions and new ways of doing lighting,through different types of cars, different ways of building buildings.there are a lot of services where you can bringthe energy for that service down quite substantially,some individual services even, bring it down by 90 percent.There are other services like how we make fertilizer,or how we do air transport,where the rooms for improvement are far, far less.And so, overall here, if we're optimistic,we may get a reduction of a factor of three to even, perhaps, a factor of six.But for these first three factors now,we've gone from 26 billion to, at best, maybe 13 billion tons,and that just won't cut it.So let's look at this fourth factor --this is going to be a key one --and this is the amount of CO put out per each unit of energy. 2And so the question is, can you actually get that to zero?If you burn coal, no.If you burn natural gas, no.Almost every way we make electricity today,except for the emerging renewables and nuclear, puts out CO. 2And so, what we're going to have to do at a global scale,is create a new system.And so, we need energy miracles.Now, when I use the term miracle, I don't mean something that's impossible.The microprocessor is a miracle. The personal computer is a miracle.The internet and its services are a miracle.So, the people here have participated in the creation of many miracles.Usually, we don't have a deadline,where you have to get the miracle by a certain date.Usually, you just kind of stand by, and some come along, some don't.This is a case where we actually have to drive full speedand get a miracle in a pretty tight time line..精品文档Now, I thought, how could I really capture this?Is there some kind of natural illustration,some demonstration that would grab people's imagination here?I thought back to a year ago when I brought mosquitos,and somehow people enjoyed that.(Laughter)It really got them involved in the idea of,you know, there are people who live with mosquitos.So, with energy, all I could come up with is this.I decided that releasing fireflieswould be my contribution to the environment here this year.So here we have some natural fireflies.I'm told they don't bite, in fact, they might not even leave that jar.(Laughter)Now, there's all sorts gimmicky solutions like that one,but they don't really add up to much.We need solutions, either one or several,that have unbelievable scaleand unbelievable reliability,and, although there's many directions people are seeking,I really only see five that can achieve the big numbers.I've left out tide, geothermal, fusion, biofuels.Those may make some contribution,and if they can do better than I expect, so much the better,but my key point hereis that we're going to have to work on each of these five,and we can't give up any of them because they look daunting,because they all have significant challenges.Let's look first at the burning fossil fuels,either burning coal or burning natural gas.What you need to do there, seems like it might be simple, but it's not,and that's to take all the CO, after you've burned it, going out the flue, 2pressurize it, create a liquid, put it somewhere,and hope it stays there.Now we have some pilot things that do this at the 60 to 80 percent level,but getting up to that full percentage, that will be very tricky,and agreeing on where these CO quantities should be put will be hard, 2but the toughest one here is this long term issue.Who's going to be sure?Who's going to guarantee something that is literally billions of times largerthan any type of waste you think of in terms of nuclear or other things? This is a lot of volume.So that's a tough one.Next, would be nuclear..精品文档It also has three big problems.Cost, particularly in highly regulated countries, is high.The issue of the safety, really feeling good about nothing could go wrong, that, even though you have these human operators,that the fuel doesn't get used for weapons.And then what do you do with the waste?And, although it's not very large, there are a lot of concerns about that. People need to feel good about it.So three very tough problems that might be solvable,and so, should be worked on.The last three of the five, I've grouped together.These are what people often refer to as the renewable sources.And they actually -- although it's great they don't require fuel --they have some disadvantages.One is that the density of energy gathered in these technologiesis dramatically less than a power plant.This is energy farming, so you're talking about many square miles, thousands of time more area than you think of as a normal energy plant. Also, these are intermittent sources.The sun doesn't shine all day, it doesn't shine every day,and, likewise, the wind doesn't blow all the time.And so, if you depend on these sources,you have to have some way of getting the energyduring those time periods that it's not available.So, we've got big cost challenges here.We have transmission challenges.For example, say this energy source is outside your country,you not only need the technology,but you have to deal with the risk of the energy coming from elsewhere. And, finally, this storage problem.And, to dimensionalize this, I went through and looked atall the types of batteries that get made,for cars, for computers, for phones, for flashlights, for everything,and compared that to the amount of electrical energy the world uses, and what I found is that all the batteries we make nowcould store less than 10 minutes of all the energy.And so, in fact, we need a big breakthrough here,something that's going to be a factor of a hundred betterthan the approaches we have now.It's not impossible, but it's not a very easy thing.Now, this shows up when you try to get the intermittent sourceto be above, say, 20 to 30 percent of what you're using.If you're counting on it for 100 percent,you need an incredible miracle battery..精品文档Now, how we're going to go forward on this: what's the right approach?Is it a Manhattan project? What's the thing that can get us there?Well, we need lots of companies working on this, hundreds.In each of these five paths, we need at least a hundred people.And a lot of them, you'll look at and say they're crazy. That's good.And, I think, here in the TED group,we have many people who are already pursuing this.Bill Gross has several companies, including one called e-Solarthat has some great solar thermal technologies.Vinod Khosla's investing in dozens of companiesthat are doing great things and have interesting possibilities,and I'm trying to help back that.Nathan Myhrvold and I actually are backing a companythat, perhaps surprisingly, is actually taking the nuclear approach.There are some innovations in nuclear: modular, liquid.And innovation really stopped in this industry quite some ago,so the idea that there's some good ideas laying around is not all that surprising. The idea of Terrapower is that, instead of burning a part of uranium,the one percent, which is the U235,we decided, let's burn the 99 percent, the U238.It is kind of a crazy idea.In fact, people had talked about it for a long time,but they could never simulate properly whether it would work or not,and so it's through the advent of modern supercomputersthat now you can simulate and see that, yes,with the right material's approach, this looks like it would work.And, because you're burning that 99 percent,you have greatly improved cost profile.You actually burn up the waste, and you can actually use as fuelall the leftover waste from today's reactors.So, instead of worrying about them, you just take that. It's a great thing.It breathes this uranium as it goes along. So it's kind of like a candle.You can see it's a log there, often referred to as a traveling wave reactor.In terms of fuel, this really solves the problem.I've got a picture here of a place in Kentucky.This is the left over, the 99 percent,where they've taken out the part they burn now,so it's called depleted uranium.That would power the U.S. for hundreds of years.And, simply by filtering sea water in an inexpensive process,you'd have enough fuel for the entire lifetime of the rest of the planet.So, you know, it's got lots of challenges ahead,but it is an example of the many hundreds and hundreds of ideasthat we need to move forward..