The reflexive conservative opposition to automobile innovation ought to be reconsidered.

保守派对汽车创新的反射性反对应该被重新考虑。


Conservatives tend to dislike electric vehicles, or E.V.s. There are pretty good reasons for that. For one, environmentalists love them and usually environmentalists are wrong. If only all decision-making were so easy.

保守派倾向于不喜欢电动汽车,这有充分的理由。首先,环保主义者喜欢它们,而通常环保主义者是错误的。如果所有决策都如此简单就好了。

Another is that we’re, well, conservative. Internal combustion (I.C.) vehicles are not “broken” by our standards (viz., most of us don’t care about “carbon footprints” since, at some or several levels, we’re skeptical about anthropogenic global warming) so why fix them? In fact, cars overall have made amazing strides in the past few decades in terms of safety and performance. You can buy Plain Jane sedans now that beat a ‘70s muscle car off the line. In fact, as much as Americans love complaining about gasoline prices (while driving alone in their Jurassic Park-sized SUVs) it’s stunning how far a bit of refined petroleum can take a vehicle compared to the hay and oats needed for their predecessors.

另一个原因是:嗯,我们是保守派。按照我们的标准,内燃机汽车并不“坏”(也就是说,我们大多数人并不关心“碳足迹”,因为在某些或某些层面上,我们对人为的全球变暖趋势持怀疑态度),所以为什么要解决这些问题呢?事实上,在过去的几十年里,汽车在安全和性能方面已经取得了惊人的进步。你现在可以买到轻松击败70年代大马力中型汽车的普通轿车。事实上,尽管美国人喜欢抱怨汽油价格(同时独自驾驶着侏罗纪公园当中那般大小的SUV),但与前辈们所需的干草和燕麦相比,一点精炼的石油就能让汽车走得如此之远,已经足够令人惊叹。

To be sure, environmentalists and E.V. supporters generally want you to believe they are superior in many important respects today. Were that true, why the subsidies and mandates? Ipso facto, on the whole E.V.s of today are inferior. But that will change, and for some purposes, they’re already ahead of I.C. cars.

可以肯定的是,环保主义者和电动汽车的支持者通常希望你相信他们今天在许多重要方面都很高明。如果这是真的,为什么要提供补贴和授权?事实上,今天的电动汽车总体上还是劣质的。但这种情况将会改变,而且就某些目的而言,它们已经领先于内燃机汽车。

E.V.s have amazing torque relative to their small-sized motors—motors that also allow the exotic body sculpting we’ve come to associate with them. That means your E.V. family sedan can give you whiplash off the starting line. I was in a Tesla Plaid model that has something called “Ludicrous Mode” (from the 1987 Mel Brooks film Space Balls) that does zero-to-60 in about two seconds, using a triple-motor system that produces a staggering 1,020 horsepower and 1,050 pound-feet of torque. (I was told it’s supposed to have more G-force than jumping from a plane. Former paratrooper here; um, no…)

电动汽车相对于其小尺寸的发动机具有惊人的扭矩,这些发动机也允许我们对其进行吸引人的车身改装。这意味着你的电动家庭轿车可以在起跑线上给你带来爽感。我驾驶的是一辆特斯Model S Plaid,它有一个叫做“Ludicrous Mode”的模式(出自1987年梅尔·布鲁克斯的电影《太空球》),可以在大约两秒钟内从零加速到六十英里/小时,它使用了一个三电机系统,产生惊人的1020马力和1050磅英尺的扭矩。(有人告诉我,它的G力应该比从飞机上跳下来的时候还要大。我是前伞兵;嗯,不……)

In fact, E.V.s are perhaps becoming too fast for some people. Bentley says its forthcoming car will be able to do zero-to-60 MPH in just 1.5 seconds, but since that speed may make some drivers or passengers nauseous, the company plans to optionally throttle the car to reduce the G-force to “only 2.7 seconds.” You lead-footed drivers can relax.

事实上,对一些人来说,电动汽车也许变得太快了。宾利公司表示,其即将推出的汽车将能够在1.5秒内完成从零到60英里/小时的速度,但由于这一速度可能会使一些司机或乘客感到恶心,该公司计划对汽车进行选择性降速,将G力降低到“仅需2.7秒”的程度。你们这些脚踏实地的司机可以放心了。

So sports-car drivers are already in the E.V. corner, nor do you have to be an aficionado to benefit from that torque. A friend has both an electric Porsche Taycan SUV and an Audi e-tron SUV. He says he gets around town a lot more quickly because he can zip through lights before they turn red. That can put him into the light-synchronization loop and thus a single light makes the whole trip much faster.

