比尔盖茨谈能源(TED字幕)

比尔盖茨谈能源(T E D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 Industrial Revolution, 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 thatgets 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. 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 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, a little bit of multiplication: So, you’re got a thing on the left,CO2,that you want toget 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 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 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,differentways 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 of six.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 by and 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 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 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 fullpercentage,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 wasted 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 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 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 also, if you depend on these sources,you have to have some way of getting theenergy 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 approaches we 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 solarthermal 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, perhaps surprisingly,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 theU235-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 we will 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 needto 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, “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 we have 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, moreunderstandable dialogue, including the steps that the government takes. This is an important wish, but it is one think we can achieve.Thank you!。

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 uncertaintythere,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 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, andfalling all the way to zero. This equation has four factors, a little 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 toalmost 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 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,overallhere,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 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 by and 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-thathave unbelievable scale and 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 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 onehere 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 wasted 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 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 thatthe 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 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 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 electricityenergy 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 approaches we 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, perhaps surprisingly,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 wouldwork. 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 ourreport 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 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 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, “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 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 far worse. So, what do we have 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 importantwish, but it is one think we can achieve.Thank you!。

比尔盖茨ted演讲稿以下是聘才小编为大家搜索整理的，欢迎大家阅读。

比尔盖茨ted演讲稿中英文演讲稿：Stanford University。

(斯坦福大学)BILL GATES: Congratulations, class of XX!比尔·盖茨：XX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)。

我们一直致力于让最聪颖有创造力的人攻克最为重要的问题。

C oV E RST oR Y比尔盖茨新能源计划按照现在碳排放量减少20％，我们只是把地球“末日之战”推迟二年这难道就是我们的目标?■i／¨^|业比尔盖茨对莱样新事物礤*趣．=]时．他那条理清晰、学识渊博的大脑台学习羌于此新事物的所有知识，井思考如何使之变得更好。

Ⅲ在近些年。

全球毖源阿题日益突出，正值大力发展低碳经济之时，这位擞轼公司牲厦比尔和梅琳达益葭基盘台的共同创始^也对能源问题太感兴趣。

20嘶年．盖菠出资若f亿美元资助察拉能谭公司f T e H a P oW er)．集生黄先进校能研发精英共同开发其看中的“行被反应雄。

这一革命性校能豫技术。

删年，盖获投资了美国加州的蓝宝石舵潭公司(s apphm E nE科)(新能探新创公司．主要致力于将1每藻类植物转化戚燃料)，而这井不足盖获首暾投资可再生能掉领域．之甫盖菠柏投资公司还为美国太平洋L醇公到(Pa叫”啪nm)注人过资金。

20l O年5月，盏菠给加州一家名叫Ⅲl ve r11n…g的科研公目30万美元启动资金，用咀研发‘造云。

计划，这是目前最切实可行应对全球变疃的地球工程学方案．即试图通过』程十预手段改变地球环境和气侯。

6月．盖蕞联台美国菇他企业高管，以矍国能艨创新委员台(A m en啦n E ner盯I肌ova non coun酬】名义拉裘报告，指出夔国当前能濂战略梅鞔厦经济、环境和美国安全．52#＆qi 并呼吁政府在能潦褫喊投^更多资盎。

8月，蓝菠投资2350万美元鲶底特律的一寡电动汽车发动机制造商B∞M o∞H．研制体积质量更小、更高教、排放更低的发动机。

在盖菠位于华盛镬柯克!的办公室里，他接受丁率刊记者的采访。

在他们的谈话中，盖菠呼吁妥创造旺谭。

岢迹’吐厦出台更加台理舶能源政策。

他还谈到了自己对软件行业的热爱对其投资新行业对有何影响。

《科技创业h：董茨基盒台一直以来都把责盒投入在一些t丈闻置的解决方毫上，倒如贫穷田采的传染性疾痛等而为2050年地球上的90亿^口提供清洁雌蠢选个问置B经上升捌T人类文明的厦趺在麓菲研究方面，慧■事业麓謦作何嚣献辊’t蓑篇奉上，不台有多丈贡献。

