匿名 發問於 社會及文化語言 · 7 年前


Finding energy answers

There are several public consultations underway. They are focusing on issues such as universal suffrage, waste management and energy mix.

Energy mix, or the overall energy policy, will set out the direction Hong Kong will take in relation to the energy we use. We have several options, including nuclear, natural gas, coal and renewable resources. I would like to encourage Young Post readers to carefully consider these options, because there is no simple answer.

It is easy to say we should avoid nuclear power because it is too dangerous. The disaster at the Fukushima power plant in Japan in 2011 has put a lot of people off the idea of nuclear power. However, in reality, more nuclear power plants will be built regardless of whether or not we embrace the idea.

Nuclear energy is becoming a national policy, and our view on the issue will not change this. Despite the potential for disaster, nuclear energy is still a clean and low-cost way to power a city. It is definitely something that should be considered.

Although not as controversial as nuclear power in terms of safety, natural gas does not come cheap. In the past, the gas price was a lot lower than its current level. Now we have to buy gas at the market rate, which changes all the time. It may be clean and safe, but using natural gas will mean paying more for our energy.

Then there is coal. Coal is one of the cheapest options, but it is dirty. Sure, it will keep our energy bills down. But using coal will also damage the environment.

The answer seems to be renewable energy. However, while it looks good on paper, it isn't always the best option in real life. It is wrong to believe renewable energy can instantly become our main source of electricity.



Our city is not rich in wind, tidal or even solar resources on a yearly basis. The power generated by renewable sources, even at the best of times, is only a tiny percentage of our normal power consumption. It is very expensive to build and operate a renewable power infrastructure.

更新 2:


Are we willing to pay more for the sake of being "green"?

So in conclusion, it is fair to say there is no simple solution to the problem. All I ask is that you form your views on the issue realistically.

2 個解答

  • 7 年前

    尋找能回答有幾個公共協商正在進行。他們關注於如普選問題,廢物管理和能源結構。能源結構,或整體的能源政策,將香港的方向將與我們使用的能源。我們有幾種選擇,包括核能,天然氣,煤和可再生資源。我想鼓勵年輕郵報讀者仔細考慮這些選項,因為沒有簡單的答案。這說起來容易,我們應該避免核能太危險。2011在日本福島核電站災難已經投入了大量的人從核電的想法。然而,在現實中,更多的核電站將建不管我們是否接受這個。核能源已經成為一個全國性的政策,在這一問題上我們的看法不會改變這。儘管潛在的災難,核能仍然是一個清潔和城市能源低成本的方式。這是絕對的東西,應該是。雖然沒有在安全方面核電作為爭議,天然氣不便宜。在過去,天然氣價格比目前的水準低很多。現在我們必須以市場價格購買天然氣,從而改變所有的時間。它可以是乾淨的和安全的,但使用天然氣將意味著我們能付出更多。然後有煤。煤炭是最便宜的選擇,但它是髒的。當然,這將使我們的能源帳單了。但用煤也會破壞環境。答案似乎是可再生能源。然而,雖然理論上看起來不錯,它並不總是在現實生活中的最佳選擇。相信我們可以立即成為可再生能源電力的主要來源是錯誤的。我們的城市是不豐富的風,潮汐甚至太陽能資源,我們每年的基礎The Power generated by可再生的,即使在最好的時代,是唯一有微小的百分比的正常的電力消費它是非常昂貴的可再生電力操作有to build和基礎設施我們願意to pay more for the清酒of being“綠色”?所以在結論,它是公平的說沒有簡單的解決問題我問的是你的realistically Views on the後形態

  • 7 年前










    我們是否願意付出更多的緣故是“綠色” ?