中电集团（China Light and Power）扎根于香港已有一百多年，至今仍是香港最大的电力公司。但如今，中电集团的业务已经遍布亚洲，不仅是中国大陆最大的外资电力供应商，亦在澳大利亚、印度、泰国和台湾地区投资发展并营运能源项目。

    亚洲能源需求不断飙升，同时全球石化燃料日益枯竭，如何在两者之间寻求平衡已经成为这个时代最大的挑战。业务遍布亚洲的中电集团自然责无旁贷。包立贤持有剑桥大学（Cambridge University）文学硕士及哈佛商学院（Harvard Business School）工商管理硕士学位，在总部设于日内瓦的世界可持续发展工商理事会（World Business Council for Sustainable Development）下属的能源与气候小组担任联席主席。他2000年加入中电集团，出任集团CEO，今年晚些时候，他将会离开中电集团，加入嘉道理父子有限公司（Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Limited）。后者是中电集团最大股东嘉道理家族持有的私人公司。本周，他在香港接受了《财富》杂志（Fortune）编辑大卫•威佛德的专访：

    问：目前贵公司使用的各类能源比例为多少？中电集团未来的发展方向是什么？

    答：仅就香港而言，核能占25%。纵观整个中电集团，主要的还是石化燃料，其中煤约占60%，燃气占15%，再加上20%的可再生能源以及5%的核能。

    问：你们不再增建煤电厂了吗？

    答：对，在香港，我们不会再建了。2010年，香港政府就未来整个香港的能源需求进行了民意咨询，提出的主张是：到2020年，全港电力供应中，核电占50%，燃气发电占40%，煤电占10%。我们是中国第一座商用核电站、大亚湾核电站的股东。大亚湾核电站为香港提供约25%的电力。如果香港需要更多核电，我们将追加投入。同时我们也计划投资于为广东供电的核能项目，如：阳江核电站项目。

    问：中电集团将在阳江核电站采用何种核电技术？

    答：和大亚湾核电站一样，采用是压水反应堆技术（Pressurized Water Reactor，缩写为PWR，第二代核电技术）。未来中国会启用第三代核电技术。目前在建的有美国西屋电气公司（Westinghouse）的AP1000技术和法国阿海珐集团公司（AREVA）的EPR技术。同时，中国也正在计划自主研发第三代核电技术。我猜测，他们将通过标准化设计、本土化制造和完善整个供应链达到量产来降低成本。法国人在上世纪70年代和80年代的核电项目就是这样做的。用合理的成本大举兴建核电项目完全可以实现。假设在美国推进一个一次性核电项目，那么所有的监管问题和设计问题所耗费的成本就像气球，会越吹越大。但是如果能把这些前期成本分摊到整个项目中，负担就没那么大了。再加上如果能把整个供应链高效运作起来，就可以大幅降低成本。而这正是中国擅长的。

    China Light and Power's roots are more than a hundred years deep in Hong Kong. It's still the city's largest utility. But today what's known as the CLP Group operates across Asia -- on the mainland (where it's China's biggest foreign electricity producer), and in Australia, India, Thailand, and Taiwan.

    That makes CLP a player in the greatest challenge of our time: How to balance Asia's soaring energy demands with the planet's urgent need to wean itself from fossil fuels. Andrew Brandler, CEO of the CLP Group since 2000, has degrees from Cambridge University and Harvard Business School, and he's co-chair of the energy and climate group within the Geneva-based World Business Council for Sustainable Development. He'll be leaving CLP's corner office later this year to join Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Limited, the private company of the Kadoorie Family, CLP's largest shareholder. This week he sat down with Fortune's David Whitford in Hong Kong.

    What is your current fuel mix, and where are you headed?

    In Hong Kong we're 25% nuclear. Across the whole group, it's mostly fossil fuels -- about 60% coal and 15% gas -- plus 20% renewables and 5% nuclear.

    And you're not building any more coal plants?

    In Hong Kong, no, we would not do that. The government in 2010 came out with a public consultation about the future energy needs for the whole of Hong Kong that postulated by 2020 nuclear being 50% of the electricity supply, gas 40%, and coal 10%. We were an investor in China's first commercial nuclear power station at Daya Bay, which supplies about 25% of Hong Kong's electricity. If Hong Kong needs more nuclear, we're keen to invest in that. We're also looking to invest in new nuclear stations that are supplying Guangdong, like the Yangjiang project.

    What technology will you be deploying there?