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, andfalling all the way to zero. This equation has four factors, a little 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 toalmost 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 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,overallhere,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 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 adeadline,where you have to get the miracle by a certain date. Usually, you just kind of stand by and 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 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 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 wasted 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 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 dramaticallyless 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 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 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 storeless 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 approaches we 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 investingin 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, perhaps surprisingly,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 canactually 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 peopletalk 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 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 evenslightly 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, “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 whothink 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 we have 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!。

世界首富比尔盖茨语录比尔盖茨经典励志语录比尔盖茨一个用网络改变世界的男人，拥有无尽的财富，更是拥有无尽的才华，这样一个伟大的人，值得被历史铭记。

今天小编为大家整理了关于比尔盖茨的经典语录，希望大家喜欢!比尔盖茨经典语录：1、失败是成大事者之母。

2、人生的选择决定一切。

3、创新是做至公司唯一之路。

4、有非凡志向，才有非凡成就。

5、人生是不公平的，习惯接受吧。

6、微软公司雇用工作狂真是眼光独到。

7、最可怕的敌人，就是没有坚强的信念。

8、对客户信守承诺，这一服务准则非常重要。

9、坚持下往，成功就在下一个街角处等着你。

10、没有热忱的经营者，也就教育不出敬业的员工。

11、破产是一种暂时的困境，贫困是一种思想的状态。

12、对书呆子好一点，你未来很可能就为其中一个工作13、获得成功有两个重要的前题：一是果断，二是忍耐。

14、成功的轨迹作为一种策略路线，从一开始就应该走上正轨。

15、你用于计划的时间越长，你完成工作所需要的时间就越短。

16、孜孜以求进步的精神，是一个人的优越的标记与胜利的征兆。

17、治理者在任何时候，任何情况下都有使员工们更加成熟的使命。

18、成功都并没有什么秘密，他们只不过是适应了时代发展的变化。

19、一旦做出决定就不要拖延，任何事情想到就去做并且立即行动。

20、当你的努力与时代同步时，你就会对社会产生不可忽略的影响。

21、微软公司在用人上所表现出的胆略与气势是别的公司无可相比的。

22、失败是不可避免的，但只要贯彻始终，总能收到意想不到的成效。

23、在快餐店打工并不可耻，你的祖父对煎汉堡有不同的看法：机会。

24、在这个世界上，没有人能使你倒下。

假如你自己的信念还站立的话。

25、电视上演的并非真实人生。

现实生活中每人都要离开咖啡馆往工作。

26、一个管理者如果不了解其下属的工作，那他就无法有效地管理他们。

27、在这个世界上，没有人能使你倒下。

如果你自己的信念还站立的话。

28、好的习惯主要是依靠于人的自我约束，或者说靠人对自我欲看的否定。

比尔盖茨谈能源(T E D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 Industrial Revolution, 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 thatgets 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. 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 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, a little bit of multiplication: So, you’re got a thing on the left,CO2,that you want toget 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 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 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,differentways 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 of six.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 by and 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 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 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 fullpercentage,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 wasted 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 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 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 also, if you depend on these sources,you have to have some way of getting theenergy 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 approaches we 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 solarthermal 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, perhaps surprisingly,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 theU235-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 we will 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 needto 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, “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 we have 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, moreunderstandable dialogue, including the steps that the government takes. This is an important wish, but it is one think we can achieve.Thank you!。

