景觀和能源專輯引言

德克·西蒙斯（Prof.em. ir. Dirk Sijmons）教授

景觀和能源專輯引言

Introduction for the special issue 'Landscape and Energy' Prof.em. ir. Dirk Sijmons

德克·西蒙斯（Prof.em. ir. Dirk Sijmons）教授

目前已經有195個國家簽署了巴黎協定，致力于將全球氣候變暖控制住并降低2℃，大多數人意識到實現該目標所需要的行動將會極大地影響到陸地景觀乃至海洋風貌。不僅是那些屬于能源轉型類的項目（如風力渦輪機基地、太陽能基地、水力發(fā)電廠、潮汐發(fā)電廠、地熱設施等），還有植樹造林項目和生物量生產，將會逐漸改變地球面貌。這并不是一件容易的事。以景觀這種象征性和富于意義的形式存在的空間將會成為該轉型成敗的戰(zhàn)場。我確信，在全世界范圍內風景園林師將開始發(fā)揮作用。

為了強調向無碳化社會轉型需要一種全球視角，從全世界范圍內征集文章似乎是一個很棒的主意。我們正在尋找活躍在能源與景觀這個新前沿方向的風景園林師進行的項目。我們歡迎國際風景園林師聯合會（IFLA）渠道所有種類的項目。這些項目可大可小，可以是建成的也可以是分析型的，可以是設計項目也可以是通過設計展開的研究。它們可能涉及發(fā)電項目、熱量串聯或生產生物燃料，也可能通過植樹造林或者間接的政府政策來解決 CO2排放。讀者們會發(fā)現即使是關于化石燃料景觀和基礎設施的清理也會受到歡迎。

從加拿大，我們收到了凱斯·洛克曼（Kees Lokman，英屬哥倫比亞大學風景園林學助理教授）的文章，該文展示了有關城市代謝的開拓性理論可以如何被作為一種設計框架用于設想低碳未來。

從法國，我們收到了來自凡爾賽國立景觀設計學校的成果，該成果的指導老師是阿爾蘭·多羅（Auréline Doreau），伯特蘭·佛蘭（Bertrand Folléa），帕特里克·托基（Patrick Moquay），以及工作室的學生莫嘉娜·布朗扎克 （Morgane Braouezec），愛麗絲·斯蒂芬（Alice Stevens），史蒂夫·沃爾克（Steve Walker），奧費力·布韋（Ophélie Bouvet），利亞·維特（Léa Chauvet），吉特吉·杜馬斯（Guillemette Dumars）和阿德里安·盧梭（Adrien Rousseau）一起，展示了凡爾賽ENSP的成果。這個關于為推動綠色增長而設立積極能源區(qū)的研究不僅內容非常有趣，也表明了凡爾賽國立景觀設計學校已經有了一位專門的“風景園林與能源主席”。這一成果凸顯了在風景園林雜志本期專輯中討論該主題的迫切性。

最后，來自荷蘭的是我自己的文章，該文簡要介紹了兩個通過設計展開研究的過程，一個是在4個尺度（歐洲、荷蘭、4個地區(qū)、家庭）上設計轉型，另一個是在北海上大規(guī)模利用風能的案例。

從《風景園林》這一中國期刊的視角看，展示上述最新動向有3個充足的理由。首先，作為即將成為世界上最大的 CO2排放國之一的中國有著最具雄心的能源轉型計劃以及已完工的龐大風力和太陽能項目。第二個原因是中國有著世界上最多的風景園林設計師。作為本刊的主辦機構，僅北京林業(yè)大學，即本刊的主辦機構，就培養(yǎng)了2700名風景園林學碩士生。第三個原因是在中國的風景園林實踐還尚未參與到這些新項目中。

能源轉型：問題的本質和重要性

對于這些簽署了巴黎協定的國家而言，巴黎協定意味著到2050年需要減少80-90%當量的 CO2排放①。為達到這一目標，需要對整個能源系統(tǒng)進行大規(guī)模的轉型。這一轉型將對社會的每個角落都帶來影響。因為這是一個全球性的任務，使問題的本質和程度得到理解（且切實可感?。┑淖詈梅绞娇此剖且粤鞒虉D形式進行一種合適的圖解，展現2010年世界總體能源平衡情況。（圖1）