因此,跑车司机已经站在了电动汽车一边了,你也不一定非得是个爱好者才能从这种扭矩中受益。一位朋友同时拥有一辆电动保时捷Taycan SUV和一辆奥迪e-tron SUV。他说,他在城里跑得更快了,因为他可以在红灯前快速通过。这可以让他进入绿灯波速,因此一个灯就能让整个行程快很多。

I drove the Audi, which per MotorTrenddelivers 355 ponies and 414 foot-pounds of torque to all wheels, with a zero-to-60-MPH time of 5.1 seconds. That’s slightly faster than my last vehicle, a Nissan 350-Z (about 300 and 300)—a two-seater sports car with just enough trunk space for golf clubs.

我驾驶着奥迪车,根据MotorTrend的数据,它为所有车轮提供355匹马力和414英尺磅的扭矩,零到60英里/小时的时间为5.1秒。这比我的上一辆车——日产350-Z(大约300匹马力和300英尺磅的扭矩)——略快,这是一辆双座跑车,后备箱空间刚好够放高尔夫球杆。

Meanwhile, that same torque means you can pull heavy loads without going through a mess of gears. Hence, short-haul electric trucks and buses are becoming popular.

同时,同样的扭矩意味着你可以不需要通过一大堆齿轮就拉动重物。因此,短途的电动卡车和电动公共汽车正在变得流行起来。

Upfront, E.V.s are clearly more expensive. The average transaction price for one is $56,437 according to Kelley Blue Book—roughly $10,000 higher than the overall industry average of $46,329 that includes both I.C.s and E.V.s. So an E.V. is about equivalent to an entry-level luxury car. But part of that is the result of a market distortion caused by tax subsidies. Federal E.V. subsidies are as much as $7,500 for the first 200,000 cars. But both Tesla and GM have gone beyond that. And lo! the 2023 Chevy Bolt E.V. and EUVs are having their prices cut by nearly $6,000.

在前期,电动车显然更加昂贵。根据凯利蓝皮书的说法,电动汽车的平均交易价格为56437美元,比包括内燃机汽车和电动汽车在内的整个行业平均价格46329美元高出约10000美元,因此电动汽车大约相当于一辆入门级的豪华汽车。但其中一部分是由税收补贴造成的市场扭曲的结果。联邦电动汽车补贴对前20万辆汽车的补贴高达7500美元。但特斯拉和通用汽车都已经超出了这个范围。而且,2023年的雪佛兰Bolt E.V.和EUV的价格被削减了近6000美元。

Where the E.V. is supposed to pay off is operational costs.

电动汽车应该得到回报的地方是运营成本。
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


In terms of fueling, the calculations have myriad variables. According to AAA, “the electricity required to drive 15,000 miles per year in a compact electric vehicle costs an average of $546, while the amount of gas required to drive the same distance costs $1,255 (or 130%) more.” That was before the current spike in gas prices, so you’d think the gap would be greater.

在加油方面,计算有无数的变量。根据美国汽车协会的数据,“驾驶紧凑型电动汽车每年行驶15000英里所需的电费平均为546美元,而驾驶相同距离所需的汽油量则要多花1255美元(或130%)”。这一结果是在目前汽油价格飙升之前,所以你可以认为差距会更大。

So I left it to Car & Driver to actually crunch the numbers rather than some presumably biased entity such as environmentalist groups on the one hand and the Anderson Economic Group on the other. (Although even the latter only concluded, “Electric vehicles can be more expensive to fuel,” notwithstanding many dubious inputs.) Car & Driver concluded that in terms of fuel, with various cars, current E.V.s are basically a wash.

因此,我把它留给了《汽车与驾驶》,让它来实际计算这些数字,而不是一些可能有偏见的实体,比如一方面是环保组织,另一方面是安德森经济集团。(虽然即使是后者也只是得出结论:“电动汽车的燃料可能更昂贵”,尽管有许多可疑的投入。) 《汽车与驾驶》杂志认为,在燃料方面,与各种汽车相比,目前的电动汽车基本上可以忽略不计。

Car & Driver included a Department of Energy calculator with many variables, but the two not included are your area’s gasoline prices and electricity rates—rather important since about 80 percent of E.V. owners charge at home and not a public station. “Electric utility rates in the United States vary wildly,” noted the magazine. “Louisiana pays only $0.0897 per kW while Hawaii electric rates are a wallet-busting $0.3244 per kW.” So the biggest determinant may well be where you happen to live.

