主题：奥巴马政府：电池车非零排放，超内燃机 -- 过来看井大
CLICK HERE FOR FULL REPORT
John M.A. Roy, Ph.D.
Nicholas Cavallo
Cleantech
INVESTMENT CONCLUSION:
An article in this morning's Wall Street Journal highlights the Obama Administration's new rules for automobiles due out later today. In a departure from previous drafts of the legislation, electric cars will no longer be considered "zero emission," as emissions from the generation of electricity used to propel the car will now be taken into account.
电池车不再是零排放车，因为要考虑为电池充电的电力产生中的排放！
Details of the rules were not released, but it is expected that the rules will call for a fleet-wide average fuel efficiency of 35.5 mpg by 2016. The full life-cycle emissions, including the incremental energy used to produce lithium-ion batteries for these cars, are not considered in these rules, but we do but we believe that this is a step in the right direction on the part of the Federal government to more accurately characterize the environmental profiles of electric vehicles.
据说如何做成电池的排放没有考虑，但是对整个排放的profile有一个规定。我猜，类似于多晶硅太阳能制造过程中排放的碳比它省的碳多的多。
Today's decision is seen as a set-back for auto makers, who had hoped to score electric vehicle sales as zero emission to make up for sales larger vehicles with higher emissions. We continue to believe that under-performance of electric vehicles will lead to lower than expected demand, and that this will hurt smaller battery makers such as SELL-rated Ener1 (HEV) and NEUTRAL-rated A123 Systems (AONE).
报告认为，这对试图通过电动车搞一票的汽车制造商是利空。一些小电池商麻烦了。
KEY POINTS:
Obama administration changes automobile rules due out today to recognize emissions from electricity generated for electric vehicles. This is a reversal from a September 2009 draft of the rules that counted electric vehicles as zero emission vehicles. Environmental groups and the oil industry, an unlikely couple, lobbied for the change.
有趣的是，这次村支书奥巴马变卦，竟然是在传统的石油商和环保分子的合作游说下。
We believe that this decision by the Obama administration signals a more reasonable approach to energy policy that will potentially include an honest assessment of the benefits of natural gas vehicles versus other alternative fuels.
Still not taking into account full life-cycle emissions. Despite the progress made with today's rule changes, the new rules still do not take into account the significant life-cycle emissions of electric vehicles resulting from the the 13-23% more energy required to produce lithium-ion batteries than an internal combustion engine.
说制造铁理电池过程中，要比内燃机多产生13-23%的排放。希望行家指点一下。
The U.S. National Academy of Science projects that even in 2030, ICE driven cars will be 9%cleaner than full battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and 17%cleaner than plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) on a full life-cycle basis.
Set-back for the auto industry; how will it react? We believe that today's announcement is a setback for the auto industry, as the fuel standards effectively became more stringent, and that this could lead to less enthusiasm for electric vehicles from major OEMs. Of course, the OEMs could take the opposite approach and try to sell even more electric vehicles to offset the emissions of other vehicles; however, we doubt that the demand will be there for even higher levels of electric vehicles and instead believe that auto OEMs will take a more sensible approach to reducing emissions across their vehicle portfolios. This, of course, could likely be accomplished by a commitment to producing CNG-fueled models, but natural gas fueling infrastructure remains an issue for the average driver.
Emissions are only one of the problems facing electric vehicles. Other issues such as cost, range, and performance in cold temperatures contribute to our negative outlook for electric vehicles. See our report published March 31, 2010 entitled "What's All the Hype About: Electric Vehicles Underperform on Almost All Fronts" for more details on our outlook for electric vehicles. We expect that lagging electric vehicle demand in the future will hurt smaller battery makers and reiterate our SELL rating for Ener1, Inc (HEV) and NEUTRAL rating for A123 Systems (AONE) with $3.50 and $14 fair values, respectively.