精品文档So let's think, how should we measure ourselves?What should our report card look like?Well, let's go out to where we really need to get,and then look at the intermediate.For 2050, you've heard many people talk about this 80 percent reduction.That really is very important, that we get there.And that 20 percent will be used up by things going on in poor countries,still some agriculture.Hopefully, we will have cleaned up forestry, cement.So, to get to that 80 percent,the developed countries, including countries like China,will have had to switch their electricity generation altogether.So, the other grade is, are we deploying this zero-emission technology,have we deployed it in all the developed countriesand we're in the process of getting it elsewhere.That's super important.That's a key element of making that report card.So, backing up from there, what should the 2020 report card look like?Well, again, it should have the two elements.We should go through these efficiency measures to start getting reductions.The less we emit, the less that sum will be of CO, 2and, therefore, the less the temperature. But in some ways, the grade we get there,doing things that don't get us all the way to the big reductions,is only equally, or maybe even slightly less, important than the other,which is the piece of innovation on these breakthroughs.These breakthroughs, we need to move those at full speed,and we can measure that in terms of companies,pilot projects, regulatory things that have been changed.There's a lot of great books that have been written about this.The Al Gore book, Our Choiceand the David McKay book, Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air.They really go through it and create a frameworkthat this can be discussed broadly,because we need broad backing for this.There's a lot that has to come together.So this is a wish.It's a very concrete wish that we invent this technology.If you gave me only one wish for the next 50 years,I could pick who's president,I could pick a vaccine, which is something I love,or I could pick that this thingthat's half the cost with no CO gets invented, 2this is the wish I would pick..精品文档This is the one with the greatest impact.If we don't get this wish,the division between the people who think short term and long term will be terrible,between the U.S. and China, between poor countries and rich,and most of all the lives of those two billion will be far worse.So, what do we have to do?What am I appealing to you to step forward and drive?We need to go for more research funding.When countries get together in places like Copenhagen,they shouldn't just discuss the CO.2They should discuss this innovation agenda,and you'd be stunned at the ridiculously low levels of spendingon these innovative approaches.We do need the market incentives, CO tax, cap and trade, 2something that gets that price signal out there.We need to get the message out.We need to have this dialogue be a more rational, more understandable dialogue,including the steps that the government takes.This is an important wish, but it is one I think we can achieve.Thank you.(Applause)Thank you.Chris Anderson: Thank you. Thank you.(Applause)Thank you. Just so I understand more about Terrapower, right --I mean, first of all, can you give a sense of what scale of investment this is?Bil Gates: To actually do the software, buy the supercomputer,hire all the great scientists, which we've done,that's only tens of millions,and even once we test our materials out in a Russian reactorto make sure our materials work properly,then you'll only be up in the hundreds of millions.The tough thing is building the pilot reactor,finding the several billion, finding the regulator, the locationthat will actually build the first one of these.Once you get the first one built, if it works as advertised,then it's just clear as day, because the economics, the energy density,are so different than nuclear as we know it.CA: And so, to understand it right, this involves building deep into the ground almost like a vertical kind of column of nuclear fuel,of this sort of spent uranium,and then the process starts at the top and kind of works down?.精品文档BG: That's right. Today, you're always refueling the reactor,so you have lots of people and lots of controls that can go wrong,that thing where you're opening it up and moving things in and out.That's not good.So, if you have very cheap fuel that you can put 60 years in --just think of it as a log --put it down and not have those same complexities.And it just sits there and burns for the sixty years, and then it's done.CA: It's a nuclear power plant that is its own waste disposal solution.BG: Yeah. Well, what happens with the waste,you can let it sit there -- there's a lot less waste under this approach --then you can actually take that,and put it into another one and burn that.And we start off actually by taking the waste that exists today,that's sitting in these cooling pools or dry casking by reactor.That's our fuel to begin with.So, the thing that's been a problem from those reactorsis actually what gets fed into ours,and you're reducing the volume of the waste quite dramaticallyas you're going through this process.CA: But in your talking to different people around the worldabout the possibilities here,where is there most interest in actually doing something with this?BG: Well, we haven't picked a particular place,and there's all these interesting disclosure rules about anything that's called nuclear, so we've got a lot of interest,that people from the company have been in Russia, India, China.I've been back seeing the secretary of energy here,talking about how this fits into the energy agenda.So I'm optimistic. You know the French and Japanese have done some work.This is a variant on something that has been done.It's an important advance, but it's like a fast reactor,and a lot of countries have built them,so anybody who's done a fast reactor, is a candidate to be where the first one gets built. CA: So, in your mind, timescale and likelihoodof actually taking something like this live?BG: Well, we need, for one of these high-scale, electro-generation thingsthat's very cheap,we have 20 years to invent and then 20 years to deploy.That's sort of the deadline that the environmental modelshave shown us that we have to meet.And, you know, Terrapower, if things go well, which is wishing for a lot,could easily meet that.And there are, fortunately now, dozens of companies,.精品文档we need it to be hundreds,who, likewise, if their science goes well,if the funding for their pilot plants goes well,that they can compete for this.And it's best if multiple succeed,because then you could use a mix of these things.We certainly need one to succeed.CA: In terms of big-scale possible game changes,is this the biggest that you're aware of out there?BG: An energy breakthrough is the most important thing.It would have been, even without the environmental constraint,but the environmental constraint just makes it so much greater.In the nuclear space, there are other innovators.You know, we don't know their work as well as we know this one,but the modular people, that's a different approach.There's a liquid type reactor, which seems a little hard,but maybe they say that about us.And so, there are different ones,but the beauty of this is a molecule of uraniumhas a million times as much energy as a molecule of, say, coal,and so, if you can deal with the negatives,which are essentially the radiation,the footprint and cost, the potential,in terms of effect on land and various things,is almost in a class of its own.CA: If this doesn't work, then what?Do we have to start taking emergency measuresto try and keep the temperature of the earth stable?BG: If you get into that situation,it's like if you've been over-eating, and you're about to have a heart-attack.Then where do you go? You may need heart surgery or something.There is a line of research on what's called geoengineering,which are various techniques that would delay the heatingto buy us 20 or 30 years to get our act together.Now, that's just an insurance policy.You hope you don't need to do that.Some people say you shouldn't even work on the insurance policybecause it might make you lazy,that you'll keep eating because you know heart surgery will be there to save you.I'm not sure that's wise, given the importance of the problem,but there's now the geoengineering discussionabout, should that be in the back pocket in case things happen faster,or this innovation goes a lot slower than we expect.CA: Climate skeptics: if you had a sentence or two to say to them,.