????盡管日本福島核電站發(fā)生了巨大災(zāi)難,，但奧巴馬政府仍然堅(jiān)定不移地支持核電。這是為什么,？《財(cái)富》的托利?紐麥爾就這一問(wèn)題對(duì)美國(guó)能源部副部長(zhǎng)丹尼爾?珀納曼進(jìn)行了采訪,。

????日本核危機(jī)之后，美國(guó)政府部門將如何看待核能在美國(guó)能源組合中的地位,？

????奧巴馬總統(tǒng)的國(guó)情咨文呼吁美國(guó)采取新的能源策略,，以結(jié)束我們對(duì)外國(guó)原油過(guò)度依賴的危險(xiǎn)局面，并大力發(fā)展可再生能源,。你必須要站在這個(gè)角度看待此問(wèn)題,。我們非常重視核能，我們將其視為能源組合中的一員,。不過(guò)我們并不會(huì)忽略其它類型能源,。

????如果這與低成本的清潔能源組合有關(guān)，為何不更多地投資于可再生能源,，使其更具競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力,？

????首先，我們并不清楚如何給碳排放定價(jià),。我們目前通過(guò)平均燃料經(jīng)濟(jì)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)（CAFé）及其它機(jī)制所做的努力是,，讓大家將重心放到如何獲取更清潔的能源組合上。我們必須等待結(jié)果,，看到底哪種能源的成本最低?，F(xiàn)在已有很多創(chuàng)新，而一直以來(lái)將決定權(quán)留給投資者是對(duì)美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)最有利的方式,。

????奧巴馬總統(tǒng)預(yù)算中為核能新提供的360億美元貸款擔(dān)保是否有道理,？如此看來(lái)，這次核危機(jī)的結(jié)果僅僅是使得核能融資成本上升,，不是嗎,？

????我們必須要觀察市場(chǎng)的長(zhǎng)期反應(yīng)。我們之所以向核能和可再生能源提供貸款擔(dān)保,，是因?yàn)槲覀儽仨毾蛳闰?qū)者提供資金,。我們所做的投資都是有條件的,。其中一個(gè)條件是，除非美國(guó)核能管理委員會(huì)（Nuclear Regulatory Commission）斷定反應(yīng)堆都在安全運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn),，否則,，相關(guān)項(xiàng)目不會(huì)得到貸款擔(dān)保。

????在這樣的災(zāi)難性事件之后,，如何確保公眾不對(duì)核能技術(shù)的安全性喪失信心,？

????我們采取的策略必須獲得廣泛的公眾支持。美國(guó)民眾必須相信它能安全運(yùn)作,。我們期望看到有益地辯論,。奧巴馬總統(tǒng)已經(jīng)提出進(jìn)行為期90天的審查。核能技術(shù)應(yīng)該被仔細(xì)審核,，因?yàn)槲覀冃枰_保公眾滿意核能的安全性,。核能行業(yè)將需要達(dá)到高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，這無(wú)可厚非,。

????譯者：項(xiàng)航

????FORTUNE -- The Obama administration has remained steadfast in its support of nuclear power, despite the disaster at the Fukushima plant. Fortune's Tory Newmyer interviewed Daniel Poneman, the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy, to understand why.

????What role does the administration see nuclear playing in our energy portfolio after the disaster in Japan?

????You have to put this in the context of the President's clear call in the State of the Union address for a new energy policy that will end our dangerous over-dependence on foreign oil and include a significant movement to renewables. We're very focused on nuclear power in that context as a component of the mix. But we're not going to pick winners and losers.

????If it's a question of a cost-effective clean-energy mix, why not invest more in renewables in the hope of making them more competitive?

????The problem, to begin with, is we don't now have a price on carbon. The efforts we've undertaken through CAFé standards and other mechanisms put an emphasis on getting to a cleaner mix. We need to see how it plays out and which cost curves come out the lowest. There have been a lot of innovations, and the American economy has always done best leaving those decisions to investors.

????Do the $36 billion in new loan guarantees for nuclear in the President's budget still make sense? And isn't the disaster only going to make financing for nuclear more expensive?

????We'll have to see how markets respond over time. The need to get first movers access to financing is the rationale for all loan guarantees, whether nuclear or renewables. The investments we make are conditional commitments. One condition is that unless the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concludes that any reactor is safe to operate, the project will not get the loan guarantee.

????How do you ensure public confidence in the safety of the technology doesn't collapse after an event like this?

????Any strategy we've got going forward has to enjoy a wide degree of public support. The American people have to believe in its safe operation. We expect a healthy debate. The President has called for a 90-day review. That should be heavily scrutinized, because we need to make sure the public is satisfied with the safety of nuclear power. The industry will be held to a high standard and it should be.