《汽车与驾驶》包括一个能源计算部门,其中有许多变量,但没有包括的两个变量是你所在地区的汽油价格和电费——这一点相当重要,因为大约80%的电动车主在家里充电,而不是在公共充电站。该杂志指出:“美国的电力设施费率差别很大”。“路易斯安那州每度只需支付0.0897美元,而夏威夷的电费是每度0.3244美元,这让人感到肉疼。”因此,最大的决定因素很可能是你碰巧住在哪里。

More clear-cut are the lower ongoing and maintenance costs of E.V.s. That’s because E.V.s have vastly fewer parts. While gasoline-powered vehicles typically have about 30,000 components, E.V.s require about half of that. It’s not one of Newton’s Laws, but generally fewer moving parts means less maintenance and breakage. According to AAA, “If maintained according to the automakers’ recommendations, electric vehicles cost $330 less than a gas-powered car, a total of $949/annually.”

更明确的是,电动汽车的持续成本和维护成本更低。这是因为电动汽车的零件少得多。汽油动力汽车通常有大约30000个部件,而电动汽车需要大约一半的部件。这不是什么牛顿定律,但一般来说,较少的活动部件意味着较少的维护和破损。根据美国汽车协会,“如果按照汽车制造商的建议进行维护,电动汽车的成本比汽油车低330美元,总计为每年949美元。”

Aside from the up-front cost, by far the biggest E.V. disadvantage is what’s called “range anxiety.” Overwhelmingly, E.V.s don’t go as far as I.C. vehicles, nor are there nearly as many “filling” stations for E.V.s as I.C.s. Finally, even if you do reach such a filling station, you’re going to find that it takes, well, rather longer to charge your battery than fill your tank, even if you only need enough to get home to your own charger.

除了前期成本,到目前为止,电动汽车的最大缺点是所谓的“里程焦虑”。绝大多数情况下,电动汽车无法像内燃机汽车一样走得那么远,也没有像内燃机汽车那样多的电动汽车“加油”站。最后,即使你到了这样的加油站,你也会发现,给电池充电的时间比填满油箱的时间要长,即使你只需要足够开回家用你自己的充电器的电。

While gasoline vehicles have a median range of about 400 miles and a maximum of 765, electric models have a range of about 100 miles for a Mazda MX30 to 405 for the Tesla Model S. But now the startup Lucid Air has models with EPA ratings of up to 520 miles.

汽油车的续航里程中位数约为400英里,最大为765英里,而电动汽车型的续航里程从马自达MX30的100英里到特斯拉Model S的405英里不等,但现在初创公司Lucid Air的车型在EPA评级中高达520英里。

Yet all the testing is performed in more or less ideal conditions. No, not going downhill. But, for example, cold weather absolutely clobbers lithium-ion batteries. You can read that at temperatures below freezing “lithium batteries can operate with very little loss providing 95-98% of their capacity.” Total nonsense. The cold itself will probably reduce range to 70-80 percent. But unless you are dressed like Nanook of the North, you’re going to be running your heater. In an I.C. vehicle, heat comes in off the engine, although air conditioning can significantly cut mileage.

然而,所有的测试都是在或多或少的理想条件下进行的。不,它不是每况愈下。但是,例如,寒冷的天气绝对会让锂离子电池崩溃。你可以看到,在低于冰点的温度下,“锂电池可以以极小的损失提供95-98%的电池容量”。完全是胡说八道。寒冷本身可能会使续航能力降低到70-80%。但是,除非你穿得像北方的纳努克人一样,否则你就得开启你的加热器。在内燃机车辆中,热量来自于发动机,尽管空调的运作也将大大减少里程。

With an E.V., though, that battery has to supply the heat. And a 2019 AAA study found that if you use your electric car’s heater while driving in cold temperatures, depending on the vehicle, your range can be temporarily cut by from a third to a half. I confirmed that figure with E.V. owners. As to air conditioning, AAA actually found that while E.V.s lose power and range, they appear to compare favorably to I.C. vehicles. That said, unless you live in one of those places called “The City of Eternal Springtime,” both cold weather and hot weather will reduce E.V. mileage.