比尔盖茨的演讲稿尊敬的各位来宾，女士们，先生们：大家好！今天，我很荣幸站在这里，与大家分享一些关于比尔·盖茨的演讲稿。

在开始我的演讲之前，我想先问一个问题：有多少人知道比尔·盖茨是谁？请大家举起手来。

很好，我看到有很多人都知道。

那么，又有多少人知道他为什么如此成功呢？我想，这个问题答案可能不尽相同。

但无论如何，今天我将试图为大家揭示比尔·盖茨成功的秘诀。

当然，这并不是一场关于比尔·盖茨个人生平的演讲，而是一场关于我们可以从他的演讲中学到什么的分享。

所以，让我们一起来探讨一下吧！让我们回顾一下比尔·盖茨的一些演讲主题。

他曾经谈过创新、企业家精神、慈善事业和全球发展等问题。

这些问题都是我们当今社会所关注的焦点。

我们可以从他的演讲中看到，一个成功的人不仅要有广阔的视野，还要关心社会发展，关注人类未来。

那么，我们如何从比尔·盖茨的演讲中得到启发，进而提升自己的演讲能力呢？以下几点建议供大家参考。

第一，明确主题。

一场成功的演讲，首先要有一个明确的主题。

这个主题应该是演讲者熟悉并充满热情的。

正如比尔·盖茨的演讲，他总是围绕着创新、企业家精神等他熟悉的话题展开。

我们也要学会抓住核心，突出重点，让听众对我们的演讲内容产生兴趣。

第二，逻辑清晰。

一个好的演讲应该具有清晰的逻辑结构。

这包括引言、正文和结尾三个部分。

在引言部分，我们要吸引听众的注意力；在正文部分，我们要论述观点、展示事实、举例说明；在结尾部分，我们要全文，留下深刻印象。

正如比尔·盖茨的演讲，他总是条理分明，让人容易理解他的观点。

第三，富有感染力。

一个成功的演讲者应该具有感染力，能够激发听众的情感。

这需要我们运用恰当的语言和表达方式，让听众产生共鸣。

比尔·盖茨的演讲就具有很强的感染力，他总能用生动的语言和真实的故事打动听众。

第四，注重互动。

一场成功的演讲不仅仅是演讲者在台上发言，更是演讲者与听众之间的互动。

比尔盖茨演讲稿英文回答：My fellow global citizens, esteemed colleagues, and distinguished guests,。

It is with great honor and gratitude that I standbefore you today to share my thoughts on the transformative power of technology and its potential to shape a better future for all. Throughout my career, I have had the privilege of witnessing firsthand the profound impact that technological advancements can have on our lives. From the advent of the personal computer to the rise of the internet, technology has revolutionized the way we communicate, learn, work, and connect with one another.As we look ahead to the next chapter of human history,it is clear that technology will continue to play a pivotal role in shaping our world. We are on the cusp of a new eraof technological innovation, marked by the convergence ofartificial intelligence, machine learning, and the Internet of Things. These technologies have the power to unlock unprecedented opportunities and solve some of the world's most pressing challenges.For example, artificial intelligence can be used to develop personalized learning experiences that cater to each student's unique needs. Machine learning can help us identify patterns and make predictions that can improve healthcare outcomes. And the Internet of Things can create interconnected systems that enable us to manage our energy consumption, reduce traffic congestion, and improve public safety.However, it is important to recognize that the transformative power of technology also comes with responsibilities. As we embrace new technologies, we must carefully consider their potential impact on our society and the environment. We need to ensure that technology is used for good and that it does not exacerbate existing inequalities or create new ones.One of the most urgent challenges we face is thedigital divide. Around the world, there are still billions of people who lack access to the internet and the transformative technologies that come with it. This divide not only limits their opportunities but also hinders our collective progress. We must work together to bridge this digital divide and ensure that everyone has the opportunity to benefit from the transformative power of technology.Another challenge we must address is the issue of privacy and data security. As technology becomes more pervasive in our lives, we are generating vast amounts of personal data. It is essential that we protect this data from misuse and ensure that it is used in a responsible and ethical manner.To ensure that technology is used for good, we need to foster a culture of collaboration and multi-stakeholder engagement. Governments, businesses, civil society organizations, and individuals all have a role to play in shaping the future of technology. We need to work together to create a framework that promotes innovation whilesafeguarding our values and protecting the public interest.In conclusion, the transformative power of technology holds immense promise for our future. But to harness this power and create a better world for all, we must use technology wisely and responsibly. We must bridge thedigital divide, protect privacy and data security, andfoster a culture of collaboration. By working together, we can harness the transformative power of technology tocreate a future that is more just, equitable, and sustainable for all.中文回答：尊敬的全球同胞们、亲爱的同事们和尊贵的来宾们，。