话题讨论：欧盟同意在2035年前禁止销售排放二氧化碳的汽车
EU agrees to ban sale of CO2-emitting cars by 2035 | DW Business
译文简介
话题讨论：欧盟同意在2035年前禁止销售排放二氧化碳的汽车
正文翻译
Final approval was given on Tuesday for a law that will bring an end to the sale of vehicles running on CO2-emitting fuels by 2035, Swedish Energy Minister Ebba Busch announced.
瑞典能源部长埃巴·布施宣布，一项法律于周二获得最终批准，该法律将在2035年前停止销售使用二氧化碳排放燃料的汽车。
Energy ministers from the 27 member states gave the go-ahead for the contested law which had been delayed for weeks by Germany's Transport Minister Volker Wissing.
欧盟27个成员国的能源部长批准了这项有争议的法律，该法律被德国交通部长沃尔克·维辛推迟了数周。
欧盟27个成员国的能源部长批准了这项有争议的法律，该法律被德国交通部长沃尔克·维辛推迟了数周。
A compromise was agreed between Brussels and Berlin on Saturday that will allow the sale of cars and vans that run on so-called climate-neutral e-fuels which use synthetic fuels produced with captured carbon.
上周六，布鲁塞尔和柏林达成了一项妥协，允许销售使用所谓的气候中性的电子燃料的汽车和货车，这种燃料是使用由捕获的碳生产的合成燃料。
上周六，布鲁塞尔和柏林达成了一项妥协，允许销售使用所谓的气候中性的电子燃料的汽车和货车，这种燃料是使用由捕获的碳生产的合成燃料。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 2 )
收藏
If it's a European battery company, the problem would be immediately gone, at least gone from DW's attention.
如果是一家欧洲电池公司，这个问题会立即消失，至少从DW的关注中消失。
Why does this bot have so many likes?
为什么这个机器人有这么多赞?
Bot is mad. Chinese companies should be opposed.
机器人疯了。应该反对中国企业。
Most petrol cars can run on ethanol after a remap or with a few mods and there is biodiesel currently sold at the pumps in Sweden so really not much different to now.
大多数汽油车在经过重新设计或稍加修改后可以使用乙醇，目前瑞典的加油站还出售生物柴油，所以与现在没有太大区别。
Why not replace the petrol engine with electric cell and battery? It would solve the emission problem. Biofuel, ethanol or whatever aren't reduce the pollution.
为什么不把汽油发动机换成电池呢? 这将解决排放问题。生物燃料，乙醇或任何东西都不能减少污染。
@Lawrence Kling "Why not replace the petrol engine with electric cell and battery?"
Is there enough electricity to handle that?
“为什么不把汽油发动机换成电池?”
有足够的电力供应吗?
"so really not much different to now."
Except the cost of fuel will be higher and land growing food would be reallocated for fuel.
“所以和现在没什么不同。”
除了燃料的成本会更高，土地种植的粮食将被重新分配用于燃料。
@wisenber What do you think of battery for? One can recharge it by plugged in
你觉得电池是做什么用的? 只要插上电源就可以充电。
Except the price. And price is really the only thing that matters for the amenability of transportation in a modern economy.
除了价格。在现代经济中，价格是唯一影响交通便利程度的因素。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Lawrence Kling good idea we can charge them with the coal plants that are being restarted
好主意，我们可以用重新启动的煤电厂来给它们充电。
@Lawrence Kling Why not replace all motorized vehicles with riding a bike or walking?
为什么不把所有机动车都换成骑自行车或步行呢?
@Lawrence Kling retrofitting thao sort of tech into a combustion car would require extraordinary amounts of work. It simply isn't feasible.
将这种技术改造成燃烧式汽车需要大量的工作。根本不可行。
@Driftless Hermit because if you want to eat the food you use to power those modes of transportation you either need to go start a farm or accept that modern life requires these trucks to deliver food.
因为如果你想吃到食物，就需要给交通工具提供动力，你要么得开个农场，要么就得接受一个现实：现代生活需要这些卡车来运送食物。
@Lawrence Kling "One can recharge it by plugged in"
Do you think that plug is spontaneously supplied?
“只要插上电源就可以充电”
你认为那个插头是自己供电的吗?
