跟讀練習: Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change? - 通過影片學習英語口語

選擇練習模式

每種模式都會開啟全屏練習室。

91 句

如果句子過短或過長，請點選 Edit 進行調整。

Do we need nuclear energy to stop climate change?

More and more voices from science, environmental activists and the press have been saying so in recent years.

But this comes as a shock to those who are fighting against nuclear energy and the problems that come with it.

So, who's right?

Well, it's complicated.

To slow rapid climate change, the world needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero.

In 2018, three -quarters of global emissions were released through energy production, namely by burning fossil fuels.

Energy is a broad term that describes all sorts of stuff, from moving things and people around, to putting things big and small together, or heating our homes.

Currently, 84 % of the world's primary energy comes from fossil fuels, 33 % from oil, 27 % from coal, and 24 % from gas.

Around 10 % of the global oil supply is just used to burn in boilers to make our homes cozy and warm.

Only about 16 % of global energy is from low emission sources, almost 7 % from hydroelectric, 5 % from solar, wind,

bioenergy, wave, tidal and geothermal combined, and about 4 % from nuclear.

So we pretty much rely on coal, oil and gas to keep our civilization going, which means it's actually very hard to transition away from them.

To have a chance of escaping fossil fuels without throwing humanity back into the Stone Age,

one of the most impactful things we can do is to electrify as many sectors as possible.

Electricity is the stuff that appears like magic when you plug something into a socket so you can watch YouTube.

Every industry that can switch from burning fossil fuels to electricity needs to do so, from electric cars to electric heaters.

Why do we need to bet so hard on electricity?

Because we can produce electricity with low -emission technologies like solar, wind or nuclear.

So electricity is a real lever for a radical transition.

But there are a few problems making this transition really hard.

First of all, in most places in the world, electricity is still generated mostly by burning fossil fuels.

And not only that, in the last 20 years, the world's electricity usage increased 73 % in absolute terms.

While we are installing renewables at record speeds, at the same time, the amount of fossil fuel we're burning for electricity still keeps rising year by year.

Renewables have so far not been able to catch up with the demand for new electricity, and so despite our progress,

emissions from electricity are still rising worldwide worldwide.

The other alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear, and even though it's not renewable, its greenhouse gas emissions are tiny compared to burning stuff.

But in the last 20 years, nuclear has basically stagnated.

Countries like China, India, and South Korea built new reactors, while Germany and Japan have been actively taking their nuclear plants offline.

Which seems a bit weird

if we look at the countries with the most low -carbon electricity in the world

that get most of their juice mainly from two sources nuclear or hydropower.

Take France and Sweden.

In France only around 10 % comes from fossil fuels

while 67 % comes from nuclear and 23 % from renewables primarily hydro.

In Sweden almost 30 % comes from nuclear power and about 45 % from hydro.

So we know that nuclear energy can work at scale.

On the technical side, because of the lack of investment and innovation in the last few decades,

the majority of the world's nuclear reactors are pretty old technology that's very costly to replace.

In most Western countries, building nuclear reactors has become very expensive for a variety of reasons, like a loss of know -how in constructing them,

policy changes and increased regulatory constraints so it can take a decade or longer just to finish a power plant.

In contrast, countries like South Korea, China, India, and Russia are able to build new nuclear reactors comparatively quickly and at a competitive cost.

Still, generally in the West, the current generation of nuclear power plants are more expensive to build and maintain than most fossil fuel alternatives.

There are also the concerns about nuclear waste and the fear of accidents, but we cover those in other videos in more detail.

We have designs for nuclear reactors that solve many of their problems, namely small reactors that take less time and money to get started.

There are also next generation technologies that can already turn radioactive waste into new fuel,

but so far these have not been deployed at a scale where they can have a significant impact on the nuclear sector.

Considering these uncertainties, some argue that nuclear power is a dangerous relic of the past

and that we should just let it go and focus on renewables.

But while renewables undoubtedly are the future of electricity,

they still have their own huge challenges to overcome before they can take over the vast majority of the electricity grid.

The main problem is reliability and consistency.

