中国为何赢得电动汽车之战

 
@EuroGunOrg
Sodium-Ion batteries ... anyone.... Why should the EU even try catch up with the Li-Ion technology ? By the time the EU will be able to make all this happen Sodium-Ion batteries will be mainstream and, we're back to square one...
 
钠离子电池...... 欧盟为什么要追赶锂电池技术？当欧盟能够实现这一切的时候，钠离子电池已经成为主流，我们又回到了原点......
 
@TheStefanmiletic
China heavily invest in sodium batteries CATL is the biggest supplier of this type of battery in the world.They just opened the biggest energy storage that uses sodium batteries in Qianjiang. Do you think the rest of the world sleeps on new technologies? EU is far behind even in this technology. Plus they are not going to be used in a electric car production for a decades to come because of low energy density. Eu needs to get it together and invest in future technologies or we are not going to live as comfortably as we are used to.
 
中国正大力投资钠电池，宁德时代是全球最大的钠电池供应商。您认为世界其他国家会在新技术上睡大觉吗？欧盟甚至在这项技术上都远远落后了。此外，由于能量密度低，钠电池在未来几十年内都不会用于电动汽车。欧盟需要振作起来，对未来技术进行投资，否则我们将无法像过去那样舒适地生活。
 
@Broodjemetbeleg
lol, at this point it literally doesn't matter what the EU does. China has an advantage in literally every battery field.
 
哈哈，现在欧盟做什么都不重要了，因为中国在几乎所有电池领域都占有优势。
 
@alexandermoody1946
This is such a waste of time, if the west wants to compete they should be focused not on lithium but instead on micro and nano nuclear. The problem is the profit margins and motives for batteries and the overall reliance rather than a modular nano nuclear solution that would be multilayer compatible and globally standardised.
Lots of companies have already been incredibly successful at scaling some of the way down like Rolls Royce for instance but we can go even smaller with the advances that will be possible in very short time frxs.
 
这真是浪费时间，如果西方想要竞争，他们应该把重点放在微型和纳米核能而不是锂上。问题在于电池的利润率和动机以及整体依赖性，而不是多层兼容和全球标准化的模块化纳米核能解决方案。
虽然许多公司在缩小规模方面已经取得了令人难以置信的成功，比如劳斯莱斯公司，但我们可以在更短的时间内取得更大的进步。
 
@iulian2548
Current lithium batteries are in no way environmently friendly, safe or cost effective. We need to develop new battery chemistry to make EVs worthwhile. The thermal run away issue only deters me from considering an EV. And the total environmental footprint of a new EV convinced me that driving fewer km on my current regular car is a more sensible choice. City driving at rush hour should be seriously taxed even for EVs.
 
目前的锂电池无论在环保、安全还是成本效益方面都不尽如人意。我们需要开发新的电池化学成分，使电动汽车物有所值。热失控问题只会让我对电动汽车望而却步。新电动汽车的总体环境足迹让我相信，少开我现在的普通汽车是更明智的选择。即使是电动汽车，也应该对高峰时段的城市驾驶征收重税。
 
@unatwomey7112
That's where something like the US inflation reduction act would help. The game is not over because the makers of safe reliable batteries will win out but European countries have no leaders who will lead.
 
这就是类似美国降低通胀法案的作用所在。游戏还没有结束，因为安全可靠的电池制造商将胜出，但欧洲国家却没有领导者。
 
@FabioCapela
Thermal runaway is mainly an issue with NMC and similar chemistries, it's not much of an issue for LFP chemistries. An NMC battery pierced by a nail (worst case scenario for a battery) is likely to explode, a modern LFP battery mostly just smolders for a bit. And even NMC chemistries are on the average safer than a car with a fuel tank (which includes hybrids); the chance of a car with a fuel tank catching fire by itself is dozens of times more than that of an EV with an NMC battery catching fire.
Bottom line, if you want safety, you are much better with a car equipped with an LFP battery than with an ICE car.
The thing about LFP, though, is that modern LFP batteries are very much a Chinese tech; China took a tech from the 90s that western companies didn't want to use, made a deal allowing local companies to freely use and improve the tech as long as they refrained from exporting it until the early 2020s, and improved it to the point it's better in almost everything than the NMC chemistries western companies still favor.
 