    It's PWR [pressurized water reactor, second-generation] technology, the same as Daya Bay. China will be moving to third-generation. They are building the [Westinghouse] AP1000, they're building the [Areva] EPR, and they are looking to develop their own versions of each as well as their own third-generation technology. I suspect they will standardize the design, and they will localize the fabrication and get the whole supply chain geared up, and they will mass-produce to get the cost down. This is what the French did in the '70s and '80s with their nuclear program. There's no fundamental reason why you can't implement an aggressive buildout of nuclear power at reasonable cost. If you're doing a one-off project, like in the United States, with all the regulatory issues and design issues, the costs just balloon. But if you can spread all those upfront costs over a whole program, it's not so burdensome. And if you can get the supply chain working -- which China is very good at -- you can bring those costs down dramatically.

    问：你认为核能是解决亚洲能源危机的出路吗？

    答：如果我们真的认真对待气候变化问题，那么我们也必须认真对待核能。美国正走一条折中的道路，美国宣称：“我们不使用核能，只需要用天然气取代煤。”也许这能让美国的能源危机推迟一段时间，但问题是天然气碳排放量很高。如果不使用核能，世界将很难在继续满足能源需求增长的同时避免对气候产生破坏性影响的风险。核能是目前唯一既能提供我们生存所需的能源，同时又能将成本控制在合理范围内的技术。如果利用得当，核能可以实现零碳排放。

    问：迄今为止，中国是世界上核电扩张最快的国家，有28个新核电站在规划中，有的或已开建。这样做，我们是否需要担心核能使用的安全问题？

    答：中国很重视各国的看法，正努力确保核电项目的万无一失。我们在大亚湾核电站项目上看到了极高的安全记录及安全意识，安全并没有只是停留在口号上。你看到《南华早报》（South China Morning Post）的头条新闻了吗? 四天中在同一个煤矿发生了二次爆炸，其中有29人在星期五爆炸中丧生，另外7人则在昨天的爆炸中身亡。可是有多少人直接死于福岛核电站的核泄漏危机呢？零。海啸造成3万人死亡，但福岛核泄露事故并没有直接造成人员死亡。任何选择都有风险，只能两害相权取其轻。

    问：现在核电是否要依靠亚洲引领？

    答：是的。世界电力需求增长的大部分都来自亚洲。中国每年新建8万兆瓦装机容量。中电集团是一家市值200亿美元的大公司，我们在亚洲的装机容量为2万兆瓦。也就是说，中国每个季度的新增装机容量就抵得上中电集团的所有装机容量了。中国每年的新增装机容量中有6万兆瓦都是煤电。好在这些电厂都将使用清洁煤技术，有利于常规排放量的减少。

    问：北京是否还会出现雾霾天气？

    答：一段时间内肯定是有的。中国正在建设高效、现代的火力发电厂，但碳排放量仍然较高。气候变化是一个不容忽视的问题，需要想办法解决，但是他们首先要解决的是在满足能源需求的同时减少常规碳排放量。

    问：你觉得未来会如何发展？我们是否终将难逃一劫？

    答：碳排放量将在未来20到30年急剧上升。到了某一时刻，可能需要一场大的危机才能使全球齐心协力。很难说危机将以什么样的形式出现，但破坏性需要特别大。相比之下，飓风桑迪或卡特里娜那样的灾害力度还不够大。不需要成为专家就能明白气候不稳定所引起的巨大风险。应该是提前应对，而不是等到灾难发生以后。但是政客们面临的问题是，选举周期太短，无法认真处理。如何去对选民说：“我们现在要过点苦日子，因为我们要么放慢经济增速，要么提高能源生产成本，而这也将导致增长减缓。不过不用担心，到2050年，你们的子孙将会因此受益良多。”选民肯定很难接受。英国经济学家尼克•斯特恩在他的《斯特恩报告》（Stern Report）中曾试图兜售这样的想法。他说：到2050年，这么做的成本可能只占GDP的1%，人们甚至感觉不到。话虽如此，但要转换成目前要实施的具体政策就要难得多了。在西方自由民主国家中，这在民意上很难行得通。

    Do you think nuclear is the answer to Asia's energy dilemma?

    If you're serious about climate change, I think you've got to be serious about nuclear. The U.S. is going down an intermediate path, saying "We don't need nuclear, we'll just back out of coal and we'll use natural gas." That will defer the problem in the U.S. for a period of time. But gas is still pretty carbon intensive. Without nuclear it's hard to see how the world will continue to meet energy demand growth without catastrophic risk to the climate. Nuclear is the only technology that exists today that can provide base-load power at a reasonable cost -- if you get the program right -- with zero carbon emissions.

