本杰明·普萊克特 譯/袁欣 審訂/李瑞林

It depends on how we make electricity that power these cars.

這要看汽車電能的生產(chǎn)方式。

Which is better for Earth： an electric or gas-powered vehicle？ The answer to this question might seem blindingly1 obvious： Of course electric cars must be better for the environment， because they don’t have exhausts2 and so don’t emit greenhouse gases as they drive. However， electric vehicles （EVs） aren’t perfect， and they come with their own set of polluting problems. Notably， their batteries contain components， such as lithium， that require a significant amount of energy to source3 and extract.

But battery production is just one part of an electric car’s life span. A 2014 study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences looked at the entire life cycle of an EV’s emissions， from mining the metals required for the batteries to producing the electricity needed to power them， and then compared this with the average emissions of a gas-powered vehicle. The team found that when electric vehicles are charged with coal-powered electricity， they’re actually worse for the envir-onment than conventional gasoline cars.

In much of the world， however， national grids are now clean enough for EVs to beat their gasoline-powered counterparts when it comes to pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions during their lifetimes.

“Only when connected to the dirtiest， coal-heavy electric grids do gasoline internal combustion engines become comparable to EVs on a greenhouse gas basis，” said Colin Sheppard， a researcher with expertise in energy and transportation systems engineering at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California.

China’s grid is improving with more investments in renewables， and it builds more solar panels per year than any other countries， according to Nature magazine.

“This pattern of improvement—more renewable energies and fewer fossil fuels—is a global one and it helps to boost the environmental credentials4 of electric vehicles，” said Gordon Bauer， an electric vehicle researcher at the International Council on Clean Transportation in San Francisco. “As grids become greener during the lifetime of an electric vehicle， it’s only going to get better.”

In a study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology， Sheppard modeled a hypothetical future scenario in which all cars were electric. “We wanted to understand what the energy， infrastructure and emissions implications might be if all passenger vehicles are electrified，” Sheppard told Live Science. Bauer also collaborated with Sheppard on the project. Their findings come out strongly in favor of an electric vehicle future.

For example， Sheppard calculated that if all privately owned vehicles in the U.S. were electric， it would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in the country by 46% annually （0.5 gigatons5 of carbon dioxide） compared with conventionally gas-powered cars. This reduction could be increased even further if those vehicles were subject to so-called “controlled charging，” a technique also known as “smart charging，” in which vehicles are recharged at strategically chosen times to minimize the financial cost of generating electricity. （For instance， charging at night is often less pricey than during the day; this strategy also favors more efficient energy-producing plants that produce cheaper electricity.） If all privately owned electric cars were charged in such a way， the emissions savings could rise to 49% annually.

These estimates are based on what Sheppard admits is an “ambitious” imagining of the U.S.’s future energy portfolio. This future envisions a country with a lot more renewable energy， but which still hasn’t reached the goal of zero carbon， or having a national grid that doesn’t contribute to climate change， he said. There is a considerable amount of political will and practical change that needs to happen to make this scenario possible， but it’s still helpful to map out the full theoretical potential of electric vehicles under these circumstances.

In short， it’s far easier to argue in favor of buying an EV than a gas- or diesel-powered vehicle from an envir-onmental perspective. But what about cost？ Aren’t electric vehicles too expensive for most people to afford？

A 2020 report from the consumer rights group， Consumer Reports， suggests this is also changing. The paper estimated that the per-mile repair and maintenance costs over the lifetime of an EV is a little less than half that of traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines. This is largely because electric motors have just one moving part， compared to traditional engines which often have dozens. This means fewer components need to be replaced in an EV， resulting in significant savings albeit6 not at the point of sale.

“It may sound radical right now， but by the time 2030 rolls around7， I think the problem will be about how quickly manufacturers can make them，” Bauer said.

In a recent U.S.-wide analysis carried out by Bauer， he concluded that the high rate of depreciation8 for new electric vehicles will lead to larger benefits for lower-income households that are more likely to buy used cars. This， along with other factors driving price reductions， such as technological innovations and increased supplier competition， will mean that an EV should cost the same as a conventional gasoline-powered car for almost all income levels by approximately 2029， Bauer found. Furthermore， Bauer calculated that by 2030， low-income households in the U.S. stand to9 save $1，000 per year from fuel savings if they were to switch to an EV.

電動(dòng)汽車和汽油汽車，哪種對(duì)地球更好呢？問題的答案似乎非常明顯：當(dāng)然，電動(dòng)汽車一定更環(huán)保，因?yàn)樗鼈儧]有排氣管，行駛時(shí)不排放溫室氣體。不過，電動(dòng)汽車并非完美無缺，也存在它們特有的污染問題。尤其要注意的是，電動(dòng)汽車的電池含有鋰等成分，探尋和提純其原料需要消耗大量能源。

可是，電池生產(chǎn)只是電動(dòng)汽車生命周期的一個(gè)環(huán)節(jié)。美國《國家科學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)》2014年發(fā)表的一項(xiàng)研究考察了電動(dòng)汽車氣體排放的全生命周期——從開采金屬來生產(chǎn)電池到發(fā)電來驅(qū)動(dòng)汽車，然后和汽油汽車的平均排放量進(jìn)行了比較。該研究團(tuán)隊(duì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，電動(dòng)汽車如果充的是煤電，對(duì)環(huán)境的危害實(shí)際上比傳統(tǒng)汽油汽車更嚴(yán)重。