热失控主要是镍锰钴（NMC）和类似化学物质的问题，磷酸铁锂电池的化学物质的问题不大。NMC锂电池被钉子刺穿（电池最坏的情况）很可能会爆炸，而现代磷酸铁锂电池大多只会冒一点烟。即使是NMC化学电池，其平均安全性也要高于带油箱的汽车（包括混合动力汽车）；带油箱的汽车本身起火的几率是带NMC化学电池的电动汽车起火几率的几十倍。
总之，如果你想要安全，那么使用配备低温电池的汽车要比使用内燃机汽车好得多。
中国从上世纪90年代开始采用西方公司不愿意使用的技术并与当地公司达成协议，只要他们在2020年代初之前不出口该技术，中国就允许当地公司自由使用和改进该技术。
 
@iulian2548
@FabioCapela  I am an insurance professional so quite aware of the risks. LFP is too recent technology and has to prove itself. NMC are predominant and IMO very risky in case of physical damage or self inflicted runaway .
To conclude,  the future is electric, but I find this haste towards a flawed battery technology undue.
 
@FabioCapela 我是一名保险专业人士，因此非常清楚其中的风险。磷酸铁锂是一项需要证明自己的最新技术。NMC电池目前占据了主导地位，在发生物理损坏或自身失控的情况下，IMO的风险很大。
总之，未来是电动汽车的，但我认为这种急于采用有缺陷的电池技术的做法是不恰当的。
 
@FabioCapela
@iulian2548  LFP is already the dominating tech in China (and in countries where most of the EVs are Chinese, so most of the world except for G7, EU, and their closest allies). In fact, due to the sheer volume of EVs sold in China, we are already past the point where most new EVs globally come with LFP batteries. It's already a proven tech, the only reason it doesn't see more widespread use in countries that see China as a strategic rival is that nearly all of the expertise in building them, as well as most of the patents for the tech, are in the hands of Chinese entities.
And while a fire in an NMC-equipped EV is much harder to contain, the chance of that fire happening in the first time is much lower. Data from US insurance companies puts the chance of an EV in the US (and, thus, with NMC batteries) catching fire at roughly 1/60th of the chance of an ICE car catching fire; yes, the average damage per incident is higher, but the chance of the incident happening in the first place is much lower.
 
@iulian2548 在中国（以及大多数电动汽车是中国生产的国家，因此除了七国集团、欧盟及其最亲密的盟友之外，世界上大多数国家），磷酸铁锂电池已经是主流技术。事实上，由于中国电动汽车的销售量巨大，全球大多数新电动汽车都配备了磷酸铁锂电池。这已经是一项成熟的技术，之所以没有在那些视中国为战略竞争对手的国家得到更广泛的应用，唯一的原因就是几乎所有制造这种电池的专业技术以及大部分技术专利都掌握在中国企业手中。
 
虽然装有NMC电池的电动车起火更难控制，但首次起火的几率却低得多。美国保险公司的数据显示，在美国，电动汽车（因此也包括装有NMC电池的电动汽车）起火的几率大约是内燃机汽车起火几率的1/60；是的，虽然每次事故的平均损失更高，但首次发生事故的几率要低得多。
 
@iulian2548
@FabioCapela  I am skeptical regarding the EV fire incidence against petrol cars data, but the proximity  property loss an health hazard are in a different league. This corroborated with the fossil predominant grid makes me think twice whether the politicians pursue for electrification is justified. I would focus on making people drive less, a paradigm shift regarding where we choose to live and work is called for. Meanwhile we can mitigate with smarter policy like car sharing, EVs, but the problem is much deeper than what current bloated EVs can alleviate.
 