精品文档how might you persuade them that they're wrong?BG: Well, unfortunately, the skeptics come in different camps.The ones who make scientific arguments are very few.Are they saying there's negative feedback effectsthat have to do with clouds that offset things?There are very, very few things that they can even saythere's a chance in a million of those things.The main problem we have here is kind of like AIDS.You make the mistake now, and you pay for it a lot later.And so, when you have all sorts of urgent problems,the idea of taking pain now that has to do with a gain later --and a somewhat uncertain pain thing.In fact, the IPCC report, that's not necessarily the worst case,and there are people in the rich world who look at IPCCand say, okay, that isn't that big of a deal.The fact is it's that uncertain part that should move us towards this.But my dream here is that, if you can make it economic,and meet the CO constraints, 2then the skeptics say, okay,I don't care that it doesn't put out CO, 2I kind of wish it did put out CO 2but I guess I'll accept it because it's cheaper than what's come before.(Applause)CA: And so, that would be your response to the Bjorn Lomborg argument,that basically if you spend all this energy trying to solve the CO problem, 2it's going to take away all your other goalsof trying to rid the world of poverty and malaria and so forth,[that] it's a stupid waste of the Earth's resources to put money towards thatwhen there are better things we can do.BG: Well, the actual spending on the R&D piece --say the U.S. should spend 10 billion a year more than it is right now --it's not that dramatic.It shouldn't take away from other things.The thing you get into big money on, and this, reasonable people can disagree, is when you have something that's non-economic and you're trying to fund that. That, to me, mostly is a waste.Unless you're very close and you're just funding the learning curveand it's going to get very cheap.I believe we should try more things that have a potentialto be far less expensive.If the trade-off you get into is, let's make energy super expensive,then the rich can afford that.I mean, all of us here could pay five times as much for our energyand not change our lifestyle..精品文档The disaster is for that two billion.And even Lomborg has changed.His shtick now is, why isn't the R&D getting discussed more.He's still, because of his earlier stuff,still associated with the skeptic camp,but he's realized that's a pretty lonely camp,and so, he's making the R&D point.And so there is a thread of something that I think is appropriate.The R&D piece, it's crazy how little it's funded.CA: Well Bill, I suspect I speak on the behalf of most people hereto say, I really hope your wish comes true. Thank you so much.BG: Thank you.(Applause).。
比尔盖茨ted演讲
比尔盖茨ted演讲TED(指technology, entertainment, design在英语中的缩写，即技术、娱乐、设计)是美国的一家私有非营利机构，该机构以它组织的TED大会著称，这个会议的宗旨是“值得传播的创意”。
TED诞生于1984年，其发起人是理查德·索·乌曼。
2001年起，克里斯·安德森接管TED，创立了种子基金会(The Sapling Foundation)，并运营TED大会。
下面小编为你介绍比尔盖茨在TED的演讲，希望能帮到你。
中英文演讲稿：Stanford University。
(斯坦福大学)BILL GATES: Congratulations, class of 2014!比尔·盖茨：2014届毕业生，祝贺你们顺利毕业(Cheers)。
(欢呼)Melinda and I are excited to be here. It would be a thrill for anyone to be invited to speak at a Stanford commencement, but it's especially gratifying for us. Stanford is rapidly becoming the favorite university for members of our family, and it's long been a favorite university for Microsoft and our foundation。
我和梅琳达怀着激动的心情与你们欢聚在此共贺毕业。
能受邀到斯坦福大学学位授予典礼上做演讲是一件让人激动的事，对我们而言，这尤为荣幸。
斯坦福大学正日渐成为我们家庭成员最喜爱的大学。
而长久以来，斯坦福也是微软以及比尔与梅琳达基金会最喜爱的一所大学。
”Our formula has been to get the smartest, most creative people working on the most important problems. It turns out that a disproportionate number of those people are at Stanford. (Cheers)。
最新-比尔盖茨哈佛演讲稿 比尔盖茨夫妇TED演讲稿 精品
比尔盖茨哈佛演讲稿比尔盖茨夫妇TED演讲稿几月后,我们结婚了,我们想通过这次旅行看看野生动物和热带草原.真是太美了.比尔和我从来没有放过这么长的假.但是真正让我们深受触动的是那儿的人,那儿的贫穷.我们开始扪心自问,一切只能是这样吗？BillGates:Well,wedecidedthatwe"dpicktwocauses,whateverthebiggestinequ itywasglobally,andtherewelookedatchildrendying,childrennothavingenoug hnutritiontoeverdevelop,andcountriesthatwerereallystuck,becausewithth atlevelofdeath,andparentswouldhavesomanykidsthatthey"dgethugepopulati ongrowth,andthatthekidsweresosickthattheyreallycouldn"tbeeducatedandl iftthemselvesup.Sothatwasourglobalthing,andthenintheU.S.,bothofushave hadamazingeducations,andwesawthatasthewaythattheU.S.couldliveuptoitsp romiseofequalopportunityisbyhavingaphenomenaleducationsystem,andthemo rewelearned,themorewerealizedwe"renotreallyfulfillingthatpromise.比尔·盖茨：我们决定选择两个方面：任何世界上最不公平的事,这指的是垂死的儿童,营养跟不上的儿童,因为高死亡率发展停滞不前的国家,国家人口剧长,孩子病得太重,他们没法受教育养活自己.这是世界的情况,而在美国,我们夫妻俩都受过良好的教育,我们看到美国实现机会平等这一承诺的途径就是其良好的教育体系.我们了解的越多,就越深刻地意识到我们并没有完全兑现我们的承诺.Sothisisastorylargelyofvaccines.Smallpoxwaskillingacouplemillionki dsayear.Thatwaseradicated,sothatgotdowntozero.Measleswaskillingacoupl emillionayear.That"sdowntoafewhundredthousand.Anyway,thisisachartwher eyouwanttogetthatnumbertocontinue,andit"sgoingtobepossible,usingthesc ienceofnewvaccines,gettingthev.accinesouttokids.Wecanactuallyacceleratetheprogress.所以这个故事主要说的是疫苗.以前,每年有几百万的儿童死于天花.现在我们摆脱它了,死亡数变成了零.每年有百万人死于麻疹,现在这个数字是几十万.总之,在这张图表中,如果你让数字继续下去,就有可能利用新疫苗技术为儿童提供疫苗.我们可以加快这个进程.Becausewebuiltthisthingtogetherfromthebeginning,it'sthisgreatpartn ership.IhadthatwithPaulAllenintheearlydaysofMicrosoft.IhaditwithSteve BallmerasMicrosoftgotbigger,andnowMelinda,andinevenstronger,equalways ,isthepartner,sowetalkalotaboutwhichthingsshouldwegivemoreto,whichgro upsareworkingwellShe'sgotalotofinsight.She'llsitdownwiththeemployeesa lot.We'lltakethedifferenttripsshedescribed.Sothere'salotofcollaborati on.Ican'tthinkofanythingwhereoneofushadasuperstrongopinionaboutonethi ngoranother因为我们从零开始建立了它,这是一种绝妙的伙伴关系.微软早期,我曾和保罗·艾伦有那种伙伴关系.微软的成长期我有史蒂夫·巴摩,现在微软更强了,梅琳达以一种更稳固,更平等的方式成为了我的伙伴.我们谈论了很多,哪些事情更应该重视,哪一个团队运作的很好？她有很多深刻见解.她能和员工打成一片.我们各自出行,就像她说的,我们也有很多合作.我想不出有哪件事一方的主张特别强烈.Well,Iwouldsayahugelessonforusoutoftheearlyworkiswethoughtthatthesesm allschoolsweretheanswer,andsmallschoolsdefinitelyhelp.Theybringdownth edropoutrate.Theyhavelessviolenceandcrimeinthoseschools.Butthethingth atwelearnedfromthatwork,andwhatturnedouttobethefundamentalkey,isagrea tteacherinfrontoftheclassroom.Ifyoudon'thaveaneffectiveteacherinthefr ontoftheclassroom,Idon'tcarehowbigorsmallthebuildingis,you'renotgoing tochangethetrajectoryofwhetherthatstudentwillbereadyforcollege.我想说的是一个深刻的教训,工作早期,我们以为小规模的学校就是解决办法,当然小规模学校有一定作用,可以减少辍学率.学校内的暴力事件和犯罪比较低.但是我们从工作中学到的,也是最重要的一件事就是课堂上必须有个好老师.如果没有有效率的老师,无论教室大或小,你都不可能改变学生是否已经准备好上大学的轨迹.。
bill-gatested演讲稿知识讲解
B i l l-G a t e s2010T E D演讲稿Bill Gates 2010年TED演讲稿I'm going to talk today about energy and climate.And that might seem a bit surprising becausemy full-time work at the foundation is mostly about vaccines and seeds,about the things that we need to invent and deliverto help the poorest two billion live better lives.But energy and climate are extremely important to these people,in fact, more important than to anyone else on the planet.The climate getting worse, means that many years their crops won't grow. There will be too much rain, not enough rain.Things will change in waysthat their fragile environment simply can't support.And that leads to starvation. It leads to uncertainty. It leads to unrest.So, the climate changes will be terrible for them.Also, the price of energy is very important to them.In fact, if you could pick just one thing to lower the price of,to reduce poverty, by far, you would pick energy.Now, the price of energy has come down over time.Really, advanced civilization is based on advances in energy.The coal revolution fueled the industrial revolution,and, even in the 1900's we've seen a very rapid decline in the price of electricity, and that's why we have refrigerators, air-conditioning,we can make modern materials and do so many things.And so, we're in a wonderful situation with electricity in the rich world. But, as we make it cheaper -- and let's go for making it twice as cheap -- we need to meet a new constraint,and that constraint has to do with CO2.CO2 is warming the planet,and the equation on CO2 is actually a very straightforward one.If you sum up the CO2 that gets emitted,that leads to a temperature increase,and that temperature increase leads to some very negative effects.The effects on the weather and, perhaps worse, the indirect effects,in that the natural ecosystems can't adjust to these rapid changes,and so you get ecosystem collapses.Now, the exact amount of how you mapfrom a certain increase of CO2 to what temperature will beand where the positive feedbacks are,there's some uncertainty there, but not very much.And there's certainly uncertainty about how bad those effects will be,but they will be extremely bad.I asked the top scientists on this several times,do we really have to get down to near zero?Can't we just cut it in half or a quarter?And the answer is that, until