*Cries in Dodge Challenger
《道奇挑战者》中的哭声。
Interesting. do you drive ?
有趣。你开车吗?
They want to sell more cars
Don't expect anything for consumers
他们想卖更多的车，
不要对消费者有任何期望。
@Motor The consumers will have more options
消费者将有更多的选择。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
On the one hand, I'm glad that there is push back, as the scaling up of materials such as Cobalt, Lithium, and other rare earths is on a scale that is simply not realistic by 2035 and given that electric cars have scaled up, the supply chain is severely strained as battery capacity has not followed thus making electric vehicles much more expensive. This is a deep structural problem that is not going away soon. Multiple drive trains using multiple fuels need to be explored because transportation needs and reality on the ground can demand something different.
一方面，我很高兴存在阻力，因为到2035年，钴、锂和其他稀土等材料的规模扩大根本不现实，考虑到电动汽车已经扩大，供应链严重紧张，而电池容量没有跟上，从而使电动汽车变得更加昂贵。这是一个深层次的结构性问题，不会很快消失。需要探索使用多种燃料的多种驱动系统，因为运输需求和地面的现实情况可能会有所不同。
另一方面，欧盟的政策制定者真的在气候政策上制造出一场闹剧。燃烧木屑颗粒发电就是一个例子。虽然从技术上讲，燃烧的木材是可再生的，但对木材的再生没有强制规定，因为新生长的木材等于燃烧产生的二氧化碳排放量。为了供应欧盟木屑颗粒，美国东海岸的森林正在被砍伐，但没有对重新造林进行统计，因此森林被烧掉的速度可能比再生的速度还要快。美国土地开发商可以砍伐森林，将其做成颗粒出售给欧盟，然后将土地开发为住宅/商业地产，不用再次出售颗粒。欧盟宣称取得了气候变化的胜利，而森林却被永久地消灭了。我对这样一个微妙的平衡能够做到毫无信心，尤其是当它如此诱人地将问题转移到其他地方的时候。
我们从来没有听说过关于重新造林、增加城市地区生物量密度的倡议，甚至是解决污染的倡议——污染正在杀死世界海洋中的光合浮游生物——光合浮游生物可能是二氧化碳最大的单一吸收体——比亚马逊雨林还要多——但每个人都关注汽车——但它不超过排放部分的15%。
事物变化的越多，它们就越发的保持不变。
the thing is efuel uses so much more power to produce unless you own a top end hyper car no one will be able to afford it - even with full production the price is looking at x5 the current fuel and that's before any tax.
问题是，除非你拥有一辆顶级的超级跑车，否则电子燃料会消耗更多的能量，没有人能负担得起它——即使完全生产，价格也会是当前燃料的5倍，而且是税前。
That should be solved once production and use scales up.
一旦生产和使用规模扩大，这个问题就应该得到解决。
@error 404 nope the figure I have seen is not going scale well plus using 5 times more power - oil refining normally lists you in the top 3 of power users in the country and like I said the EU and countries will tax it as well
不，我所看到的数据表明，规模并没有很好地扩大，而且使用了5倍多的电力——炼油通常会名列该国前3名的电力用户清单，就像我说的，欧盟和其他国家也会对它征税。
@error 404 "That should be solved once production and use scales up."
It's matter of physics, not scale. A unit of gas or oil will always be more energy dense than the raw ingredients for biofuels.
这是物理问题，而不是规模问题。一单位的天然气或石油的能量密度总是高于生物燃料的原材料。
The government should not regulate this. Free market does. If it uses a lot of electricity then the price will be higher and it will be not competitive. The electric cars require batteries, lithium rare metals etc, Which comes to the price of a car. In the end, free market is self-regulating system. And government should not interfere. The goal is to reduce CO2 emissions. Both solutions are fine.
政府不应该对此进行规范。自由市场可以。如果它使用大量的电力，那么价格将会更高，它将没有竞争力。电动汽车需要电池、锂稀有金属等，这就决定了汽车的价格。最后，自由市场是一种自我调节的制度。政府不应该干涉。目标是减少二氧化碳排放。两个解都可以。
@Myslius the free market doesn't care about external costs, that's why these things need to me regulated. Or would you like that some factory polluting the air without restrictions where you live? Because there's no free market incentive for them not to
自由市场不关心外部成本，这就是为什么这些东西需要监管。或者你想让一些工厂在你住的地方不加限制地污染空气吗? 因为自由市场会激励他们这么做。
That was once the case for electric and diesel vehicles as well. Developing technologies are naturally more expensive than the existing ones.