圖表的好處是作者們②假設每件事物均是這樣發(fā)生的，且定義每件事物絕對都如此，即世界中能源的生產和使用能夠最終傳遞到各種終端使用形式。這可能包括農業(yè)領域、工業(yè)領域、拐角處的木匠、包裹分發(fā)、采礦業(yè)、集裝箱運輸船的航行，這些都可以在能量記錄中當作終端使用項。這意味著能量終端是由你和我這樣的人來使用，類別包括家用、取暖、事物、交通、衛(wèi)生、通信、照明、信息技術等。

從能源產生到廣泛的能源使用終端，全球能源經濟可以得到步步追蹤?；诖耍酥牢覀冋媾R的任務規(guī)模很大之外，還對它了解多少？如果能源轉型能夠成功完成，這個模型看起來將會或應該會是什么樣？因為在桑基圖中，線的厚度表明了能源流量的廣泛程度，我們首先需要做的是通過節(jié)能的方式使整個圖形變的更薄。節(jié)能是迄今為止最有效的減少 CO2量的方式。節(jié)約1兆瓦意味著可以進行減少3兆瓦的發(fā)電。為什么會有這樣的情況？由于電力泄漏、傳輸、分配、轉換所造成的電力損失意味著僅有少于1/3的發(fā)電真正地轉變?yōu)橛杏霉?。另一個節(jié)能的理由是人類能否以一個可持續(xù)的方式生產人類當前水平活動（474EJ）所需能量的能力受到高度質疑。此外，簡單廉價的能源時代已經結束了。盡管目前低價的石油可能仍然是廉價的能源，能源投資的回報（EROI）實際上在逐漸減少③。這個社會為了獲取能源正在消耗越來越多的能源。

如果我們想要減少80%的 CO2當量，再生能源的比例將不得不顯著增加。之后你可以提出在能源轉型中，“發(fā)電”（203EJ）將在“直接燃料使用”上獲得大量的能源收益。這可以通過未來社會的電氣化來實現，也可以通過電能的化學“致密化”（例如轉化為氫能）來實現，這會使電能在工業(yè)過程中發(fā)揮更實用價值。因此熱量必須在能源轉型中承擔核心角色，但是它卻經常被忽視。妥善地處理這些進程中的余熱也是能源轉型中至關重要的一部分。通過利用余熱以及提高燃燒過程的效率，2/3的損耗是可避免的，這至關重要，并要系統(tǒng)研究。在圖的最后一行，你可以看到石油能源（由發(fā)動機的運行而驅動飛機、汽車、卡車、和船），很可能是轉型中最艱難的問題。最后，圖形表明我們不應該只重視能源終端應用。例如，在建筑方面，讓建筑不耗能甚至生產能源是不夠的，也要關注（圖中的上一步）建筑材料的可持續(xù)性，（圖中的再上一步）以及這些建筑材料的制造過程中的 CO2足跡。這些努力中的每一步都將取得收益。

能量和空間：一種難以分解的關聯

就像在阿爾伯特·愛因斯坦（Albert Einstein）的著名能量守恒公式E=mc2中質量和能量是相互關聯的一樣，能源和空間之間也相互關聯。在人類歷史的長河中，能源使用和空間使用、能源生產和空間設計一直存在明顯的相互作用。改造地球，比如挖礦、組織、運作、重新設計，主要能源投入是通過人類和動物的肌肉力量和由燃料推助的機器。相反的，對于各種能源的產生，空間干預都是必要的，并且每一種能源的形式都與空間有關。自從人類掌握了火的使用，樹木甚至整個森林都被砍伐來獲得能量。例如煤炭、石油和天然氣這些化石燃料都是“凝固的日光”，他們需要從地球中被釋放，挖出、鉆探和抽出，之后被運輸和處理。荷蘭景觀中的溝渠和泥炭堆積就是對過去泥炭開采的無聲的見證。露天的褐煤和煤炭礦是最大的人工制品之一。