we get near to zero,the temperature will continue to rise.And so that's a big challenge.It's very different than saying we're a 12 ft high truck trying to get under a 10 ft bridge,and we can just sort of squeeze under.This is something that has to get to zero.Now, we put out a lot of carbon dioxide every year,over 26 billion tons.For each American, it's about 20 tons.For people in poor countries, it's less than one ton.It's an average of about five tons for everyone on the planet.And, somehow, we have to make changesthat will bring that down to zero.It's been constantly going up.It's only various economic changes that have even flattened it at all,so we have to go from rapidly risingto falling, and falling all the way to zero.This equation has four factors.A little bit of multiplication.So, you've got a thing on the left, CO2, that you want to get to zero,and that's going to be based on the number of people,the services each person's using on average,the energy on average for each service,and the CO2 being put out per unit of energy.So, let's look at each one of theseand see how we can get this down to zero.Probably, one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero. Now that's back from high school algebra,but let's take a look.First we've got population.Now, the world today has 6.8 billion people.That's headed up to about nine billion.Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines,health care, reproductive health services,we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent,but there we see an increase of about 1.3.The second factor is the services we use.This encompasses everything,the food we eat, clothing, TV, heating.These are very good things,and getting rid of poverty means providing these servicesto almost everyone on the planet.And it's a great thing for this number to go up.In the rich world, perhaps the top one billion,we probably could cut back and use less,but every year, this number, on average, is going to go up,and so, over all, that will more than doublethe services delivered per person.Here we have a very basic service.Do you have lighting in your house to be able to read your homework, and, in fact, these kids don't, so they're going outand reading their school work under the street lamps.Now, efficiency, E, the energy for each service,here, finally we have some good news.We have something that's not going up.Through various inventions and new ways of doing lighting,through different types of cars, different ways of building buildings.there are a lot of services where you can bringthe energy for that service down quite substantially,some individual services even, bring it down by 90 percent.There are other services like how we make fertilizer,or how we do air transport,where the rooms for improvement are far, far less.And so, overall here, if we're optimistic,we may get a reduction of a factor of three to even, perhaps, a factor of six.But for these first three factors now,we've gone from 26 billion to, at best, maybe 13 billion tons,and that just won't cut it.So let's look at this fourth factor --this is going to be a key one --and this is the amount of CO2 put out per each unit of energy.And so the question is, can you actually get that to zero?If you burn coal, no.If you burn natural gas, no.Almost every way we make electricity today,except for the emerging renewables and nuclear, puts out CO2.And so, what we're going to have to do at a global scale,is create a new system.And so, we need energy miracles.Now, when I use the term miracle, I don't mean something that's impossible. The microprocessor is a miracle. The personal computer is a miracle.The internet and its services are a miracle.So, the people here have participated in the creation of many miracles. Usually, we don't have a deadline,where you have to get the miracle by a certain date.Usually, you just kind of stand by, and some come along, some don't.This is a case where we actually have to drive full speedand get a miracle in a pretty tight time line.Now, I thought, how could I really capture this?Is there some kind of natural illustration,some demonstration that would grab people's imagination here?I thought back to a year ago when I brought mosquitos,and somehow people enjoyed that.(Laughter)It really got them involved in the idea of,you know, there are people who live with mosquitos.So, with energy, all I could come up with is this.I decided that releasing fireflieswould be my contribution to the environment here this year.So here we have some natural fireflies.I'm told they don't bite, in fact, they might not even leave that jar. (Laughter)Now, there's all sorts gimmicky solutions like that one,but they don't really add up to much.We need solutions, either one or several,that have unbelievable scaleand unbelievable reliability,and, although there's many directions people are seeking,I really only see five that can achieve the big numbers.I've left out tide, geothermal, fusion, biofuels.Those may make some contribution,and if they can do better than I expect, so much the better,but my key point hereis that we're going to have to work on each of these five,and we can't give up any of them because they look daunting,because they all have significant challenges.Let's look first at the burning fossil fuels,either burning coal or burning natural gas.What you need to do there, seems like it might be simple, but it's not,and that's to take all the CO2, after you've burned it, going out the flue, pressurize it, create a liquid, put it somewhere,and hope it stays there.Now we have some pilot things that do this at the 60 to 80 percent level, but getting up to that full percentage, that will be very tricky,and agreeing on where these CO2 quantities should be put will be hard, but the toughest one here is this long term issue.Who's going to be sure?Who's going to guarantee something that is literally billions of times larger than any type of waste you think of in terms of nuclear or other things? This is a lot of volume.So that's a tough one.Next, would be nuclear.It also has three big problems.Cost, particularly in highly regulated countries, is high.The issue of the safety, really feeling good about nothing could go wrong, that, even though you have these human operators,that the fuel doesn't get used for weapons.And then what do you do with the waste?And, although it's not very large, there are a lot of concerns about that. People need to feel good about it.So three very tough problems that might be solvable,and so, should be worked on.The last three of the five, I've grouped together.These are what people often refer to as the renewable sources.And they actually -- although it's great they don't require fuel --they have some disadvantages.One is that the density of energy gathered in these technologiesis dramatically less than a power plant.This is energy farming, so you're talking about many square miles, thousands of time more area than you think of as a normal energy plant. Also, these are intermittent sources.The sun doesn't shine all day, it doesn't shine every day,and, likewise, the wind doesn't blow all the time.And so, if you depend on these sources,you have to have some way of getting the energyduring those time periods that it's not available.So, we've got big cost challenges here.We have transmission challenges.For example, say this energy source is outside your country,you not only need the technology,but you have to deal with the risk of the energy coming from elsewhere. And, finally, this storage problem.And, to dimensionalize this, I went through and looked atall the types of batteries that get made,for cars, for computers, for phones, for flashlights, for everything,and compared that to the amount of electrical energy the world uses, and what I found is that all the batteries we make nowcould store less than 10 minutes of all the energy.And so, in fact, we need a big breakthrough here,something that's going to be a factor of a hundred betterthan the approaches we have now.It's not impossible, but it's not a very easy thing.Now, this shows up when you try to get the intermittent sourceto be above, say, 20 to 30 percent of what you're using.If you're counting on it for 100 percent,you need an incredible miracle battery.Now, how we're going to go forward on this: what's the right approach?Is it a Manhattan project? What's the thing that can get us there?Well, we need lots of companies working on this, hundreds.In each of these five paths, we need at least a hundred people.And a lot of them, you'll look at and say they're