    China has by far the most aggressive nuclear buildout underway in the world today, with 28 new plants planned or already under construction. Can we trust them to do this safely?

    They are very sensitive about the world's perception, and they want to make sure they are getting it right. Everything we've seen on the ground at Daya Bay suggests it's not just rhetoric. The safety record and the safety culture are extremely high. Did you see the headline in the South China Morning Post? Second explosion in one coal mine in four days. Twenty-nine people killed Friday and another seven people killed yesterday. How many people were directly killed by the meltdown at Fukushima? Zero. Well, the tsunami killed 30,000 people; the nuclear accident itself hasn't killed anybody. We have choices to make. None of them are easy.

    And it's up to Asia to take the lead on this?

    Yes, because the majority of the growth in power demand is going to come from this part of the world. China builds 80,000 megawatts a year new capacity. We're a big company -- $20 billion market cap -- and we are 20,000 megawatts across the region. But every quarter China builds another CLP. And something like 60,000 megawatts is coming from coal. The good news is that the coal will be done cleanly, in the sense of conventional emissions.

    No more yellow smog in Beijing?

    After a while, sure. China is building efficient, modern coal-fired plants, but they are still carbon-intensive. Climate change is not something they're ignoring but it's a problem to be dealt with later. They have to deal with the conventional emissions first and meet the demand for energy.

    What do you think is going to happen? Are we doomed?

    Carbon emissions are going to rise quite dramatically in the next 20 to 30 years. At some stage it will need a major crisis in order for the world to get its act together. Hard to say what form that will take. You need something really catastrophic. Hurricane Sandy or Katrina, that's not a big enough crisis. You do not have to be an expert to understand there's a major risk of climate destabilization that requires action today, not after it hits you. But the problem the politicians face is the electoral cycle is just too short to deal with that. It's very hard to say to voters, "Look, I have to make you poorer now because we're going to have to slow down growth or increase costs of energy production which will have the consequence of slowing down growth. But don't worry, it's going to benefit your children or your grandchildren by the year 2050." That's a difficult sell. [British economist] Nick Stern tried it in his Stern report; he said it's only 1% of GDP by 2050, you won't even notice. But translate that into specific policies that you have to implement today, and it is much harder. It's a difficult political sell in a liberal western democracy.

    问：在中电集团，你们已经撬动几个重量级的杠杆，你们打算怎么做？

    答：我们在2007年就制定了一个气候策略，到2050年我们将能实现卓有成效的去碳化。2010年完成第一步目标，接下来是2020年，2035年，直到2050年的最终目标。

    问：你们是否达成了2010年的目标？

    答：没错。我们完成了。但这只是刚刚开始。我们已经开始全力朝着2020年的目标前进。我们要说的是，如果大家都跟随我们的策略，如果整个行业都能这么做，到2050年，亚洲地区的电力供应就可能很大程度实现去碳化，从而最终像《联合国气候变化框架公约》（United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change）指出的那样，避免大规模气候变化。

    问：到时候中电集团会实现零碳排放吗？

    答：不是零碳排放。我们所说的是将我们整体装机容量的碳排放量降至0.2公斤/千瓦时的强度。我们现在在0.8左右。那将是一个实质性的降幅。如果世界上其他的电力公司也能这么做，那么整个电力行业，虽然不会是零排放，但也将基本实现去碳化了。

    问：是否存在什么因素可能会阻碍你们达成这个目标？

    答：我认为中电集团会完成这个目标。有一件事我们可以肯定的说，一旦公司业绩停止增长，停止投资，那么就会有一位商业精英走进我的办公室，取代我的工作，让我卷铺盖走人。这是资本主义的本质。但是中电集团可以选择继续根据低碳战略发展业务，可以在核电上进行更多的投资，可以加大对可再生能源的投资以及燃气发电的投资。我们继续运营备用燃煤发电机组，关闭其他燃煤电厂，终究还是把我们的碳排放量降下来。我们可以在能源行业找到自己的位置，但并不是每家电力公司都能做到我们这样。如果你是一家大陆发电企业，正在遵循国家发展目标，那么你说不再用燃煤发电了，那是行不通的。我们可以不假思索，坦率地说，如果世界上其他电力公司也和我们实施一样的策略，那么世界将会更加美好。那么，我们还能做些什么？我们做我们认为对公司和股东有利的事，我们希望其他电力公司能知道他们应该做什么。