电动汽车和柴油车曾经也是如此。开发中的技术天然的比现有技术更昂贵。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
合成燃料如此昂贵，是因为那些告诉你它如此昂贵的人正在把这些设施的建设和研究费用算到账单上，从而劝阻你投资它。认为利用可再生能源为创造过程提供动力的全合成燃料对环境更有害的想法是愚蠢的，而且经不起最低限度的审查。
@Bartandaelus
They are inherently more expensive. The process requires taking raw materials that do not have a high energy density and converting them. In contrast, oil and gas were naturally converted by the Earth over millions of years into energy dense material.
它们本来就更贵。这一过程需要将能量密度不高的原材料进行转化。相比之下，石油和天然气在数百万年的时间里被地球自然转化为能量密集的物质。
@wisenber the issue with that line of thought is that they are 1. Finite and 2. Dirtier in the long run. Once processing and refinement are widespread costs of synthetic fuels will plummet and powering those facilities with renewables eliminates a huge part of the carbon cost.
这个思路的问题是它们是1、有限的，以及2、从长远来看更脏。一旦合成燃料的加工和精炼得到广泛应用，合成燃料的成本将大幅下降，而用可再生能源为这些设施供电将减少很大一部分碳成本。
我并不是说这是个妙招，我只是说它不一定是妙招。这只是一个简单的步骤。曾几何时，电动汽车也是一项昂贵的实验。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Bartandaelus "1. Finite"
In that case, the market would take care of it. If there's no fuel, there would be no need to ban said fuel.
在这种情况下，市场会解决。如果没有燃料，就没有必要禁止这种燃料。
Yet the process is inherently more expensive ad energy intensive.
"There was a time when electric cars were an expensive experiment too."
Electric cars existed before hydrocarbon powered cars.
电动汽车在碳氢化合物动力汽车之前就出现了。
Is that so ?
是这样吗？
Depends how you make it. Also, now there will be a market, and what happens with a market? Supply and demand, more is produced & it’ll be cheaper. Sure, it’ll be more expensive than petrol but I rather use my existing, clean car than a new EV with a 25-40tonne CO2 production footprint
取决于你怎么做。还有，现在会有一个市场，以及市场会发生什么? 从供给和需求来看，生产的越多，价格就越便宜。当然，它会比汽油贵，但我宁愿使用我现在的清洁汽车，也不愿使用排放25-40吨二氧化碳足迹的新电动汽车。
Basically Porsche told Germany to obxt.
基本上是保时捷让德国反对。
Good.
很好。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
No, VolksWagen. The initials of the transport minister are not a coincidence.
不，大众。交通部长的首字母并不是巧合。
Utter nonsense!
一派胡言！
Porsche do have EV now.
保时捷现在有电动汽车了。
Just a technical mistake, synthetic fuels still emit CO2 at the same rate as fossil fuels. It's just that they are nett zero, because of their source and method of production.
这只是一个技术上的错误，合成燃料排放二氧化碳的速度与化石燃料相同。只是由于它们的来源和生产方法，它们的净值为零。
"It's just that they are nett zero, because of their source and method of production."
Yet they require more energy and resources to produce. Biofuels are essentially trying to replicate in days what the Earth did on its own over millions of years.
然而，需要更多的能源和资源来生产它们。生物燃料本质上是试图在几天内复制地球在数百万年里所做的事情。
@wisenber Yep, so sad that all these smokescreens are believed.
是啊，真遗憾这些烟幕弹都被大家相信了。
@Bagpuss Macfarlan the ignorance lmao. you do realise alot of bio fuel production lines are hooked up to solar and wind right? now one may debate making solar and wind machines consume fuel but that's not the main focus
真是无知，笑死。你知道很多生物燃料生产线是连接太阳能和风能的吧? 现在有人可能会争论制造太阳能和风能机器也会消耗燃料，但这不是主要的焦点。
And in wich is not zero emissions because the chemicals had to be transported and then pumped into trucks to be delivered.