crazy. That's good.And, I think, here in the TED group,we have many people who are already pursuing this.Bill Gross has several companies, including one called e-Solarthat has some great solar thermal technologies.Vinod Khosla's investing in dozens of companiesthat are doing great things and have interesting possibilities,and I'm trying to help back that.Nathan Myhrvold and I actually are backing a companythat, perhaps surprisingly, is actually taking the nuclear approach.There are some innovations in nuclear: modular, liquid.And innovation really stopped in this industry quite some ago,so the idea that there's some good ideas laying around is not all that surprising. The idea of Terrapower is that, instead of burning a part of uranium,the one percent, which is the U235,we decided, let's burn the 99 percent, the U238.It is kind of a crazy idea.In fact, people had talked about it for a long time,but they could never simulate properly whether it would work or not, and so it's through the advent of modern supercomputersthat now you can simulate and see that, yes,with the right material's approach, this looks like it would work.And, because you're burning that 99 percent,you have greatly improved cost profile.You actually burn up the waste, and you can actually use as fuelall the leftover waste from today's reactors.So, instead of worrying about them, you just take that. It's a great thing. It breathes this uranium as it goes along. So it's kind of like a candle. You can see it's a log there, often referred to as a traveling wave reactor. In terms of fuel, this really solves the problem.I've got a picture here of a place in Kentucky.This is the left over, the 99 percent,where they've taken out the part they burn now,so it's called depleted uranium.That would power the U.S. for hundreds of years.And, simply by filtering sea water in an inexpensive process,you'd have enough fuel for the entire lifetime of the rest of the planet. So, you know, it's got lots of challenges ahead,but it is an example of the many hundreds and hundreds of ideasthat we need to move forward.So let's think, how should we measure ourselves?What should our report card look like?Well, let's go out to where we really need to get,and then look at the intermediate.For 2050, you've heard many people talk about this 80 percent reduction. That really is very important, that we get there.And that 20 percent will be used up by things going on in poor countries, still some agriculture.Hopefully, we will have cleaned up forestry, cement.So, to get to that 80 percent,the developed countries, including countries like China,will have had to switch their electricity generation altogether.So, the other grade is, are we deploying this zero-emission technology, have we deployed it in all the developed countriesand we're in the process of getting it elsewhere.That's super important.That's a key element of making that report card.So, backing up from there, what should the 2020 report card look like? Well, again, it should have the two elements.We should go through these efficiency measures to start getting reductions. The less we emit, the less that sum will be of CO2,and, therefore, the less the temperature.But in some ways, the grade we get there,doing things that don't get us all the way to the big reductions,is only equally, or maybe even slightly less, important than the other, which is the piece of innovation on these breakthroughs.These breakthroughs, we need to move those at full speed,and we can measure that in terms of companies,pilot projects, regulatory things that have been changed.There's a lot of great books that have been written about this.The Al Gore book, "Our Choice"and the David McKay book, "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air." They really go through it and create a frameworkthat this can be discussed broadly,because we need broad backing for this.There's a lot that has to come together.So this is a wish.It's a very concrete wish that we invent this technology.If you gave me only one wish for the next 50 years,I could pick who's president,I could pick a vaccine, which is something I love,or I could pick that this thingthat's half the cost with no CO2 gets invented,this is the wish I would pick.This is the one with the greatest impact.If we don't get this wish,the division between the people who think short term and long term will be terrible,between the U.S. and China, between poor countries and rich,and most of all the lives of those two billion will be far worse.So, what do we have to do?What am I appealing to you to step forward and drive?We need to go for more research funding.When countries get together in places like Copenhagen,they shouldn't just discuss the CO2.They should discuss this innovation agenda,and you'd be stunned at the ridiculously low levels of spendingon these innovative approaches.We do need the market incentives, CO2 tax, cap and trade,something that gets that price signal out there.We need to get the message out.We need to have this dialogue be a more rational, more understandable dialogue,including the steps that the government takes.This is an important wish, but it is one I think we can achieve.Thank you.(Applause)Thank you.Chris Anderson: Thank you. Thank you.(Applause)Thank you. Just so I understand more about Terrapower, right --I mean, first of all, can you give a sense of what scale of investment this is?Bil Gates: To actually do the software, buy the supercomputer,hire all the great scientists, which we've done,that's only tens of millions,and even once we test our materials out in a Russian reactorto make sure our materials work properly,then you'll only be up in the hundreds of millions.The tough thing is building the pilot reactor,finding the several billion, finding the regulator, the locationthat will actually build the first one of these.Once you get the first one built, if it works as advertised,then it's just clear as day, because the economics, the energy density,are so different than nuclear as we know it.CA: And so, to understand it right, this involves building deep into the groundalmost like a vertical kind of column of nuclear fuel,of this sort of spent uranium,and then the process starts at the top and kind of works down?BG: That's right. Today, you're always refueling the reactor,so you have lots of people and lots of controls that can go wrong,that thing where you're opening it up and moving things in and out. That's not good.So, if you have very cheap fuel that you can put 60 years in --just think of it as a log --put it down and not have those same complexities.And it just sits there and burns for the sixty years, and then it's done. CA: It's a nuclear power plant that is its own waste disposal solution. BG: Yeah. Well, what happens with the waste,you can let it sit there -- there's a lot less waste under this approach -- then you can actually take that,and put it into another one and burn that.And we start off actually by taking the waste that exists today,that's sitting in these cooling pools or dry casking by reactor.That's our fuel to begin with.So, the thing that's been a problem from those reactorsis actually what gets fed into ours,and you're reducing the volume of the waste quite dramaticallyas you're going through this process.CA: But in your talking to different people around the worldabout the possibilities here,where is there most interest in actually doing something with this?BG: Well, we haven't picked a particular place,and there's all these interesting disclosure rules about anything that's called nuclear,so we've got a lot of interest,that people from the company have been in Russia, India, China.I've been back seeing the secretary of energy here,talking about how this fits into the energy agenda.So I'm optimistic. You know the French and Japanese have done some work. This is a variant on something that has been done.It's an important advance, but it's like a fast reactor,and a lot of countries have built them,so anybody who's done a fast reactor, is a candidate to be where the first one gets built.CA: So, in your mind, timescale and likelihoodof actually taking something like this live?BG: Well, we need, for one of these high-scale, electro-generation things that's very cheap,we have 20 years to invent and then 20 years to deploy.That's sort of the deadline that the environmental modelshave shown us that we have to meet.And, you know, Terrapower, if things go well, which is wishing for a lot, could easily meet that.And there are, fortunately now, dozens of companies,we need it to be