iBeta 愛北大論壇

 找回密碼
 註冊
搜索
樓主: phantom
列印 上一主題 下一主題

[核能] 要是電價漲,低收入家庭的生活變得更苦怎麼辦?

[複製鏈接]

37

主題

35

好友

2226

積分

大學生

Rank: 6Rank: 6

文章
817
在線時間
881 小時
21
發表於 2013-3-25 15:42:38 |只看該作者
看不懂這議題?
政府已經講得很清楚!
不管有沒有核四,電價都會漲.......這已經是不變的事實!不論哪個朝代哪個時機,永遠有收入低的家庭! 這和要不要核電完全風馬牛不相干.......OK

160

主題

797

好友

1萬

積分

校友

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

文章
8285
在線時間
4075 小時
22
發表於 2013-3-25 16:27:01 |只看該作者
本帖最後由 桂格 於 2013-3-25 16:29 編輯
js22020 發表於 2013-3-25 14:51
專科醫師已經做出明確的診斷,也開出了療方。
問題是:病人和醫院是否願意認真採行?(我是對這點不樂觀 ...


的確, 若能認知到缺失, 並有解決方案是最好的結果了.

至於能否有採行的意願, 這就是一個很普遍的施政執行與監督的範疇了.

歡迎加入返老還童功北大練功場
平日: 5:30~7:10am  假日: 6:00~7:40
簡單, 易學, 有效, 免費!

123

主題

58

好友

5642

積分

碩士班

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

文章
3393
在線時間
1370 小時
23
發表於 2013-3-25 17:25:19 |只看該作者
Financial Times採訪GE CEO 有關核電
英文全文網址如下
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/601898 ... .html#axzz2OXbrVaku
中英翻譯對照網址
http://big5.ftchinese.com/story/001045746/ce

因為Financial Times對網站全文轉貼有限定
所以請有興趣的大大自行點閱進去

採訪內文GE的CEO 表示"與其他形式的能源相比,核電成本如此之高,以至於“很難”證明其合理性。"
To see with the eyes of another, to hear with the ears of another, to feel with the heart of another......

123

主題

58

好友

5642

積分

碩士班

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

文章
3393
在線時間
1370 小時
24
發表於 2013-3-25 17:33:55 |只看該作者
本帖最後由 rainbow 於 2013-3-25 17:45 編輯

以下是經濟學人The Economist 的分析

http://www.economist.com/news/21 ... ative-sunny-uplands

Alternative energy will no longer be alternative

Nov 21st 2012 |From The World In 2013 print edition





Rebranding is always a tricky exercise, but for one field of technology 2013 will be the year when its proponents need to bite the bullet and do it. That field is alternative energy. The word “alternative”, with its connotations of hand-wringing greenery and a need for taxpayer subsidy, has to go. And in 2013 it will. “Renewable” power will start to be seen as normal.

Wind farms already provide 2% of the world’s electricity, and their capacity is doubling every three years. If that growth rate is maintained, wind power will overtake nuclear’s contribution to the world’s energy accounts in about a decade.Though it still has its opponents, wind is thus already a grown-up technology. But it is in the field of solar energy, currently only a quarter of a percent of the planet’s electricity supply, but which grew 86% last year, that the biggest shift of attitude will be seen, for sunlight has the potential to disrupt the electricity market completely.


The underlying cause of this disruption is a phenomenon that solar’s supporters call Swanson’s law, in imitation of Moore’s law of transistor cost. Moore’s law suggests that the size of transistors (and also their cost) halves every 18 months or so. Swanson’s law, named after Richard Swanson, the founder of SunPower, a big American solar-cell manufacturer, suggests that the cost of the photovoltaic cells needed to generate solar power falls by 20% with each doubling of global manufacturing capacity. The upshot (see chart) is that the modules used to make solar-power plants now cost less than a dollar per watt of capacity. Power-station construction costs can add $4 to that, but these, too, are falling as builders work out how to do the job better. And running a solar power station is cheap because the fuel is free.

Coal-fired plants, for comparison, cost about $3 a watt to build in the United States, and natural-gas plants cost $1. But that is before the fuel to run them is bought. In sunny regions such as California, then, photovoltaic power could already compete without subsidy with the more expensive parts of the traditional power market, such as the natural-gas-fired “peaker” plants kept on stand-by to meet surges in demand. Moreover, technological developments that have been proved in the laboratory but have not yet moved into the factory mean Swanson’s law still has many years to run.

Running a solar power station is cheap because the fuel is free

Comparing the cost of wind and solar power with that of coal- and gas-fired electricity generation is more than just a matter of comparing the costs of the plant and the fuel, of course. Reliability of supply is a crucial factor, for the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow. But the problem of reliability is the subject of intensive research. Many organisations, both academic and commercial, are working on ways to store electricity when it is in surplus, so that it can be used when it is scarce.

Progress is particularly likely during 2013 in the field of flow batteries. These devices, hybrids between traditional batteries and fuel cells, use liquid electrolytes, often made from cheap materials such as iron, to squirrel away huge amounts of energy in chemical form. “Grid-scale” storage of this or some other sort is the second way, after Swanson’s law, that the economics of renewable energy will be transformed.

One consequence of all this progress is that subsidies for wind and solar power have fallen over recent years. In 2013, they will fall further. Though subsidies will not disappear entirely, the so-called alternatives will be seen to stand on their own feet in a way that was not true in the past. That will give them political clout and lead to questions about the subventions which more traditional forms of power generation enjoy (coal production, for example, is heavily subsidised in parts of Europe).