@FabioCapela 虽然我对电动汽车火灾发生率与燃油车火灾发生率的数据持怀疑态度，但二者造成的财产损失和健康危害是完全不同的。这与化石燃料占主导地位的电网相吻合，让我三思政客们追求电气化是否合理。我会把重点放在让人们少开车上，在我们选择生活和工作的地方，我们需要转变模式。与此同时，我们可以通过汽车共享、电动汽车等更明智的政策来缓解问题，但问题的严重性远非目前臃肿的电动汽车所能缓解。
 
@FabioCapela
@iulian2548  Well, I live in a country where almost every EV is Chinese and comes with LFP batteries — EV battery fires are basically unheard of here, despite many thousand EVs being sold per month — and about 90% of our electricity is from renewable sources; switching to an EV here is an almost 100% reduction in emissions from the car usage (with a side-effect in that since electricity is fairly inexpensive, charging at home is an 80% saving in fuel costs compared with a similar size ICE car, and that's without solar panels at home).
BTW, even if an LFP battery catches fire — which should only happen if there's extensive damage to the battery — it's likely to extinguish by itself without burning down the car. That's how safe they are.
Incidentally, between the higher efficiency of fossil fuel power plants compared with ICE car engines, and the extra energy savings from regenerative braking in EVs, EVs are better from an emissions point of view even if they are charged exclusively with energy from coal or gas. Heck, you are likely to get more mileage with a can of gas by using it in a generator to recharge an EV than by using it directly in an ICE car.
 
@iulian2548 好吧，我生活的国家几乎每辆电动汽车都是中国制造的，而且配备的都是磷酸铁锂电池--在这里，电动车电池起火的情况基本上闻所未闻，尽管每个月都有数千辆电动车售出--而且我们大约90%的电力都来自可再生能源；在这里，改用电动汽车几乎可以100%地减少汽车使用过程中的废气排放（还有一个副作用是由于电费相当便宜，在家里充电可以比类似大小的内燃机汽车节省80%的燃料成本，这还是在家里没有安装太阳能电池板的情况下）。
 
顺便说一下，即使磷酸铁锂电池起火（只有在电池大面积损坏的情况下才会发生），也很可能自行熄灭而不会烧毁汽车，这就是它们的安全性。
 
顺便提一下，与内燃机汽车的发动机相比，化石燃料发电厂的效率更高，而电动汽车的再生制动又能节省额外的能源，因此从排放的角度来看，即使电动汽车完全使用煤炭或天然气产生的电力，其排放也会更好。一罐煤气用发电机给电动汽车充电，可能比直接用在内燃机汽车上燃烧能够行驶更长的里程。
 
@iulian2548
@FabioCapela  Which country is that, if I may ask?
I am not aware of any user scenarios where the last paragraph of your post applies, to put it lightly.
 
@FabioCapela 请问你来自哪个国家？
说实话，我不知道您评论的最后一段适用于哪些用户场景。
 
@FabioCapela
@iulian2548  Brazil. 6th largest car market in the world; even with a relatively small percentage of cars sold being EVs we are still the largest EV market in Latin America, and growing, with some 90% of the EVs sold here being Chinese (the official data says around 75%, but the official data consider all hybrids, even non-plugin ones, as EVs, which distorts the data quite a bit by adding Toyota's clunkers into the mix). We are also the #2 in hydropower (#1 is China), from which we get most of our electricity; Our energy is cleaner than that of most EU countries, with less than half the CO2 per kWh compared with the EU average.
As for the scenario, you mean the thing about an EV recharged with coal-based power contributing less to global warming than an ICE car? That is due to the low efficiency of car engines, which prioritize things like quick response and a wider range of operating speeds over efficiency; even outdated coal powerplants surpass an ICE car engine in efficiency, with the most modern ones reaching almost twice the efficiency of a good car engine. Add to that how the energy efficiency of EVs is sky high (if you measure a modern EV energy efficiency using the same parameters used for ICE cars, which don't take into account regenerative braking, you end up with efficiencies above 110%) and an EV running on coal is less harmful than a regular ICE car.
 