    问：据我个人观察，我不是很明白为什么大的电力生产商，像中电集团，好像总是在应对气候变化上领先群雄。你是否认同？如果是这样，你是怎么想的？

    答：对于企业来说，这是一种风险管理方式。我知道这听起来有点难以置信。我并不是授命拯救地球，而是在这里负责为一家大公司制定和实施一个策略，使它能实现可持续发展。中电集团不能再走以前的老路，为持续自己的业务不计后果的增加碳排放。我们已经经营了一百多个年头，我们还将继续下一个一百年。减少碳排放量并不意味着要停止一切有碳排放的投资，那是不切实际的。而是通过慢慢对我们的投资组合去风险化，这样我们还是可以发展业务，同时为股东赢得回报，调整碳排放风险，同时维持我们的广大业务。

    问：你认为最乐观的情况是怎样的？

    答：用可再生能源来解决世界能源问题，这点我也不是很确定。我们有很多的可再生资源，比如，大量的风能、太阳能和潮汐能。但是利用这些能源的成本都非常高。唯有寄希望于世界技术的发展，目前为止全球新技术开发做的很好。但我认为还需要技术上的突破——如同黑天鹅事件（Black swan event黑天鹅事件指非常难以预测，且不寻常的事件，通常会引起市场连锁负面反应，甚至颠覆），一个还没有人想到的能够解决世界能源问题的方法。据我所知最接近的黑天鹅事件应该是核裂变。但问题是，相关技术是否能及时实施，是否能把成本降下来。历史证明，人类是是极具创造性的。相信一旦激励机制到位了，他们就一定会成功。（财富中文网）

    译者：默默

    You've got your hands on some pretty powerful levers at CLP. What are you doing?

    We articulated a climate strategy in 2007 that by 2050 will see us decarbonize dramatically. First goal was 2010, then 2020, 2035, and 2050.

    Did you hit your 2010 goal?

    Yes, we did. It's a modest start. We're well down the path for hitting the 2020 target as well. What we say essentially is that if everybody followed our strategy -- if the whole industry did it -- then there's some chance by 2050 that the electricity supply industry in this part of the world is largely decarbonized, and on a trajectory to hit what the UNFCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] has said is what you need to in order to avoid massive climate change.

    You'll be carbon-free by then?

    Not carbon-free, but what we're saying is we want to get our portfolio to a carbon intensity of 0.2 kilograms per kilowatt hour. We're now at about 0.8. That is a material reduction. And if the rest of the world did the same thing, the industry is not carbon-free, but it's largely decarbonized.

    What might stop you from reaching that goal?

    I don't think CLP will have a problem. One thing we could say is we're going to stop growing, stop investing, in which case someone in a white suit comes into my office, puts my arms in a straightjacket, marches me out, and someone else takes over. That's the nature of capitalism. But we can make choices that will allow us to continue to grow the business in line with our carbon strategy. We can make more investments in nuclear, more investments in renewable energy, more investments in gas-fired generation. We can still do the occasional coal plant, and we can close other coal plants, and still bring our carbon down. We can be a niche player, but not everybody can do what we can do. Because if you're a mainland generator who's there to implement national developmental goals, you can't say you are not going to do coal anymore. It's easier for us, and it's glib, frankly, for us to say, if the rest of the world followed our strategy, the world would be better off. But what else can we do? We do what we think is right for our company and our stakeholders, and we hope the rest of the world can figure out what they should do as well.

    In my experience, big electricity producers such as CLP seem to be ahead of the pack on climate change, which doesn't really make sense to me. Do you agree, and if so, why do you think that is?

    At the end of the day for business -- I know this sounds cynical -- it is all about risk management. I do not have a mandate to save the planet. I'm here to develop and implement a responsible strategy for a large organization in a way that is ultimately sustainable. CLP cannot be on a trajectory of continuing to increase its carbon emissions without regard for the consequences and hope to continue to be in business. We have been in business for over 100 years, and we want to be in business for another 100 years. That does not mean stopping all investments that have carbon emissions, that's unrealistic. But it's about de-risking the portfolio slowly over time so that we can still grow the business and earn returns for our shareholders, risk-adjusted for carbon, while preserving our broader franchise.

    What's your most optimistic scenario?

   The idea that renewable energy is going to solve the world's problems, I'm not so sure about that. There are lots of renewable resource out there -- lots of wind, lots of sunlight, lots of tidal impact. But the cost of harnessing all that is very high. The hope for the world is technology, and the world's been pretty good at developing technology. I think there needs to be a technology breakthrough -- a black swan that no one has thought about that comes along and solves the world's energy problems. The closest to a black swan that I have heard about is nuclear fission. The question is whether it can be done in time, and whether they can get the cost down. Human beings are quite inventive creatures. History has shown that with the right incentives, they can figure things out.