不过,对于电动汽车来说,电池必须提供热量。2019年美国汽车协会的一项研究发现,如果你在寒冷的气温下开车时使用电动汽车的加热器,根据车辆的情况,你的续航里程可能会暂时减少三分之一到一半。我向电动汽车主证实了这一数字。至于空调,美国汽车协会实际上发现,虽然电动汽车失去了动力和里程,但它们似乎比内燃机汽车更有优势。也就是说,除非你住在那些被称为“四季如春之城”的地方,否则寒冷的天气和炎热的天气都会减少电动汽车的里程。

One aspect that is improving is charging-station availability. To meet President Biden’s 2030 goal of half a million charging stations, nearly 15,000 public E.V. charging ports will have to be installed each quarter for the next nine years, according to a U.S. Department of Energy report in December 2021. According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center, there are currently almost 56,000 charging stations in the U.S. with about 110,000 charging ports. By comparison, there are an estimated 110,000-150,000 gas stations, almost all of which have multiple pumps.

电动汽车正在改善的一个方面是充电站的可及性。根据美国能源部2021年12月的一份报告,为了实现拜登总统2030年50万个充电站的目标,在未来9年里,每季度必须安装近15000个公共电动车充电端口。根据美国能源部替代燃料数据中心的数据,目前美国有近56000个充电站,约11万个充电端口。相比之下,全美估计有110000到150000个加油站,每个加油站都配备有多把油枪。

But even this comparison is facile, because car tanks can fill in five minutes while E.V. batteries take longer. How much longer depends on about a zillion factors, give or take. That includes the type of charger, the type of car, the level of charge at the beginning, and how much you want to “fill up.” You probably rarely charge your cell phone from zero and often don’t go to 100%. But at best you have Tesla Level 3 Superchargers that can provide 200 miles of range in only 15 minutes, while other cars with lower-level chargers will take much longer.

但即使是这样的比较也是肤浅的,因为汽车油箱可以在5分钟内装满,而电动车电池充满则需要更长的时间。多长的时间取决于大约一百万种因素。其中包括充电器的类型,汽车的类型,开始时的充电水平,以及你想“充满”的程度。你可能很少从零开始给你的手机充电,而且往往不会充到100%。但在最好的情况下,你如果使用特斯拉3级超级充电器,只需15分钟就能提供200英里的续航里程,而其他汽车的低级别充电器则需要更长的时间。

Home charging with your 120-volt plug takes around forever (nah, maybe 17 hours) but is considerably faster if you install a special 240-volt charger for about $2,000. Indeed, my friend with the two E.V.s says he loves that, since he charges in his garage, he never has to stop for gas. Which in North Dakota winters can be a real pain.

在家用120伏的插头充电大约需要很长时间(也许是17个小时),但如果你安装一个特殊的240伏的充电器,就会快得多,价格约为2000美元。事实上,我有两个驾驶电动汽车的朋友说,他喜欢这样,因为他在车库里充电,他从来不需要停下来加油。在北达科他州的冬天,这可能是一个真正痛苦的差事。
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


Point is, charging stations will need a lot more ports to equal gasoline or diesel stations. Maybe six times as many. As people buy more E.V.s the infrastructure will probably have to stick close to the Biden plan.

关键是,充电站将需要更多的端口,以满足汽油或柴油站的需求。也许是六倍之多。随着人们购买更多的电动汽车,基础设施将可能不得不坚持接近拜登的计划。

Depending on your needs, you probably don’t want to have an E.V. as your sole car anymore than you would want a 2-seater sports car with a trunk just big enough for golf clubs. (As I had. Ahem!) As of 2020, 78 percent of E.V.-owner households also have a second gas-powered vehicle, but most households with only I.C.s also have more than one car.

根据你的需要,你可能不希望把电动汽车作为你唯一的汽车,就像你不希望有一辆双座跑车,后备箱只够放高尔夫球杆一样。(截至2020年,78%的电动汽车车主家庭还拥有第二辆汽油动力汽车,但大多数只有内燃机汽车的家庭也有不止一辆车。

Yet another disadvantage of E.V.s is while we still have limited experience, performance is expected to drop off at about the 10-year mark. At one time, that would have beaten I.C. vehicles, but that’s an area where we’ve seen tremendous I.C.-vehicle improvements such that they too are rated at an average lifespan of 10 years. So it’s about equal. (Here go with the letters to the editor about “My Ford F-150 is running like a beauty for 22 years;” but averages are just that.)