在空間和能源的相互關系中，我們無法明確地說明哪個是主導，哪個是從屬；也許兩者都是。當我們想要按特定方式改變地球，我們會去尋找合適種類和數量的能源。一旦我們有了獲取大量能源的途徑，我們會開始構思以前無法想象的新的能源應用方法。能源和空間可以互相改變彼此，在歷史的進程中也是一起改變的。以主導能源形式劃分人類歷史并不牽強，每個能源時期都有自己的空間表現特征。我們可以把從1800年開始的這個階段的特征描述為“化石表現主義”時代。

在這個世紀，我們再一次地面臨能源管理和空間秩序的重大變化。在過去的兩個世紀里，我們的社會、經濟和世界秩序都是在化石燃料充足的情況下建立的。這對現存空間的使用、外貌和感知都產生了前所未有的影響。但在未來的幾十年，不可再生的化石燃料時代將開始萎縮。有充足的理由來使用其他的能源系統(tǒng)，一個由化石燃料逐步轉向多元化的能源結構的系統(tǒng)；這個能源組合將由可再生系統(tǒng)例如風能、水電、太陽能、余熱和生物能組成。這是一個巨大的任務：考慮到70到100億的居民，我們需要在棲息地居住和工作的同時重建我們的棲息地。

在能源轉型的背景下能源和空間之間變化的關系尚未被廣泛討論?？臻g的主要變化之一是，這些再生能源經常需要在大范圍內進行收集；他們的能量密度遠低于化石燃料。過去發(fā)電時只有地平線上的煙囪是可見的，但是這種景象將會顯著改變。在家庭環(huán)境，在工作的地方，在休閑游覽區(qū)：風力渦輪機和太陽能板將到處可見。對這些普遍的新時期可見標識的適應的過程將會引起壓力與抗議。

能源部門傾向于將空間問題視為開發(fā)問題，而空間規(guī)劃師則通常將能源供應看作是超出它們實際設計工作范圍之外的技術設備問題。因為能源領域和空間領域很大程度上各行其是，導致錯失了以智慧而令人滿意的方式整合二者的機會。

借由本專輯，我們希望為打破上述僵局做出貢獻。我們想讓能源部門看到他們工作領域的空間維度。我們也想向空間設計者展示能源轉型是一個名副其實的景觀挑戰(zhàn)。景觀，相比空間來說是一個定性的概念。它很難被定義，更不用說量化了。景觀是一個豐富的層狀概念，它描述了人與自然的關系，以及人與人之間的關系。景觀承載著價值觀，從個人記憶到社會象征。這就是為什么景觀常常成為那些發(fā)生在能源轉型與空間之交界地帶的爭論戰(zhàn)場。

Now that the Paris Agreement has been signed by 195 countries to keep global warming‘well below 2oC’, most of us realize that the actions needed to reach that goal will deeply inf l uence our landscapes and indeed our seascapes. Not only projects that belong to the necessary energy transition, such as wind turbine parks, solar energy fi elds, hydropower complexes, tidal plants, geo-thermal installations, but also re-afforestation projects and biomass production, will gradually change the face of the earth. This will not be easy. Space, in its symbolic and meaning-loaded guise as landscape, will be the battlefield where this transition will be lost or won. It is my conviction that, worldwide, landscape architects will have a role to play.

To stress that this transition to a decarbonized society needs a global perspective, it seemed a great idea to gather articles from all over the world. We were looking for projects by landscape architects who are active on this new frontier between energy and landscape. We welcomed all kind of projects in our international call through IFLA channels. The projects could be large or small, executed or more analytic, design or research-throughdesign. They might deal with electricity production projects, heat cascading, or producing biomass for fuels, but could also tackle the CO2question by re-afforestation or, more indirectly, by developing policy instruments. Even projects that deal with the cleaning up of fossil fuel landscapes and infrastructure were welcomed, as the reader will observe.

From Canada, we have a contribution by Kees Lokman (Professor of Landscape Architecture at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver) that shows how the groundbreaking theories on urban metabolism can be applied as a design framework for envisioning low-carbon futures.

From France, we show work from the ENSP Versailles, with the tutors Auréline Doreau, Bertrand Folléa, and Patrick Moquay, and the studio students Morgane Braouezec, Alice Stevens, Steve Walker, Ophélie Bouvet, Léa Chauvet, Guillemette Dumars, and Adrien Rousseau. This work about positive-energy regions for green growth is not only very interesting in terms of content, but also shows that the ENSP already has a special Chair for Landscape Architecture and Energy. This fact underlines the urgency of this theme in this special issue of 'Landscape Architecture'.