hundreds,who, likewise, if their science goes well,if the funding for their pilot plants goes well,that they can compete for this.And it's best if multiple succeed,because then you could use a mix of these things.We certainly need one to succeed.CA: In terms of big-scale possible game changes,is this the biggest that you're aware of out there?BG: An energy breakthrough is the most important thing.It would have been, even without the environmental constraint,but the environmental constraint just makes it so much greater.In the nuclear space, there are other innovators.You know, we don't know their work as well as we know this one,but the modular people, that's a different approach.There's a liquid type reactor, which seems a little hard,but maybe they say that about us.And so, there are different ones,but the beauty of this is a molecule of uraniumhas a million times as much energy as a molecule of, say, coal,and so, if you can deal with the negatives,which are essentially the radiation,the footprint and cost, the potential,in terms of effect on land and various things,is almost in a class of its own.CA: If this doesn't work, then what?Do we have to start taking emergency measuresto try and keep the temperature of the earth stable?BG: If you get into that situation,it's like if you've been over-eating, and you're about to have a heart-attack. Then where do you go? You may need heart surgery or something.There is a line of research on what's called geoengineering,which are various techniques that would delay the heatingto buy us 20 or 30 years to get our act together.Now, that's just an insurance policy.You hope you don't need to do that.Some people say you shouldn't even work on the insurance policybecause it might make you lazy,that you'll keep eating because you know heart surgery will be there to save you.I'm not sure that's wise, given the importance of the problem,but there's now the geoengineering discussionabout, should that be in the back pocket in case things happen faster, or this innovation goes a lot slower than we expect.CA: Climate skeptics: if you had a sentence or two to say to them, how might you persuade them that they're wrong?BG: Well, unfortunately, the skeptics come in different camps.The ones who make scientific arguments are very few.Are they saying there's negative feedback effectsthat have to do with clouds that offset things?There are very, very few things that they can even saythere's a chance in a million of those things.The main problem we have here is kind of like AIDS.You make the mistake now, and you pay for it a lot later.And so, when you have all sorts of urgent problems,the idea of taking pain now that has to do with a gain later --and a somewhat uncertain pain thing.In fact, the IPCC report, that's not necessarily the worst case,and there are people in the rich world who look at IPCCand say, okay, that isn't that big of a deal.The fact is it's that uncertain part that should move us towards this. But my dream here is that, if you can make it economic,and meet the CO2 constraints,then the skeptics say, okay,I don't care that it doesn't put out CO2,I kind of wish it did put out CO2but I guess I'll accept it because it's cheaper than what's come before.(Applause)CA: And so, that would be your response to the Bjorn Lomborg argument,that basically if you spend all this energy trying to solve the CO2 problem,it's going to take away all your other goalsof trying to rid the world of poverty and malaria and so forth,[that] it's a stupid waste of the Earth's resources to put money towards that when there are better things we can do.BG: Well, the actual spending on the R&D piece --say the U.S. should spend 10 billion a year more than it is right now --it's not that dramatic.It shouldn't take away from other things.The thing you get into big money on, and this, reasonable people can disagree, is when you have something that's non-economic and you're trying to fund that. That, to me, mostly is a waste.Unless you're very close and you're just funding the learning curveand it's going to get very cheap.I believe we should try more things that have a potentialto be far less expensive.If the trade-off you get into is, let's make energy super expensive, then the rich can afford that.I mean, all of us here could pay five times as much for our energy and not change our lifestyle.The disaster is for that two billion.And even Lomborg has changed.His shtick now is, why isn't the R&D getting discussed more.He's still, because of his earlier stuff,still associated with the skeptic camp,but he's realized that's a pretty lonely camp,and so, he's making the R&D point.And so there is a thread of something that I think is appropriate. The R&D piece, it's crazy how little it's funded.CA: Well Bill, I suspect I speak on the behalf of most people here to say, I really hope your wish comes true. Thank you so much. BG: Thank you.(Applause)。
TED-演讲-盖茨-病毒-神预言_埃博拉之后_尚未准备后面对下一场疫情(中英-精美图文)
deterrent: 威慑因素，遏制力 epidemic： 流行病，流行的
And as you look at what went on, the problem wasn't that there was a system that didn't work well enough. The problem was that we didn't have a system at all.
随着事态的发展你可以看到，问题不是我们的系统不能很好的运行，而是我们根 本没有任何系统。
go on 进行，发生，持续
As an example, we could have taken the blood of survivors, processed it, and put that plasma back in people to protect them. But that was never tried.
根据世界银行的估算，如果我们有世界性的流感疫情暴发，全球财富将减少逾3万亿美元。我 们还会可能有千百万人员的死亡。跟仅仅只是准备好比起来，这些投资会带来显著的益处， （例如带来）基础的卫生保健，研发，（那些东西会减少全球健康平等，因此加大投资有利 于促进全球健康平衡发展），以及让这个世界更健康更安全。
如果有什么东西在未来几十年里杀死了上千万人，那很可能是一种高度传染性的 病毒，而不是战争，不是导弹，而是微生物。
infectious: missile: microbe:
传染性的 导弹 微生物
Now, part of the reason for this is that we've invested a huge amount in nuclear deterrents. But we've actually invested very little in a system to stop an epidemic. We're not ready for the next epidemic.
比尔盖茨ted演讲稿（范本）（5）
比尔盖茨ted演讲稿比尔盖茨ted演讲稿的人服务。
当初和保罗创立微软之时，我们的目标是把计算机和软件的力量普及到普通大众，这便是我们当时的说法。
在早期的一本书上的封面有一个上扬的拳头，他们称之为《计算机解放》。
At tha t time, only b ig busi nessescould b uy pute rs.We w anted t o offer the sa me powe r to re gular p eople a nd demo cratize puting。
在那个时候，只有大企业才能购置计算机。
我们想让这种计算机设备普及到社会大众并让计算机民主化。
By the 1990s, we saw ho wprofo undly p ersonal puters couldempower people, but t hat suc cess cr eated a new di lemma.I f richkids go t puter s and p oor kid s didnt, then techno logy wo uld mak e inequ ality w orse.Th at rancounter to our core b elief。
在上个世纪90年代，我们目睹了个人电脑对人们的巨大效用，但是这种成功同时造成了新的困局。
如果富人的孩子拥有计算机而穷人的孩子却不能时，这种科技会加剧不平等。
而这与我们的核心理念相抵触。
Technol ogy sho uld ben efit ev eryone。
科技应当惠及万众。
So we worked to clo se thedigital divide. I mad e it apriorit y at Mi crosoft, and M elindaand I m ade itan earl y prior ity atour Fou ndation. Donat ingper sonal p uters t o publi c libra ries to make s ure tha t every one had access。
比尔盖茨谈能源(TED字幕)
I’m going to talk today about energy and climate. And that might seem a bit surprising because my full-time work at the foundation is mostly about vaccines and seeds,about the things that we need to invent and deliver to help the poorest two billion live better lives.But energy and climate are extremely important to these people,in fact,more important than anyone else on the planet. The climate getting worse means that many years that many years,their crops won’t grow . There will be too much rain,not enough rain,things will change in ways that their fragile environment simply can’t support. And that leads to starvation,it leads to uncertainty,it leads to unrest. So, the price of energy is very important to them. In fact, if you could pick just one thing to lower th- e price of, to reduce poverty, by far you would pick energy. Now ,the price of energy has become down over time. Really advanced civilization is based on advances in energy.The coal revolution fueled the IndustrialRevolution, and,even in 1990s we’ve seen a very rapid decline in the price of electricity, and that’s why we have refrigerators,air-conditioning, we can make modern materials and do so many things. And so ,we’re in a wonderful situation with electricity in the rich world. But, as we make it cheaper-and let’s go for making it twice as cheap-we need to meet a new constrain,and that constrain has to do with CO2. CO2 is warning the planet, and the equation on CO2 is actually a very straightforward one. If you sum up the CO2 that gets emitted,that leads to a temperature increase, and that temperature increase leads to some very negative effects: the effects on the weather, perhaps worse, the indirect effects,in that the nature ecosystems can’t adjust to these rapid changes, and so you get ecosystem collapses.Now, the