很长，自己读吧。或者用Google Translator翻译一下。
希望行家出手，解答一下这个变化。
谢谢
本帖一共被 2 帖 引用 (帖内工具实现)
1. Grid-connected electric vehicles (GEVs) are not cleaner and not likely to get cleaner than unleaded vehicles. The problem is the extra 13-23% more energy needed to make to batteries than an internal combustion engine (ICE). The U.S. National Academy of Science projects that even in 2030, ICE driven cars will be 9% cleaner than full battery
electric vehicles (BEVs) and 17% cleaner than plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).
用电网充电的电动车并不比传统车绿色。原因是需要13-23%更多的能量来充电（？）。
美国国家科学院预计，至到2030年，内燃机车比纯电动或者混合车省能9%或者17%。
2. GEVs are too expensive to achieve widespread adoption, and experts don’t see this changing in the next decade.
We expect BEVs and PHEVs coming out this year to have a $9,000 - $20,000 premium over similar ICE cars. We estimate payback times in the 1.2 to 1.9 years for PHEVs after subsides. For BEVs they are all over 3 years, but can be over 10 years. In our opinion, unless the economics to the end user are significantly better, most will continue with the
status quo.
过于昂贵，消费者投资回报期长，即使有政府补贴，也不可持续。
3. GEV batteries have performance and safety issues that look difficult to solve, meaning adoption could be slowed by field testing and initial failures. The range of BEVs with current batteries looks to be around 100 miles, which may be ok for certain city dwellers, but for many that will not be enough. Typical cars have a range today of 400 miles. This range is severely diminished in cold temperatures.
不稳定，巡航长度短，在冬天，在夏天，都会有问题。
3. Only specific niche applications will work for GEVs; again no widespread adoption. To get around the cost, performance, and infrastructure limitations we believe only a few applications will sell including high-end PHEVs, short distance municipal buses, and European based BEVs.
充电网不好解决，只能发展一些高端/短途的产品。
4. The automotive business requires size and electric vehicles are no different. Over the last 50 years it has beendifficult to start a new car company (think DeLorean), but we are seeing new electric car companies today. All of the
top 12 motor groups in the world (roughly 85% share) have a PHEV/BEV announced, and 7 of them expect to be in mass production in 2010 or 2011. We believe the large manufacturers will eventually be the winners in the electric car race – and battery makers need to be supplying this group to achieve the scale needed for low unit costs.
不翻译了，Google Translator。
我的看法是，如果要国家电网配合，这是一个庞大的工程，又是巨大的政府投入，还是要慎重的。不能人有多敢想，地有多高产。
这就是为什么美国车厂最初放弃电动车的原因。除非是有新型电池，充一次电跟加一次油跑的路可以相比，或者少一点，能从旧金山到洛杉矶跑5－6小时，否则美国人很难对电动车动心。心理上不能接受，就会对电动车挑三拣四，电动车的销路就会上不去。销路上不去，其他都免谈，都不是关键问题。
欧洲人开车习惯就跟美国人很不一样；如果象美国人这么开，一下子就开出好几国了！
中国人的开车习惯我还说不好。但是北京那么大，充电站如果不方便，我猜电动车也跑不起来。北京人周末开到郊区去，一开就是几百公里的也很多。如果北京规定2环以内只能跑电动车，...
电动车的所谓的零排放不过是排放转移而不是排放降低. 生产电池排放不? 废旧电池的污染的问题, 比起区区二氧化碳和硫化物来说谁更厉害?, 废旧电池的回收处理排放不? 这个是耗能大户. 油是不烧了. 但是电从哪里来啊? 核电的比例多少? 核电的废料处理? 剩下的火电水电. 水电还好, 不过比例比较低, 火电排放不?
电动车不过是把本来在汽车运行的时候产生的排放转移到使用的其他环节中间去了. 如果考察整个life cycle(即从生产到最终的报废包括电池更换, 回收, 发电的排放, 输电的损失. 充电放点的能量损失 所谓的dust to dust)不见得比汽油机环保多少. 现在也没有一个明确数据来做两者之间的比较. 最近看的一篇文章说 悍马三的dust to dust energy cost是每英里1,95美元. 而日本动力车的dust to dust 耗能是没英里3.3美元.