And fi nally, from the Netherlands, is my own article, a concise sketch of two research-by-design trajectories, Landscape and Energy, on designing the transition on three levels of scale (Europe, the Netherlands, four regions, and individual household), and on the North Sea case about massive offshore wind.

There are three good reasons to present this first 'tour d’ horizon' from the perspective of the Chinese journal 'Landscape Architecture'. The first is that next to being one of the world largest producers of CO2, China also has the most ambitious programs for the energy transition and spectacular wind and solar energy projects installed. The second reason is that nowhere in the world there are more landscape architects trained then in China. The Beijing Forestry University, the home base of this journal, e.g. alone has 2.700 master students in Landscape Architecture. The third reason is that the practice of Landscape Architecture in China is not yet fully involved in these new commissions.

Energy transition: the nature and magnitude of the problem

For those countries that signed the energy agreement, the Paris Agreement means a CO2eq①reduction of between 80-90% by 2050. Achieving this reduction would require a largescale conversion of our entire energy system. This transition will have an impact on the very fabric of society. Because the task is a global one, it seems the best way to make the nature and extent of the problem comprehensible (and tangible!) is an appropriate illustration in the form of a fl ow chart, which shows the overall energy balance of the world in 2010. （Figure 1）

The nice thing about the chart is that the authors②assume that everything, absolutely everything, that occurs in terms of the world’s production and use of energy can ultimately be passed on to the various forms of end use. That might include agriculture, industrial areas, the carpenter around the corner, packet distribution, mining, or the sailing of container ships; these can all be recorded in the energetic accounting book in terms of their end use. That means end use by people like you and me, in categories such as the home, heating, food, transport, sanitation, communication, lighting, IT, and so on.

From the sources to the wide range of end users, the global energy economy can be followed step by step. On this basis, what can you say about the task that we are facing except that it is very large? What would, or should, this fi gure look like if the energy transition were to be successfully accomplished? Because the thickness of the lines ina Sankey diagram indicates how extensive the fl ows are, the fi rst action that we would need to undertake is to make the overall fi gure thinner, by means of conservation. Energy saving is by far the most costeffective way of reducing CO2. A saving of 1MW means a difference of 3 MW in terms of energy generation. How can that be the case? Losses resulting from leaks, transmission, distribution, and conversion mean that less than one third of the generated energy is actually converted into useful work. Another argument for conservation is that it is highly questionable whether we will be able to generate all the necessary needed for the current levels of human activity (474 EJ) in a completely sustainable way. Moreover, the era of easy and cheap energy is over. Although the low prices for oil might suggest otherwise, the Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) is actually decreasing gradually③. It is costing society more and more energy to get energy.

If we want to get an 80% reduction in CO2eqthe proportion of ‘renewable’ energy will have to be very signif i cantly increased. You could then propose that in the transition, ‘electricity generation’ (203 EJ) will make substantial gains on‘direct fuel use’ (272 EJ). This can be achieved by the further electrif i cation of society, but also by the chemical ‘densif i cation’ of electricity (for example via conversion to hydrogen), which would make this electricity useful in industrial processes. Heat must therefore assume a central role in the debate about the transition, but it is often neglected. Properly dealing with the residual heat from all of these processes is also a crucial part of the transition. Those two-thirds of losses that can be prevented, for example by using waste heat and by improving the eff i ciency of combustion processes, will have to play a major role, and be systematically investigated. The bottom row of the diagram, where you see the energy source of oil (which is converted by motors to put in motion the passive systems of aircraft, cars, trucks, and ships), could well be the hardest nut to crack in the transition. Finally, the figure shows that we should not only be focusing on the end use. For example, in terms of buildings, it is not only about making buildings energetically-neutral, or even energy-generating, but also (taking a step back in the diagram) about the sustainability of the building materials, and (taking another step back) about the CO2footprint of how those sustainable building materials are manufactured. Gains can be made in each of these steps.