exact amount of how you map from a certain increase of CO2 to what temperature will be and where the positive feedback are, there’s some uncertainty there,but not very much. Andthere’s certainly uncertainty about how bad those effects will be, but they will be extremely bad.I asked the top scientists on this several times.Do we really have to get down to near zero? Can’t we just cut it in half or a quarter? And the answer is that until we get near to zero,the temperature will continue to rise. And so that’s a big challenge. It’s very different than saying “We’re a twelve-foot-high truck trying to get under a ten-foot bridge, and we can just sort of squeeze under.” This is something that has to get to zero. Now,we put out of a lot of carbon dioxide every year, over 26 billion tons. For each American, it’s about 20 tons; for people in poor countries,it’s less than one ton. It’s an average of about five tons for everyone on the planet.And, somehow, we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero. It’s been constantly going up. It’s only various economic changes that have been flattened it at all, so we have to go from rapid rising to falling, and falling all the way to zero. This equation has four factors, alittle bit of multiplication: So, you’re got a thing on the left,CO2,that you want to get to zero,and that’s going to be based on the number of people,the services each person’s using on average,the energy on average for each service, and the CO2 being put out per unit of energy. So ,let’s look at each one of these and see how we get this down to zero. Probably, one of this number is going to have to get pretty near to zero. Now that’s back from high school algebra,but let’s take a look. First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now ,if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by ,perhaps, 10 or 15 percent, but there we see an increase of about 1.3. The second factor is the services we use. This encompass everything: the foot we eat, clothing, TV,heating. These are very good things:getting rid of poverty means providing these services to almost everyone on the planet. And it’s a great thing for this numberto go up. In the rich world,perhaps the top one billion,we probably could cut back and use less,but every year, this numer, on average,is going to go up,and so, over all,that will more than double,the services delivered per person.Here we have a very basic service: Do you have lighting in your house to be able to read your homework? And, in fact,these kids don’t,so they’re going out and reading their school work under the street lamps. Now, efficiency,E,the energy for each service,here finally we have some good news. We have something that’s not going up. Through various inventions and new ways of doing lighting through different types of car,different ways of building--there are a lot of services where you can bring the energy for that service down quite substantially. There are other services like how we make fertilizer,or how we do air transport,where the rooms for improvement are far ,far less. And so,overall here,if we’re optimistic,we may get a reduction of a factor of three to even,perhaps, a factor ofsix.But for these first three factors now,we’ve gone from 26billion to, at best,may 13 billion tons, and that just won’t cut it. So let’s look at this fourth factor-this is going to be a key one-and this is the amount of CO2 put out per each unit of energy. And so the question is:can you actually get that to zero? If you burn coal,no. If you burn natural gas,no. Almost every way make electricity today,except for the emerging renewables and nuclear,puts out CO2. And so,what we’re going to have to do at a global scale,is create a new system.And so,we need energy miracles. Now, when I use the term “miracle,” I don’t mean something that’s impossible. The microprocessor is a miracle. The personal computer is a miracle. The Internet and its services are miracles. So, the people here have participated in the creation of many miracles. Usually, we don’t have a deadline,where you have to get the miracle by a certain date. Usually, you just kind of stand byand some come along. This is a case where we actually have to drive at full speed and get a miracle in a pretty tight timeline.Now I thought, “how could I really capture this?Is there some kind of natural illustration,some demonstration that would grab people’s imagination here?” I thought back to a year ago when I brought mosquitos, and somehow people enjoyed that. It really got them involved in the ideal of, you know,there are people who live with mosquitos. So, with energy, all I could come up with is this. I decided that releasing fireflies would be my contribution to the environment here this year. So here we have some natural fireflies. I’m told they don’t bite, in fact,they might not even leave that jar. Now,there all sorts of gimmicky solutions like that one,but they don’t really add up to much. We need solutions-either one or several-that have unbelievable scale and unbelievable reliability, and, although there’s many directions people are seeking, I really only see five that can achievethe big numbers. I’ve left out tide, geothermal,fusion, biofuels. Those may make some contribution, and if they can do better than I expect, so much the better, but my key point here is that we’ve going to have to work on each of these five, and we can’t give up any of them because they look daunting,because they all have significant challenges. Let’s look first at the burning fossil fuels,either burning coal or burning natural gas. What you need to do there,seems like it might be simple,but it’s not, and that’s to take all the CO2, after you’ve burned it, going out the flue,pressurize it, create a liquid, put it somewhere,and hope it stays there. Now we have some pilot things that do this at the 60 to 80 percent level, but getting to that full percentage,that will be very tricky, and agreeing on where these CO2 quantities should be put will be hard, but the toughest one here is this long-term issue. Who’s going to be sure? Who’s going to guarantee something that is literally billions of time large than any type of of wastedyou think of in terms of nuclear or other things? This is a lot of volume. So that’s a tough one.Next would be nuclear. It also has three big problems: Cost, particularly in highly regulated countries,is high, the issue of the the safety, really feeling good about nothing could go wrong ,that,even though you have these human operators,that the fuel doesn’t get used for weapons. And then what do you do with the waste? And ,although it’s not very large, there are a lot of concerns about that. People need to feel good about it. So three very tough problems that might be solvable,and so ,should be worked on. The last three of the five,I’ve grouped together. These are what people often refer to as the renewable. And they actually--although it’s great they don’t require fuel -they have some disadvantages. One of that the density of energy gathered in these technologies is dramatically less than a power plan. This is energy farming, so you’re talking about many square miles, thousands of time more area than you think of asa normal energy plant. Also, these are intermittent sources. The sun doesn’t shine all day,it doesn’t shine every day, and,likewise,the wind doesn’t blow all the time. And also, if you depend on these sources,you have to have some way of getting the energy during those time period that’s it’s not a available. So, we’ve got big cost challenges here,we have transmission challenges: for example,say this energy source is outside your country; you not only need the technology, but you have to deal with the risk of the energy coming from elsewhere. And finally, this storage problem. And, to dimensionalize this, I went through and looked at all types of batteries that get made--for cars, for computers, for phones, for flashlights, for everything--and compared that to the amount of electricity energy the world uses,and what found is that all the batteries we make now could store less than 10 minutes of all the energy. And so, in fact, we need a big breakthrough here, something that’s going to be a factor of 100 better than the approacheswe have now. It’s not impossible, but it’s not a easy thing . Now, this shows up when you try to get the intermittent source to be above,say, 20 to 30 percent of what you’re using. If you’re counting on it for 100 percent,you need a miracle battery. Now, how we’re going to go forward on this--what’s the right approach? Is