@iulian2548 巴西。巴西是世界第六大汽车市场；即使电动汽车的销售比例相对较小，我们仍然是拉丁美洲最大的电动汽车市场，而且还在不断增长。这里销售的电动汽车中约有90%是中国产的（官方数据显示约为75%，但官方数据将所有混合动力汽车，甚至是非插电式混合动力汽车，都视为电动汽车，这就将丰田的"破车"也算在内了，从而使得数据失真）。我们的水力发电量排名世界第二（第一是中国），我们的大部分电力都来自水力发电；我们的能源比大多数欧盟国家更清洁，每千瓦时的二氧化碳排放量不到欧盟平均水平的一半。
 
至于情景，你是指用煤电充电的电动汽车对全球变暖的影响小于内燃机汽车吗？这是因为汽车发动机的效率低，它优先考虑的是快速反应和更宽的工作速度范围而不是效率；即使是过时的煤炭发电厂，其效率也超过了内燃机汽车的发动机，而最先进的煤炭发电厂的效率几乎是好的汽车发动机的两倍。此外，电动汽车的能源效率也非常高（如果使用与内燃机汽车相同的参数来衡量现代电动汽车的能源效率，而不考虑再生制动，那么其最终的效率将超过 110%），因此使用煤电的电动汽车比普通的内燃机汽车的危害更小。
 
@MichaelBabich
Resume: Europe gave up its own refining and processing of ore in favor of cheap Chinese labor and now EU is in panic. Lithium is everywhere. The problem is to mine and refine raw material. The ore itself isn't a problem. It's everywhere.
 
总结：欧洲放弃了自己的矿石提炼和加工，转而使用中国的廉价劳动力，现在欧盟陷入了恐慌。锂无处不在，问题在于原材料的开采和提炼。矿石本身不是问题，因为它无处不在。
 
@maestrohun
The problem is need energy for this and EU do not have cheap energy. We europeans are so insanely dumb to vote these kind of politicians. This is so sad. Our future will go down very fast, thanks to ourselfs.
 
问题是这需要能源，而欧盟缺乏廉价的能源。我们欧洲人真是蠢到家了，竟然会投票给这种政客，这太可悲了。我们的未来将迅速衰落，这都要归功于我们自己。
 
@wolfgangpreier9160
Euorpe gave up battery development, PV development and manufacturing, wind power development and manufacturing and is not ready to accept the harsh reality that battery produciton is a dirty business. The same goes for rare earth minerals. Coppe. Aluminium, Magnesium. And of course all future developments regarding electric storage.
 
欧洲放弃了电池开发、光伏开发与制造、风能开发与制造，却不愿接受电池生产是肮脏行业的残酷现实。稀土、铜、铝、镁的开发，当然还有未来所有有关电力储存的发展也是如此。
 
@Henij89117
Thinking the only advantage of China is cheap labor is another problem on western countries
 
认为中国的唯一优势是廉价劳动力，这是西方国家的另一个问题。
 
@MichaelBabich
@Henij89117  It was an advantage THEN —  when the west gave up own capacities in favour of Chinese ones. Using this advantage China built mining, raw material processing, production capacities, and extensive supply lines. Now Chinese labor isn't cheap, but China built aforementioned capacities and made them the advantage NOW.
 
@Henij89117 这是当时的优势--当时西方放弃了自己的产能，转而支持中国的产能。利用这一优势，中国建立了采矿、原材料加工、生产能力和广泛的供应线。现在，中国的劳动力并不便宜，但中国建立了上述能力并使其成了现在的优势。
 
@JoshAda0650
When EU was busy funding gender re-alignment petty issues...the Chinese were funding research and setting up industries
 
当欧盟忙于资助性别重新调整的琐碎问题时......中国人却在资助研究和建立产业。
 
@ipconfiger
If, due to dependence, one insists on adopting measures such as tariff barriers, subsidy investigations, and various legislative restrictions to "eliminate dependence," it is purely an irrational act. Rational analysis suggests that there is no country or organization in the world that can be completely independent of others. Transnational normal cooperation is necessary and essential. However, the EU is now engaging in trade confrontation with China to cater to the political needs of the United States. Originally, Sino-European trade could have enabled Europe to free itself from the "bloodsucking" of the United States. However, now Europe has destroyed its own way out.
 