There is no such thing as net zero.
这并不是零排放，因为化学物质必须被运输，然后被泵到卡车上运送。
不存在所谓的净零。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@x Sabir It's not ignorance...so many things have been done for political and greenwashing reasons. So we end up making no real progress while people are told 'electric cars are green' etc. I don't have all the answers but while we have to have GDP growth every year just to keep the world spinning we are just going to keep rearranging the deck chairs. Hopefully nuclear fusion will save the day, probably our best hope ♂
这不是无知……很多事情都是出于政治和“洗绿”的原因。因此，当人们被告知“电动汽车是绿色的”时，我们最终没有取得真正的进展。我不知道所有的答案，但当我们必须每年都有GDP增长，以保持世界运转时，我们只是要不断重新安排甲板上的椅子。希望核聚变能拯救世界，这可能是我们最大的希望。
We need negative emissions, synthetic fuels are just half of solution
我们需要负排放，合成燃料只是半个解决方案。
@x Sabir " the ignorance lmao. you do realise alot of bio fuel production lines are hooked up to solar and wind right? "
So they're using the same grid people were told to use less?
Energy requirements are energy requirements.
所以他们在使用同样的电网，却被告知要少用?
能源需求是客观存在的。
Didn't we go through this whole song and dance when we put massive subsidies on corn, and then discovered that was just as carbon fuel intensive as just burning the fuel we pulled out of the ground, the latter just having fewer steps?
当我们对玉米进行大规模补贴时，我们不是经历过这一切吗? 然后我们发现这和燃烧我们从地下开采的燃料一样是碳燃料密集型的，后者只是步骤更少而已。
@Filip Tůma "We need negative emissions"
Societies have a lot of needs. Focusing on one at the expense of another just means other needs aren't being met to the same level.
社会有很多需求。专注于一个而牺牲另一个，意味着其他需求没有得到同等程度的满足。
@Filip Tůma this is a step in that path. Not everything needs to be the silver bullet. Hoping for a single technology to solve it all rather than investing in incremental steps is a fallacy.
这是这条道路上的一个步骤。不是每件事都需要灵丹妙药。希望一项技术就能解决所有问题，而不是投资于渐进的步骤，这是一种谬论。
@wisenber yes, and if you use non-CO2 emitting energy sources to make said fuel they are CO2 neutral.
是的，如果你使用不排放二氧化碳的能源来制造这些燃料，那它们就是二氧化碳中性的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@wisenber may shock you, but no most pilot projects for the production site designs have heir own local power grid, did you go to the BP school of energy management? Or why are you repeating what are Lobbyist lies?
你可能会感到震惊，但并非大多数生产现场设计的试点项目都有当地电网，你去过BP能源管理学院吗?不然你为什么要重复说客的谎言?
@wisenber there's one constant which someone is aware (or sometimes isn't) that everyone needs and that's environment. It's really obvious that with current socioeconomic system which demands growth for shareholders, profitable products and services, we will fail future generations.
有一个不变的东西是每个人都知道(或者有时不知道)的，那就是环境。很明显，当前的社会经济体系要求股东、有利可图的产品和服务的增长，我们将让子孙后代失望。
@quantuman100 " yes, and if you use non-CO2 emitting energy sources to make said fuel they are CO2 neutral."
Except you're still emitting CO2.....
只是你仍在排放二氧化碳.....
@Bartandaelus I am not demanding one technology, that's foolish wishful thinking, my point is to focus on what's working and not adding unnecessary technologies which makes our goal harder to accomplish. Synthetic fuels still adding CO2 which is adding more unnecessary effort to suck it from atmosphere.
我不要求一种技术解决所有问题，那是愚蠢的一厢情愿的想法，我的观点是专注于工作，而不是增加不必要的技术，使我们的目标更难实现。合成燃料仍在增加二氧化碳，这增加了从大气中吸收二氧化碳的不必要努力。
@Filip Tůma "there's one constant which someone is aware (or sometimes isn't) that everyone needs and that's environment."
Yes. People do require a relatively stable living environment.
是的。人们确实需要一个相对稳定的生活环境。
It's obvious that the system has provided a livable environment for billions of people for generations. Without it, billions would not have survived.