it a Manhattan Project? What’s the thing that can get using. What’s the thing that can get us there? Well, we need lots of companies working on this,hundreds. In each of these five paths, we need at less a hundred people. And a lot of them,you’ll look at and say, “they’re crazy”. That’s good. And, I think, here in the TED group.We have many people who are already pursuing this. Bill Gross has several companies, including one called eSolar that has some great solar thermal technologies. Vinod Khosla’s investing in dozens of companies that are doing great things and have interesting possibilities, and I’m trying to help back that. Nathan Myhrvold and I actually are backing a company that, perhapssurprisingly,is actually taking the nuclear approach. There are some innovation in nuclear: modular, liquid. And innovation really stopped in this industry quite some ago, so the idea that there’s some good ideas laying around is not all that surprising. The idea of TerraPower is that, instead of burning a part of uranium-the one percent, which is the U235-we decided, “Let’s burn the 99 percent, the U238. ” It’s kind of crazy idea. In fact,people had talked about it for a long time, but they could never simulate properly whether it would work or not, and so it’s through the advent of modern supercomputers that now you can simulate and see that, yes, with the right material’s approach, this looks like it would work. And, because you’re burning that 99 percent you have greatly improved cost profile. You actually burn up the waste, and you can actually use as fuel all the leftover waste from today’s reactors. So, instead of worrying about them, you just take that. It’s a great thing. It breathes this uranium as it goes along, so it’s kind of like a candle. You can see it’s a log here, often referred to as a traveling wave reactor. In terms of fuel, this really solves the problem. I’ve got a picture here of a place in Kentucky. This is the leftover, the 99 percent, where they’ve taken out the part they burn now, so it’s called depleted uranium. That would power the U.S for hundreds of years. And, simply by filtering seawater in an inexpensive process, you’d have enough fuel for the entire lifetime of the rest of the planet. So, you know, it’s got lot’s of challenges ahead,but it is an example of the many hundreds and hundreds of ideas that we need to move forward. So let’s think:How should we measure ourselves? What should our report card look like? Well, let’s go out to where we really need to get, and then look at the intermediate. For 2050, you’ve heard many people talk about this 80 percent reduction. That really is very important,that we get there. And that 20 percent will be used up by things going on in poor countries, still some agriculture, hopefully wewill have cleaned up forestry, cement. So, to get that percent, the developed countries, including countries like China, will have had to switch their electricity generation altogether. So, the other grade is: Are we deploying this zero-emission technology, have we deployed in all the developed countries and we’re in the process of getting it elsewhere? That’s super important. That’s a key element of making the report card. So, backing up from there,what should the 2020 report card look like?Well, again, it should go through these efficiency measures to start getting reductions. The less we emit, the less that sum will be of CO2, and, therefore, the less the temperature. But in some ways, the grade we get there,doing things that don’t get us all the way to the big reductions,is only equally, or maybe even slightly less,important than the other, which is the piece of innovation on these breakthroughs. These breakthroughs, we need to move those at full speed, and we can measure that in terms ofcompanies, pilot projects, regulatory things that have been changed. There’s a lot of great books that have been written about this. The Al Gore, “our choice” and the David Mckay book, “Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air.” They really go through it and created a framework that this can be discussed broadly,because we need broad backing for this.There’s a lot that has to come together. So this is a wish. It’s a very concrete wish that we invent this technology. If you gave me only one wish for the next 50 years-I can pick who’s president, I can keep a vaccine, which is something I love, or I could pick that this thing that’s half the cost with no CO2 gets invented-this is the wish I would pick. This is the one with the greatest impact. If we don’t get this wish, the division between the people who think short term and long term will be terrible, between the U.S. and China ,between poor countries and rich, and most of all the lives of those two billion will far worse. So, what do wehave to do ? What am I appealing you to step forward and drive? We need to go for more research funding. When countries get together in places like Copenhagen, they shouldn’t just discuss the CO2. They should discuss this innovation agenda, and you’d be stunned at the ridiculously low level of spending on these innovation approaches. We do need the market incentives-CO2 tax,cap and trade something that gets that price signal out there. We need to get the massage out. We need to have this dialogue to be a more rational, more understandable dialogue, including the steps that the government takes. This is an important wish, but it is one think we can achieve.Thank you!。
比尔盖茨夫妇 TED演讲稿
Melinda Gates: This is in Africa, our very first trip, the first time either of us had ever been to Africa, in the fall of 1993. We were already engaged to be married. We married a few months later, and this was the trip where we really went to see the animals and to see the savanna. It was incredible. Bill had never taken that much time off from work. But what really touched us, actually, were the people, and the extreme poverty. We started asking ourselves questions. Does it have to be like this?梅琳达·盖茨：这是我们第一次旅行，在非洲拍的。
我们俩都是第一次去非洲，那是1993年的秋天，我们已经订婚。
几月后，我们结婚了，我们想通过这次旅行看看野生动物和热带草原。
真是太美了。
比尔和我从来没有放过这么长的假。
但是真正让我们深受触动的是那儿的人，那儿的贫穷。
我们开始扪心自问，一切只能是这样吗？Bill Gates: Well, we decided that we'd pick two causes, whatever the biggest inequity was globally, and there we looked at children dying, children not having enough nutrition to ever develop, and countries that were really stuck, because with that level of death, and parents would have so many kids that they'd get huge population growth, and that thekids were so sick that they really couldn't be educated and lift themselves up. So that was our global thing, and then in the U.S., both of us have had amazing educations, and we saw that as the way that the U.S. could live up to its promise of equal opportunity is by having a phenomenal education system, and the more we learned, the more we realized we're not really fulfilling that promise.比尔·盖茨：我们决定选择两个方面：任何世界上最不公平的事，这指的是垂死的儿童，营养跟不上的儿童，因为高死亡率发展停滞不前的国家，国家人口剧长，孩子病得太重，他们没法受教育养活自己。
比尔盖茨TED演讲
1、有时候读书是一种巧妙地避开思考 的方法 。20.9. 2520.9. 25Friday, September 25, 2020
•
Байду номын сангаас
2、阅读一切好书如同和过去最杰出的 人谈话 。09:2 2:4709: 22:4709 :229/2 5/2020 9:22:47 AM
•
6、意志坚强的人能把世界放在手中像 泥块一 样任意 揉捏。 2020年 9月25 日星期 五上午9 时22分 47秒09 :22:472 0.9.25
•
7、最具挑战性的挑战莫过于提升自我 。。20 20年9 月上午9 时22分 20.9.25 09:22S eptember 25, 2020
•
8、业余生活要有意义，不要越轨。20 20年9 月25日 星期五9 时22分 47秒09 :22:472 5 September 2020
谢 谢 大 家 020 9:22 AM9/25/2020 9:22 AM20.9.2520.9.25
• 12、这一秒不放弃，下一秒就会有希望。25-Sep-2025 S eptember 202020.9.25
• 13、无论才能知识多么卓著，如果缺乏热情，则无异 纸上画饼充饥，无补于事。Friday, September 25, 20202
•
9、一个人即使已登上顶峰，也仍要自 强不息 。上午 9时22 分47秒 上午9时 22分09 :22:472 0.9.25
• 10、你要做多大的事情，就该承受多大的压力。9/25/2
020 9:22:47 AM09:22:472020/9/25
• 11、自己要先看得起自己，别人才会看得起你。9/25/2
•
3、越是没有本领的就越加自命不凡。 20.9.25 09:22:4 709:22 Sep-202 5-Sep-2 0
ted十大著名演讲稿
ted十大著名演讲稿TED（技术、娱乐、设计）是一个国际性的非盈利组织，致力于传播思想、分享创意和激发灵感。
自1984年成立以来，TED演讲已经成为世界范围内的热门话题。
在众多精彩的演讲中，有十次特别令人印象深刻的演讲，它们从不同的角度探讨了人类的智慧、创造力和潜力。
1. 肯·罗宾森：改革教育的急需肯·罗宾森的这次演讲将教育的创新思维引入视野，他深入探讨了教育模式对于发展个体潜力的限制，并提出了改革教育体系的必要性。
2. 比尔·盖茨：致力于全球健康比尔·盖茨关注全球健康问题，他的这次演讲深入探讨了如何通过科技、物流和全球合作来解决世界上一些最严重的健康问题。
3. 吉尔斯皮·陈：个体与社会的关系陈吉尔斯皮通过他的个人经历，分享了自己对于个体与社会关系的思考与体悟，引发了人们对于社会公义和团结的深刻思考。
4. 斯蒂夫·乔布斯：三个字改变整个世界乔布斯的这次演讲被认为是TED史上最经典的演讲之一，他分享了自己的人生哲学、创业故事和产品创新理念，激发了无数人的创造力和激情。
5. 纳西姆·尼古拉斯·塔莱布：黑天鹅理论塔莱布以系统性的思维和独特的视角，阐述了黑天鹅事件在世界演变中的重要性，引发了人们对于不确定性和未知事物的思考。
6. 爱丽丝·丽弗斯：暴力行为的若干可能解决方案丽弗斯从个体到全球的角度，以她在儿童健康和反暴力方面的研究为基础，提出了一些解决暴力问题的可能途径，呼吁人们共同努力。
7. 大卫·希弗：统计的力量希弗用幽默和温馨的语言，向人们介绍了统计学的魅力和实用性，引发了人们对于数据和信息处理的思考。
8. 基恩·罗宾逊：才能的快乐罗宾逊通过幽默和感人的故事，传达了每个人都是独特的，每个人都有自己的才能和潜力，鼓励人们追求自己的兴趣和热情。
9. 萨拉·基耶莉尼：我们所惧怕的穷人基耶莉尼以她在计划生育和贫困问题上的工作经验，深入探讨了如何理解和帮助世界上那些极度贫困的人群。