盡管如此，說到生命周期內(nèi)造成的污染和溫室氣體排放量，世界上大部分地區(qū)的國家電網(wǎng)目前已非常清潔了，足以讓電動(dòng)汽車勝過汽油汽車。

加州勞倫斯伯克利國家實(shí)驗(yàn)室能源與運(yùn)輸系統(tǒng)工程專業(yè)研究員科林·謝潑德講道：“電動(dòng)汽車只有在和清潔度最低、嚴(yán)重依賴燃煤的電網(wǎng)相連的情況下，其溫室氣體排放量才跟汽油汽車內(nèi)燃機(jī)不相上下。”

根據(jù)《自然》雜志所述，中國電網(wǎng)加大可再生能源的投資，清潔度隨之提高。每年新建太陽能面板超過其他任何國家。

“多用可再生能源，少用化石燃料，這一改良模式是全球性的，有助于提升電動(dòng)汽車的環(huán)保資質(zhì)?！迸f金山國際清潔交通委員會(huì)電動(dòng)汽車研究員戈登·鮑爾如是說，“在電動(dòng)汽車生命周期之內(nèi)，隨著電網(wǎng)越來越綠色，情況只會(huì)越來越好?！?/p>

美國《環(huán)境科學(xué)與技術(shù)》雜志發(fā)布的一項(xiàng)研究顯示，謝潑德對(duì)所有汽車皆電動(dòng)這一假設(shè)性的未來場(chǎng)景進(jìn)行了建模。他對(duì)趣味科學(xué)網(wǎng)說：“我們想搞清楚，如果所有乘用車都是電動(dòng)，可能會(huì)對(duì)能源、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和排放量產(chǎn)生什么影響？”與謝潑德合作開展此項(xiàng)研究的還有鮑爾。他們的研究成果表明電動(dòng)汽車未來發(fā)展前景光明。

例如，根據(jù)謝潑德的計(jì)算，如果美國所有私家車都是電動(dòng)的，那么和傳統(tǒng)汽油汽車相比，美國每年可減排溫室氣體46%（5億噸二氧化碳）。如果采用所謂的“受控充電”（亦稱“智能充電”）技術(shù)，減排量還可進(jìn)一步提高。“受控充電”是指策略性地選擇充電時(shí)間，以最大限度降低發(fā)電成本。（例如，晚間充電通常比白天便宜。這一策略也有利于發(fā)電效率較高、電價(jià)較低的能源生產(chǎn)企業(yè)。）如果所有私家電動(dòng)車都采取這一充電技術(shù)，每年的減排量則會(huì)提高到49%。

謝潑德承認(rèn)，上述估算是基于對(duì)美國未來能源組合的“大膽”想象做出的。他表示，在這一設(shè)想下，未來的美國將擁有更多可再生能源，但仍無法達(dá)成零碳目標(biāo)，或擁有對(duì)氣候變化不會(huì)產(chǎn)生負(fù)面影響的國家電網(wǎng)。要讓這樣的場(chǎng)景成為現(xiàn)實(shí)，需要十分強(qiáng)大的政治意志和切實(shí)可行的變革。不過，在這些條件下從理論上對(duì)電動(dòng)汽車的一切可能性進(jìn)行規(guī)劃也是有裨益的。

簡(jiǎn)而言之，從環(huán)境角度看，相對(duì)于汽油車或柴油車來說，提倡人們購買電動(dòng)汽車就容易多了。但是，從價(jià)格上看又會(huì)如何？電動(dòng)汽車是不是貴得讓多數(shù)人買不起？

消費(fèi)者權(quán)益組織《消費(fèi)者報(bào)告》雜志2020年發(fā)布的報(bào)告表明，上述情況也正在改變。據(jù)該報(bào)告估算，電動(dòng)汽車生命周期內(nèi)每英里的維修保養(yǎng)費(fèi)用還不到傳統(tǒng)燃油汽車的一半。這主要是因?yàn)閭鹘y(tǒng)引擎通常有數(shù)十個(gè)部件，而電動(dòng)機(jī)只有一個(gè)活動(dòng)部件。也就是說，電動(dòng)汽車需要更換的部件更少一些，即便賣得不便宜，維護(hù)也能節(jié)省不少費(fèi)用。

鮑爾表示：“眼下聽起來可能很激進(jìn)，但我認(rèn)為，到了2030年，就怕制造商的產(chǎn)出速度跟不上了?！?/p>

新近，鮑爾對(duì)全美的情況進(jìn)行了一次分析。他的結(jié)論是，新款電動(dòng)汽車折舊率高，這將會(huì)給更可能買二手車的低收入家庭帶來更多好處。據(jù)他發(fā)現(xiàn)，伴隨技術(shù)創(chuàng)新、供應(yīng)商競(jìng)爭(zhēng)加劇等其他降價(jià)因素，折舊率高則意味著到2029年前后，對(duì)差不多所有收入階層來說，電動(dòng)汽車的價(jià)格會(huì)和傳統(tǒng)汽油汽車持平。還有，據(jù)鮑爾估算，到2030年，美國低收入家庭假如都改用電動(dòng)汽車，每年便可節(jié)省加油費(fèi)1000美元。