Fossil-fuel-powered electricity will not be pushed aside quickly. Fracking, a technological breakthrough which enables natural gas to be extracted cheaply from shale, means that gas-fired power stations, which already produce a fifth of the world’s electricity, will keep the pressure on wind and solar to get better still. But even if natural gas were free, no Swanson’s law-like process applies to the plant required to turn it into electricity. Nuclear power is not a realistic alternative. It is too unpopular and the capital costs are huge. And coal’s days seem numbered. In America, the share of electricity generated from coal has fallen from almost 80% in the mid-1980s to less than a third in April 2012, and coal-fired power stations are closing in droves.

It may take longer to make the change in China and India, where demand for power is growing almost insatiably, and where the grids to take that power from windy and sunny places to the cities are less developed than in rich countries. In the end, though, they too will change as the alternatives become normal, and what was once normal becomes quaintly old-fashioned.

Geoffrey Carr: science editor, The Economist

From The World In 2013 print edition

上圖是美國太陽能教父提出的Swanson's Law
根據他的預估太陽能發電模組在產能加倍時成本會下降20%
許多國家加速興建太陽能發電廠
目前這預言仍然正確而且據信未來幾年還適用
上文亦提到風力發電的潛力驚人  每三年倍數增加  若依目前的速度成長下去
預估十年可取代核電總產量
至於再生能源不穩定的問題
flow batteries有望解決問題

本文章子中包含更多資源

您需要 登入 才可以下載或查看,沒有帳號?註冊

To see with the eyes of another, to hear with the ears of another, to feel with the heart of another......

2

主題

1

好友

412

積分

國中生

Rank: 4

文章
24
在線時間
163 小時
25
發表於 2013-3-25 22:37:49 |只看該作者
本帖最後由 yenhongwu2002 於 2013-3-26 13:04 編輯
joanne8889 發表於 2013-3-24 23:35
這問題您應該問飼主吧

為何要養豬殺豬


當權者不仁無能  以人民為芻狗  您還可談福報?真敗給你了!一個明明可以科學論證  經濟分析  理性選擇的重大議題  當官的加賣電的搞得一付呼請眾神  又滿口神咒的四字真言  再不行就威脅漲價  這是甚麼東西?
牽拖福報神鬼之說  不啻為當權者搽脂抹粉  姑息養奸!

61

主題

31

好友

4317

積分

碩士班

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

文章
2022
在線時間
999 小時
26
發表於 2013-3-25 23:06:38 |只看該作者



會不會有一天,當台灣完全沒有核電廠時,卻仍然有核災的陰影呢?

72

主題

58

好友

6266

積分

博士班

Rank: 8Rank: 8

文章
4596
在線時間
677 小時
27
發表於 2013-3-26 11:15:17 |只看該作者
joanne8889 發表於 2013-3-24 21:47
政府若因不建核四而造成電價上漲   只會導致全民生活開支增加

原本照顧低收入家庭的額度就會減少

所以日本因為為非作歹才有核災?

目前所也事實都證明:
1. 沒有核能發電,電費不應該會漲(核能發電不一定是最便宜的,但肯定是最髒的)
2. 核災一發生,任何人都無法處理
3. 核廢料,全世界沒有一個國家可以妥善處理
4. 台灣一發生核災..大家都要跳太平洋
不因理想遠大,步履維艱而放棄
Keep forward till democracy completed

72

主題

58

好友

6266

積分

博士班

Rank: 8Rank: 8

文章
4596
在線時間
677 小時
28
發表於 2013-3-26 11:17:13 |只看該作者
joanne8889 發表於 2013-3-24 23:45
如果您認為核災對人類及環境的傷害及影響

跟其他地震水災風災一樣

交公投..很好
請把題目訂成...

贊成續建核四,我拍胸普絕對不會過...
PS:這種鳥籠公投,我當他屁
不因理想遠大,步履維艱而放棄
Keep forward till democracy completed

2

主題

1

好友

412

積分

國中生

Rank: 4

文章
24
在線時間
163 小時
29
發表於 2013-3-26 12:51:57 |只看該作者
kwbaseball2002 發表於 2013-3-26 11:17
交公投..很好
請把題目訂成...

讚!!!!!!!

1331

主題

316

好友

1萬

積分

校友

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

文章
14668
在線時間
2248 小時
30
發表於 2013-3-26 13:05:51 |只看該作者
當初電價上漲,政府就有針對使用維生設備的身心障礙者提供用電補助,所以假設核四停建,電費上漲,我想政府自然要有協助經濟困難家庭的義務與責任。

不過核四停建,電價就要上漲嗎?老實說我並不相信台電的威脅恐嚇... 實際上核能發電的問題在於安全性,而核四顯然有許多安全問題,而且當局都沒有辦法完整說明或給予交代,跟電價相比,性命以及下一代的健康,兩者放在天平上,孰重孰輕,答案應該很明顯了...
已有 1 人評分金幣 收起 理由
kwbaseball2002 + 1 中肯!

總評分: 金幣 + 1   查看全部評分

您需要登入後才可以回文 登入 | 註冊

本論壇是以即時上傳留言的方式運作,一切留言內容只代表發言者個人意見,非本論壇之立場,本論壇對所有留言的真實性、完整性及立場等,不負任何法律責任。
由於本論壇是以「即時留言」運作方式,所以無法完全監察所有留言內容,若您發現有某篇留言可能有問題,請通知本站管理員處理。

Copyright © 2009~2020 iBeta 愛北大. 保留一切權利

回頂部