然而,电动汽车的另一个缺点是,虽然我们的经验仍然有限,但其性能预计会在10年左右的时间里出现衰减。曾几何时,这是一个可以击败内燃机汽车的数据,但在这一领域,我们已经看到内燃机汽车的巨大改进,以至于它们也被认为具有10年的平均使用寿命。因此,两者旗鼓相当。(这里有一封关于“我的福特F-150像美女一样跑了22年”的编辑来信;但平均数就是这样。)

So, given that alternative batteries theoretically can last longer than LI, we again see that the disadvantage of the E.V. is the battery.

因此,考虑到替代电池理论上可以比锂电池使用更长的时间,我们再次看到,电动汽车的缺点是电池。

The internal combustion engine beat both steam and electricity way back when and has faithfully served the masses for over a century. But it’s at the end of its development cycle, doomed by the laws of thermodynamics. Gasoline engines have a thermal efficiency of between 30 percent and 36 percent while diesel engines can reach a thermal efficiency of almost 50 percent. But only 3 percent of U.S. cars sold are diesel, which is curious given that in Europe it’s about half. (Whenever I rent a car in Europe I insist on diesel.)

内燃机在很久以前就击败了蒸汽和电力,并在一个多世纪以来忠实地服务于大众。但它已经处于发展周期的末端,这是由热力学定律决定的命运。汽油发动机的热效率在30%到36%之间,而柴油发动机的热效率可以达到近50%。但在美国销售的汽车中只有3%是柴油车,这很奇怪,因为后者在欧洲大约占到了一半。(每当我在欧洲租车时,我都坚持要用柴油汽车。)

Yet the same can be said for lithium-ion batteries that power almost all electrical vehicles. Most of the problems with current E.V.s come down to those batteries, commercialized back in 1991 and long overdue for a replacement. Many labs are working on many varieties and one or more will eventually prove superior in range, weight, recharging times, environmental friendliness (cobalt mining for lithium is a nightmare in both human and environmental costs) and be commercially viable.

然而,为几乎所有电动汽车提供动力的锂离子电池的情况也是如此。目前的电动汽车的大部分问题都归结于这些电池,这些电池早在1991年就已经商业化,早就应该被取代了。许多实验室正在研究许多种类的电池,其中一种或多种最终将被证明在续航能力、重量、充电时间、环境友好性(开采锂的钴矿是人力和环境成本的噩梦)方面具有优势,并且在商业上是可行的。

This article has a pretty exhaustive list of newer battery technologies that promise anywhere from a serious improvement over lithium-ion to a quantum leap. Don’t expect any to be commercialized in the next couple of years, despite literally weekly claims of a tremendous breakthrough in some sort of alternative technology. But they will come: The market is huge, not just for E.V.s but for electronics. Ever hear anyone complain that their phone battery lasts too long?

这篇文章列出了一份相当详尽的较新电池技术的清单,这些技术有望在一些地方比锂离子电池有更大的改进,甚至是一个飞跃。尽管每周都有关于某种替代技术取得巨大突破的说法,但不要指望任何技术会在未来几年内被商业化。但它们会出现。市场是巨大的,不仅是电动汽车,而且还有电子产品。有没有听到有人抱怨他们的手机电池持续时间太长?
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


Meanwhile, yet another problem with E.V.s is that the U.S. electric grid isn’t ready, as I earlier wrote in these pages. About 320,000 customers were left without power in at least a dozen states from a mid-June heat wave, according to CNN. E.V.s contributed nothing to that, but if the current mandates remain then they certainly will soon enough. Power companies need time to adapt.

同时,电动汽车的另一个问题是,美国的电网还没有准备好,正如我之前在这些网页上所写的那样。据CNN报道,在6月中旬的热浪中,至少有12个州的约32万名用户没有电可用。电动汽车对此没有任何影响,但如果目前的规定仍然存在,那么这种情况肯定很快就会出现。电力公司需要时间来适应。

E.V.s will ultimately prevail, but for them to do so we need to stop the subsidies and mandates and force down purchase prices even as we push alternatives to lithium-ion batteries. We also need more practical clean energy, meaning not wind turbines and solar panels but next-generation small modular nuclear plants that are even safer than the behemoths used today, which can be built on an assembly line and moved anywhere, and can be impossible to melt down.

电动汽车最终会占上风,但要做到这一点,我们需要停止补贴和强制规定,并迫使购买价格下降,即使我们推动锂离子电池的替代品。我们还需要更实用的清洁能源,这意味着并非风力涡轮机和太阳能电池板,而是下一代小型模块化核电站,它们甚至比今天使用的庞然大物更安全,可以在装配线上建造并移动到任何地方,而且不可能被融化。

Build the E.V. right and they will come.

把电动汽车建造好,它们就会到来。