It's not always windy and the sun doesn't always shine especially in the mornings and evenings when humans need the most electricity.

The variations between seasons don't make this issue easier.

To make renewables reliable

and not risk blackouts we need massive storage capacities where we can save energy collected

when the sun or wind are at their peak and release it later when we actually need it.

Until this is possible other sources of electricity need to provide a controllable load

that creates the reliability of supply that our civilization needs to run properly.

Eventually, we will be able to do this with renewables, but we need a lot of batteries or storage power plants.

Right now, we simply don't have the tech and the capacities to make this transition fast enough to replace fossil fuels.

But even if we could, there's another aspect we have to take into account.

We're not just trying to kick fossil fuels out of electricity, we're trying to replace energy with electricity.

If we're going to electrify sectors that currently use fossil fuels,

like cars or heating, we will need significantly more electricity than we're currently using everywhere around the world.

And if the electricity needs of the world population continue to grow as they have over the last 20 years, we'll need even more.

It all comes down to one thing.

No energy source is perfect, all have their own unique problems.

Both renewables and nuclear energy require time, investment and technological innovation.

On their own, neither is ready to remove fossil fuels from our electricity grid, although activists on both sides claim that they are.

In the end, the question is how we want to deal with all these challenges.

Should we give up nuclear immediately and at least temporarily accept higher emissions?

Will we try to extend the life of current nuclear reactors and shut them down afterwards while solving the shortcomings of renewables?

Or will we invest in new nuclear technology to get new nuclear reactor types that are cheaper and safer?

Or will we maybe do both?

Opinion part starts here.

Considering the risks that climate change poses for the biosphere

and humanity any technology

that has a chance of contributing to a solution should be pursued that's just good risk management and strategy

if preventing rapid climate change as quickly as possible is our

goal it might be a good idea to see nuclear

and renewables not as opponents but as partners we know there's no time to waste

so we should keep all of our low emission players on the field as things are both nuclear

and renewables need innovation and investment but But if we don't know yet which technology will be ready how quickly, why not just invest in both and see what happens?

And on the topic of current capacities, if we take nuclear energy offline right now, then that missing capacity will be replaced,

at least partially, by fossil fuels.

Even if new nuclear power plants in the West are expensive, in the long run it may be cheaper to build them

as long as they prevent more fossil fuel capacity being added and paying for the consequences of rapid climate change.

So, do we need nuclear energy?

Well, it really depends how hard we choose to make things for ourselves.

And in a world that's already having a really hard time quitting fossil fuels, why should we make things harder than necessary?

下載應用

流利口語所需的一切

AI 發音評分逐句打分

音標練習掌握每個音

詞彙學習建立你的詞庫

詞彙遊戲邊玩邊學

掃碼

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

同頻道

FOR YOU

本課的詞彙與口語要點

這段影片共有 91 個句子、1396 個單詞可供跟讀。講話部分時長為 9:02。說話人語速自然，每分鐘約 155 個詞，接近日常對話。 84% 的單詞屬於英語最常用的 3,000 詞，其餘的詞建議在練習前先學一下。

影片中的重點詞彙

影片中 15 個值得學習的單詞，附發音和釋義：

單詞	發音	釋義
fossil 名詞	/ˈfɑsl̩/	化石
renewable 形容詞	/ɹɪˈnu.ə.bl̩/	可再生
reactor 名詞	/ɹiˈæktɚ/	反應器 /反應器
emission 名詞	/ɪˈmɪʃ.ən/	排放
transition 名詞	/tɹænˈzɪʃ.ən/	過渡 /過渡, 轉變 /轉變
rapid 形容詞	/ˈɹæp.ɪd/	快, 迅速
innovation 名詞	/ˌɪn.əˈveɪ.ʃən/	革新, 創新 /創新
solve 動詞	/sɒlv/	解決 /解決
humanity 名詞	/hjuˈmænɪti/	人類 /人類
invest 動詞	/ɪnˈvɛst/	耗費 /耗費, 投資 /投資
grid 名詞	/ɡɹɪd/	網格 /網格, 格子
activist 名詞	/ˈæk.tɪ.vɪst/	活躍分子 /活躍分子, 活動分子 /活動分子
namely 副詞	/ˈneɪmli/	亦即, 即
civilization 名詞	/ˌsɪv.ɪ.laɪˈzeɪ.ʃən/	文明
greenhouse 名詞	/ˈɡɹːnˌ(h)aʊs/	溫室 /溫室