[URL=http://www.hybridcars.com/environment-stories/dust-to-dust-energy-costs.html][/URL]
What we expect #1 – electric vehicles remain stuck in a niche for at least 10 years
Why we expect it #1 – costs need to be at parity for consumers to make the switch, costs are driven by the
battery, which experts do not see reaching the needed cost performance in 10 years.
Why it is important #1 – without mass adoption most electric vehicle companies will struggle
电池成本要降下来。如果不大规模的使用，成本下不来。
What we expect #2 – batteries will always be the key to electric vehicles
Why we expect it #2 – almost all the components outside of the drive train are quite mature
Why it is important #2 – batteries are going to be the major driver of both performance and cost; thus the key to the success of an electric vehicle
电池技术要进步。现有所有技术都已经非常成熟，瓶颈很大。
What we expect #3 – electric vehicles will become less interesting, as they are understood to pollute more than expected
Why we expect it #3 – the U.S. National Academy of Science study shows that BEVs and PHEVs both pollute more than unleaded gasoline vehicles: 8% and 22% worse using 2005 data and are projected to still be worse in 2030, by 9% and 17%.
Why it is important #3 – if battery manufacturers cannot reduce the amount of energy driving up the pollution, then they will not be actually better for the environment
纯电动车和混合动力车要比一般无铅汽油车排碳多达8%-22%；即使到了2030年，也排碳多9-17%。
What we expect #4 – governments will slow incentives for electric vehicles
Why we expect it #4 – sovereign debt issues will constrain governments
Why it is important #4 – electrical vehicles are not yet cost effective, incentives are supporting the companies today
政府补贴受经济情况影响，越来越少
What we expect #5 – Plug-in hybrid vehicles will be adopted much more readily than full battery electric vehicles
Why we expect it #5 – the range limitation of BEVs (around 100 miles in warm weather) and lack of charging stations will prevent mass adoption; PHEV overcome this limitation
Why it is important #5 – companies not supplying PHEVs will have trouble reaching the volumes necessary to be competitive
无充电站，上网成本贵，资本投资回笼慢。
What we expect #6 – Today’s battery chemistries will not get costs down for electric vehicles to be price competitive with internal combustion engines
Why we expect it #6 – Industry experts (like the Boston Consulting Group and A123 Systems) see a straight forward path to a 30% price reduction, but not the 70% needed
Why it is important #6 – without competitive pricing, electric vehicles will have to rely on subsidies and stay a niche market
电池需要至少降低70%的成本。现在最领先的降低30%都不到。
What we expect #7 – Government regulators will continue pushing electric vehicles, but adoption will be slow
Why we expect it #7 – similar to ethanol in the US, regulators and legislators want something to work but the reality is not there, which does not stop them from funding the effort for many years
Why it is important #7 – small companies can survive on government programs without mass adoption, large companies will do token efforts, but fast adoption requires a compelling advantage to get people to switch
因为潜在的经济不合理性，政府推进的力度会降低，用户会转移
What we expect #8 – Europe will be the first to adopt electric vehicles
Why we expect it #8 – the European consumer is very concerned about the environment, has relatively high
disposable income, has very high petrol prices, and has short driving distances; making the value proposition for electric vehicles the strongest. Think Car believes the U.S. does not have the demand, income level, infrastructure, nor incentives needed to support the earliest deployments of plug-ins.