Energy and space: an indissoluble link

Just as energy and mass are linked in Albert Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2, energy and space can also be seen in relation to each other. Throughout human history, there has been a notable interaction between the use of energy and the use of space, between the production of energy and spatial design. To work the earth – to mine, to organize, operate, and redesign it – major energy investments have been made, via human and animal muscle power, and also with the help of machines that are powered by fuels. Conversely, for every form of energy generation, spatial interventions are required, and every form of energy has a spatial footprint. Ever since the taming of fi re, trees have been felled, and even entire regions have been deforested to get fuel. Fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas are ‘solidif i ed sunshine’, and they need to be released, dug up, drilled, and pumped out of the earth, and then transported and processed. The ditches and peat heaps in the Dutch landscape are the silent witnesses to the peat extraction of the past. Open-pit mines for lignite and coal are among the largest human artefacts.

In the reciprocal relationship between space and energy, it cannot unambiguously be said which is leading, and which is following; it might be both. When we want to work the earth in a certain way, we look for the appropriate type and amount of energy. And once we have access to a large source of energy, we think of new applications that we previously could not have imagined. Energy and space change each other, and they change together over the course of history. It is not far-fetched to divide human history into periods based on the dominant form of energy, and each energy period also has its own characteristic spatial manifestations. We can characterize the period, beginning around 1800, as the era of ‘fossil expressionism’.

In this century, we once again face major changes in our energy management and our spatial order. Over the past two centuries, our society, economy, and world order have been built upon an abundance of fossil fuel energy. This has had an unprecedented impact on the use, appearance, and perception of the available space. But in the coming decades, the self-evident nature of the fossil-fuel era will begin to erode. There are compelling reasons to work towards another energy system, one in which fossil fuels will gradually move to the margins of a diverse energy mix; this mix will be dominated by renewable sources such as wind, hydropower, solar energy, residual heat, and biomass. This is a monumental task: we needto rebuild our habitat at the same time that we continue to live and work in it, with our 7 to 10 billion inhabitants.

The changing relationship between energy and space, in the context of the energy transition, has not yet been extensively discussed. One of the major spatial changes is that these renewable sources often harvest their energy across large areas; their energy density is much lower than that of fossil fuels. It used to be that electricity generation was only visible as a smoke plume on the horizon, but that will change significantly. In the home environment, in the workplace, and in tourist and recreational areas: wind turbines and solar panels will be visible everywhere. The process of getting used to the ubiquity of these visible signs of the new era will lead to tensions and protests.

The energy sector is inclined to see spatial issues as a development issue, while spatial planners usually see the energy supply as a matter of technical equipment that falls beyond the purview of their actual design work. Because the two perspectives of energy and space largely proceed independently of each other, opportunities are missed to integrate them in an intelligent and desirable way.

With this special issue, we want to make a contribution to break through that impasse. We want to let the energy sector see the spatial dimension of their work field. And we want to show spatial designers that the energy transition is a genuine landscape challenge. Landscape, more so than space, is a qualitative idea. It is difficult to define, let alone quantify. Landscape is a rich and layered concept that speaks as much to the relationship between humans and nature as it does to the relationship between people themselves. Landscape is loaded with values, from individual memories to social symbols. This is why the landscape is often the battleground for heated discussions that take place at the interface between the energy transition and space.

Notes：

① CO2eq即表示所有的溫室氣體可以被換算的等量的 CO2量。 例如，甲烷的溫室效應就是 CO2的25倍，所以CH4相當于25 CO2eq。

CO2eq.: all greenhouse gasses can be expressed in their equivalents of CO2. For instance Methane has a greenhouse effect that is 25 times stronger then CO2. So methane CH4 has 25 CO2eq.

② 喬納森 M. 卡倫, 朱利安 M. 奧伍德: 能源的高效利用:跟蹤全球能量流從燃料至能源服務 能源政策38(2010) 75–81

Jonathan M.Cullen, Julian M. Allwood The efficient use of Energy: Tracing the global flow of energy from fuel to service Energy Policy 38 (2010) 75–81

③ 查爾斯.哈爾和肯特. 莫根斯，能源和國富論:理解生物物理經濟，斯普林格，2011

Charles Hall & Kent Klitgaard, Energy and the Wealth of Nations: Understanding the Biophysical Economy, Springer, 2011.