很明显，这个系统为数十亿人提供了一个适合居住的环境。没有它，数十亿人将无法生存。
话虽如此，大多数肮脏的发达国家拥有比50年前或100年前更干净的水和空气。也许这个系统并没有你说的那么糟糕?
@wisenber Do you realise that a lot of those countries in development are still have not enough basic resources for its population despite the fact that there are other countries with extreme abundance of resources. Capitalism isn't really good for redistribution of resources. Maybe your life is good because of it, but great majority of people are starving or living with lack of water and those are just basic resources.
你有没有意识到，许多发展中国家仍然没有足够的基本资源来满足其人口的需求，尽管有些其他国家拥有非常丰富的资源。资本主义并不利于资源再分配。也许你的生活因此很好，但大多数人都在挨饿或缺水，而这些只是基本的资源。
@wisenber "Biofuels are essentially trying to replicate in days what the Earth did on its own over millions of years."
the difference is one is unsustainable.
区别在于其一是不可持续的。
@Filip Tůma Capitalism is how those underdeveloped countries have been fed.
A farmer in the Netherlands would have little motivation to grow anything beyond what the farmer's family needs without the prospect of selling any surplus.
Capitalism is the worst system except for all of the others.
资本主义是那些不发达国家赖以生存的方式。
如果没有出售剩余作物的前景，荷兰农民几乎没有动力种植家庭所需以外的作物。
资本主义是最糟糕的制度，所有其他制度除外。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@wisenber there are other motivations than money and profit
除了金钱和利益，还有其他的动机。
Wrong, synth fuels does not add CO2 to our atmosphere.
错，合成燃料不会向大气中增加二氧化碳。
@Per Eldh Wrong, it does
不对，它会。
Can't you see they want to benefit the car makers. They care about climate as long as it benefits car companies
难道你看不出来他们想让汽车制造商受益吗? 只要对汽车公司有利，他们就会关心气候。
@Motor Actually, the EV revolution is driven by the car industry. EV’s are MUCH cheaper to produce.
实际上，电动汽车革命是由汽车工业推动的。电动车的生产成本要低得多。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Does that include coal-derived Fischer-Tropsch synthetic fuels?
这包括煤制费托合成燃料吗?
Something tells me this won't go very well for Europe.
直觉告诉我，欧洲的结果不会太好。
Is anything?
是吗？
Thank you pitin for helping the world to get off of the product you produce. All one of them.
普京，感谢你帮助世界摆脱你生产的产品。全部的。
They say to make efuel takes x5 more electricity to make.... let's put that into context - today if you list all countries' electricity users running a petrochemical refinery station comes normally in the top 3 (dependent on the country sometimes the top 5) of electricity users... so this last throw of gas and oil companies what to use even more electricity power?
他们说需要5倍的电力才能制造efuel……我们不妨把它放在背景下——今天，如果你列出所有国家运行石化炼油厂的用电量，通常都排在前三名(根据国家的不同，有时是前五名)……那么，这是使用更多电力的天然气和石油公司的最后一搏?
" today if you list all countries' electricity users running a petrochemical refinery station comes normally in the top 3"
Yet the number of BTU exceed the amount going in. However, there is little dispute that the biofuels require more costs and resources to produce.
然而，BTU的数量超过了进入的量。然而，几乎没有争议的是，生物燃料的生产需要更多的成本和资源。
Who are 'they'?
“他们”是谁？
@Bartandaelus Boffins
科学工作者。
I can smell unintended consequences incoming.
我能嗅到意想不到的后果。
It will be worse than Mao's bird killing policy thinking it would solve the problem, it caused a draught instead.
相比于M的杀鸟政策——以为它能解决这个问题，结果反而造成了干旱——这件事会更糟糕。
电动汽车永远无法取代汽油车，尤其是对汽车爱好者来说。
I think a hard cut-off date is better than stretching it with the German exception.
For how long is the German exception with e-fuels? That also needs a hard cut-off date.
我认为，设定一个严格的截止日期，要比延长期限(德国除外)好。
德国对电子燃料的例外能持续多久? 这也需要一个明确的截止日期。
Why?