如果由于依赖性而执意采取关税壁垒、补贴调查、各种立法限制等措施来"消除依赖"，这纯粹是一种非理性的行为。理性的分析表明世界上没有一个国家或组织可以完全独立于其他国家或组织，跨国正常合作是必要的，也是必须的。然而，欧盟现在为了迎合美国的政治需要，与中国进行贸易对抗。本来，中欧贸易可以使欧洲摆脱美国的"吸血"，但现在欧洲却毁掉了自己的出路。
 
@marktrinidad7650
Europe's so called groundbreaking batteries are still inside its laboratory. Assuming everything runs smoothly and bureaucracy(environmental permits, labour laws) doesnt exist. It would take at least a yearto build a big battery production plant. It would take another 2 years to setup the production line machines. It would take 2 years to streamline operations, to train employees, to handle, repair and maintain the complex machines. Europe is totally screwed! Oh and don't forget the minerals used for battery production doesn't exist in the continent and somehow needs to be imported. European made battery prices would be so astonomical, the moment the plant opens it goes into bankruptcy immediately. And why is DW still talking about lithium if you can make batteries out of 100% sodium. YES! The element that we use on table salt can be used as batteries. The Chinese have already been production en masse these types of batteries that need minimal rare earths metals. And they are developing the sodium formula and make it more energy packed similar to lithium.
 
欧洲所谓的突破性电池仍在其实验室中。假设一切顺利，官僚主义（环境许可、劳动法）不存在，建立一个大型电池生产厂至少需要一年时间，还要花两年时间安装生产线上的机器。简化操作、培训员工、处理、维修和维护复杂的机器也需要两年时间。欧洲彻底完蛋了！别忘了，用于电池生产的矿物质并不存在于欧洲大陆，而是需要进口。欧洲制造的电池的价格将高得惊人，工厂一开张就会立即破产。既然可以用100%的钠制造电池，为什么还在谈论锂呢？是的！我们在食盐中使用的元素也可以用作电池，中国人已经在大规模生产这种只需极少量稀土金属的电池了。他们正在开发钠的配方，使其具有与锂类似的更高的能量。
 
@TheMighty_T
Not really. Lithium is becoming a less essential part of battery making going forward thanks to sodium-ion technologies. China had the early lead in all battery tech and got the market share due to the Lithium-ion chemistry in particular, but the overall much better Sodium-ion chemistry is still there to be shared out and developed by all technology and manufacturing strong nations (that is most of western nations so we don't have to give it to China only). In short, because of the emerging (better) Sodium-ion chemistry, Lithium is less essential than it was thought a few years ago. And for those that might not know why Sodium-ion is "better", you can easily find info online.
 
其实不然。由于钠离子技术的发展，锂在未来电池制造中的重要性正在降低。中国在所有电池技术（尤其是锂离子化学技术）领域都处于领先地位，中国因此获得了市场份额，但总体上更好的钠离子化学技术仍有待所有技术和制造强国（也就是大多数西方国家，因此我们不必只把它交给中国）共享和开发。简而言之，由于钠离子化学技术的出现（更好），锂已不再像几年前人们认为的那样不可或缺了。对于那些可能不知道为什么钠离子"更好"的人，你们可以很容易地在网上找到相关的信息。
 
@6haha
what does the EU have to compare with China in this area? Is there any EU company in the world's biggest battery provider? China takes 6.
HOW DARE YOU ?
 
欧盟在这方面与中国相比有什么优势？在全球最大的电池供应商中，有欧盟公司吗？中国公司占了6席。
你们怎么敢？
 
@DGronki
China achieve in 50 years what west countries doing last 400 years. But we prefer to focus on "values" like equality, tolerance so we have consequences....
 
中国用50年时间实现了西方国家过去400年的成就，我们更喜欢关注平等、宽容等"价值观"，所以我们是自食其果...