影片中出現的短語動詞

單詞	釋義
give up 動詞	投案, 自首
take over 動詞	接管, 接手

影片中的語法

說話人最常用的結構，並附上影片中的原話：

結構	影片中的用法
被動語態 be + 過去分詞 — 強調發生了什麼，而不是誰做的	were released · is still generated · have not been deployed
現在完成時 have/has + 過去分詞 — 過去發生但與現在仍有關聯的事	have been · has become · have not been deployed
定語從句 who / which + 從句 — 補充說明人或事物	those who are · going, which means

需要注意的發音

說話人用了 10 次縮略和弱讀形式，例如 we're, don't, doesn't。請按聽到的簡短形式來說。

“sh” 和 “zh” 音: emission /ɪˈmɪʃ.ən/, transition /tɹænˈzɪʃ.ən/, innovation /ˌɪn.əˈveɪ.ʃən/, civilization /ˌsɪv.ɪ.laɪˈzeɪ.ʃən/, contrast /kənˈt(ʃ)ɹæst/
長單詞——注意重音位置: electricity /ɪˌlɛkˈtɹɪsɪti/, innovation /ˌɪn.əˈveɪ.ʃən/, humanity /hjuˈmænɪti/, civilization /ˌsɪv.ɪ.laɪˈzeɪ.ʃən/, primarily /ˈpɹaɪ.mə.ɹə.li/

如何用這段影片練習

先完整聽一遍影片，不要開口，記下不認識的單詞。
先用 0.75 倍速逐句跟讀，熟練之後再回到正常速度。
錄下自己的聲音並與原聲對比，特別注意 fossil, renewable, reactor 這類單詞。

什麼是跟讀法？

跟讀法 (Shadowing) 是一種有科學依據的語言學習技巧，最初開發用於專業口譯員的培訓，並由多語言者Alexander Arguelles博士普及。這個方法簡單而強大：您在聽英語母語原聲的同時立即大聲重複——就像是一個延遲1-2秒緊跟說話者的影子。與被動聽力或語法練習不同，跟讀法強迫您的大腦和口腔肌肉同時處理並模模擬實的講話模式。研究表明它能顯著提高發音準確性，語調，節奏，連讀，聽力理解和口語流利度——使其成為雅思口語備考和真實英語交流最有效的方法之一。

影子跟讀法: 閱讀完整分步指南 →

跟讀練習: Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change? - 通過影片學習英語口語

選擇練習模式

下載應用

Queen Ant Clones Another Species

How Caffeine Works

Your Skeleton Is Electric

The Beginning of Everything -- The Big Bang

Could Humans Evolve Flight?

You Will Only Like Half of This Video

Would You Upload Your Mind?

Your Brain on Magic Mushrooms

Why Ebola Keeps Coming Back

Let’s Steal a New Moon

What Happens AFTER Nuclear War?

3 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy Is Awesome! 3/3

What Falling in Love Does to You

YOU Own the Moon. And Mars. And Venus.

What Is Life? Is Death Real?

How Antidepressants Work

Your Brain Peaked at Birth

We Won’t Explore the Galaxy...

Dozens of Nukes Are Missing. Why? HOW?

How ADHD Medication Works

How Can You Change Somebody's Opinion?

Why the Global Car Industry Is Facing Its Biggest Transformation

AI & Future Jobs: Skills You NEED Now!

Why should we care about coral reefs?

Why is Nuclear Fusion so Hard? - Nuclear Engineer Explains #nuclear

This Carbon Emissions Video Also Doubles as Economic Development… and That’s Awkward

MinuteCement - LC3

Elon Musk gets emotional over Australia’s energy emergency (Part Two) | 60 Minutes Australia

Can cycling reduce global warming?

The unstoppable green revolution: Adam Tooze on the "most dramatic story in the history of energy”