为啥？
@Birger Kollstrand because i like the germans more this way. Cuted-off
因为我更喜欢德国人这样。设定期限。
Been watching Extrapolations on Apple and it’s like watching a Prophecy slowly come true
一直在苹果上看《外推法》，感觉就像在看一个慢慢变成现实的预言。
The efuels exception doesn’t make much sense, it just seems like an excuse to keep selling petrol vehicles. The whole exotic cars excuse seems extremely weak, they could just apply for an exception and get subjected to even more taxes.
电子燃料的例外没有多大意义，它似乎只是一个继续销售汽油车的借口。这种奇怪汽车的借口似乎非常站不住脚，他们可以申请一个例外，并被课以更多的税收。
So without ice and EV people walking will be putting out massive amounts of Co2
所以即便没有燃油车和电动汽车，人们走路都会释放大量的二氧化碳。
I don't believe e-fuels are going to be the norm. They will be the exception for sports cars and super cars for the rich. Just like you can still buy hay for a horse.
我不相信电子燃料会成为常态。它们将成为例外，让富人能开上跑车和超级轿车。就像还能给马买干草一样。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
It's going to be highly problematic for logistics but this is a hard lesson in life European technocrats will have to learn first hand once we all land in 2035 harsh reality. Ain't gonna be pretty for sure.
这将给物流带来很大的问题，但这是欧洲技术官僚在生活中必须亲自学习的一课，一旦我们都降落在2035年的残酷现实中。肯定不会很美妙。
Nothing will best petrol or diesel for the next 500 years.
在未来的500年里，没有什么能比汽油或柴油更好。
And the pollution these batteries create is awful .
这些电池产生的污染是可怕的。
Still not as bad as the pollution generated by the oil and gas industry.
但还是没有石油和天然气工业产生的污染那么严重。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@P G
P G
@CatsFerDays The fact that your sole argument is an emoji tells me that you don't know much about what you're talking about and thus shouldn't give us your opinion.
你唯一的论点是一个表情符号，这一事实告诉我，你对你所谈论的内容不太了解，因此不应该向我们发表观点。
@P G Do you have any idea how these batteries are made? What material is used in casing? How recyclable they are?
你知道这些电池是怎么制造的吗? 外壳用什么材料? 它们的可回收性如何?
你知道这些电池不适合欧洲这样的寒冷国家吗? 在欧洲冬季极端寒冷的天气下，它们可能会损失高达40%的容量。
@blackpanthar90 Have you seen the pollution caused by the oil and gas industry in countries like Nigeria?
你见过石油和天然气工业在尼日利亚等国家造成的污染吗?
@Malcolm Rose No but have you seen that US that uses most amount of fossil fuels in the world?
没有，但是你见过世界上使用化石燃料最多的美国吗?
@Malcolm Rose Explain to me how are you going to run Jetliners and the whole air travel industry on batteries?
请向我解释一下，你打算如何用电池来运营喷气客机和整个航空旅游业?
当涉及到需要稳健解决方案的军事装备时，你将如何使用电池电源，不能依赖电池电源或电力，必须为任何情况做好准备。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@blackpanthar90 Yes. On a per capita basis, that is true. China is the biggest CO2 emitter overall. And And Germany is the biggest emitting country within Europe. How is that relevant to the topic at hand?
是的。按人均计算，的确如此。中国是全球最大的二氧化碳排放国。德国是欧洲最大的排放国。这和现在的话题有什么关系?
@Malcolm Rose Also explain to me what would you do in an event where you country is invaded or suffers a grid failure or a targeted attack on your energy sector like in case of Ukraine. How would you travel or escape in such case?
也请向我解释一下，如果你国被入侵，或者遭遇电网故障，或者你国能源部门遭到有针对性的攻击，比如乌克兰，你会怎么做。在这种情况下，你会如何旅行或逃离?
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
过度依赖电池和电力真的是一个好主意吗?我不这么认为。
相反，我们应该集中精力关闭燃煤电厂，寻找水泥和其他污染物的替代品，这些污染物对温室气体排放有巨大贡献。
我们的工业需要清洁能源。
这就是为什么核聚变反应堆应该成为重点。这将解决很多问题。
New technologies in battery design and materials will make this entire post a non-story.
电池设计和材料方面的新技术将使这篇文章变得无关紧要。
Hybrid is the way to go on the medium run.
混合动力车是中期的选择。
Bicycles long run.
自行车是长期选择。
Insanity!
疯了！