Why it is important #8 – companies not supplying Europe will have trouble reaching the volumes necessary to be competitive
在欧洲推进，条件最好（环保理念等）
What we expect #9 – Carbon Regulation (either via Cap & Trade, a carbon tax, or other incentive) will continue in Europe and Asia, but the US, China, and India will move slowly
Why we expect it #9 – the Copenhagen meeting showed clearly where the countries are headed
Why it is important #9 – electric cars cut tailpipe emissions and could take advantage of the programs
What we expect #10 – Electric vehicles will become less interesting over the next 2-3 years
Why we expect it #10 – the promise is likely better than the reality (short range, pricing disadvantages, new technology issues, emission issues from battery manufacture, cold weather operations, lack of profits, increase in alternative approaches [LPG, CNG]);
Why it is important #10 – electric cars have ridden a wave of promise up, but the people will move away when issues occur (as they did in the 1990s in CA)
电池车热度2-3年内会降低
What we expect #11 – Charging infrastructure will progress slowly, rising concerns and further slowing adoption
Why we expect it #11 – in prior trials 90% of charges were done at home (though people want the stations out there), the home charge is more convenient and cheaper, this makes putting up stations that people don’t use less likely
Why it is important #11 – without charging stations BEVs will stay in the niche and consumers will go with PHEVs; utilities may have to upgrade transformers and substations to support charging in key zip codes (may limit ability to charge)
上网充电始终较难克服
What we expect #12 – Some consumers purchase emotionally, most consumers and fleets purchase rationally with pump price, purchase price, refueling infrastructure, and OEM commitment to aid the their decision
Why we expect it #12 – experience in Italy with propane (LPG) and natural gas buses in the U.S. show that if the purchase price is on par, the pump price is better, they can get refueled conveniently, and they trust the tech because the OEM is behind it; then you can get 30% market share (switching from what you know is never easy)
Why it is important #12 – these four metrics are a good first cut at analyzing markets and determining when they might see accelerated adoption rates
冲动购买的客户会很快转向。
BATTERY ROADMAP FOR WIDESPREAD ADOPTION
我们做到了什么？
Where are we today?
Price/Performance: $1,000 / kWh (Boston Consulting Group, 2010)
Lifetime: 10 years of usage (U.S. DoE)
Range: 100 miles (Nissan LEAF)
Temperature Impact: 50% hit at 32°F, 70% hit at 14°F (Idaho National Laboratory, 2009)
Charge Time: 20 minutes at a station with a next generation fast charger
差距在哪里？
Where do we need to get to?
Price/Performance: $250 / kWh (cost would then be similar to today’s costs, USABC)
Lifetime: 15 years of usage (USABC)
Range: 300 miles (400 miles is the average range today)
Temperature Impact: 0% hit at 32°F, 0% hit at 14°F (ICEs have no temperature hit)
Charge Time: 5 minutes at a station (ICEs fill in around 5 minutes)
差距原因分析，怎么办？
How do we get there?
The difficulty is in hitting all the targets with one battery system. Some batteries have the lifetime and some have the temperature insensitivity but none have all 5 key performance capabilities. The goals above are for widespread adoption, which we just don’t see happening with the current battery chemistries.
We believe that payback times (in the next section) of less than one year are the key to any adoption.
本帖一共被 1 帖 引用 (帖内工具实现)
所谓“悍马三的dust to dust energy cost是每英里1,95美元. 而日本动力车的dust to dust 耗能是没英里3.3美元”，你引的文章自己就说了
If reporters had dug a little deeper, they would have clearly seen what the podcast interview exposed: the Hummer H3 looks a whole lot better than the hybrids because it uses "crude old technology that has long ago been paid for," according to Spinella. On the other hand, the hybrids are new and complex, and the cost of the R&D energy required to make the necessary transformation of our cars from oversized, high-emissions gas guzzlers to something new and better has not yet been amortized over any significant period of time.
悍马因为是老旧技术，现阶段基本上没有R&D费用， 而hybrid 这上面有巨大的overhead.
实际上，由于锂电池的回收问题目前还没解决，锂电池对环境的污染实际上还是有的，而目前只有铅酸电池的产业链形成的完全的循环，不会污染环境，骑电动车的人都知道，电动车电池都可以以旧换新。
大力发展公共交通是从战略层面上的解决交通问题的根本方法，把内燃机换成电动机是具体技术层面的尝试。在推一步是城市内规划和城市间合理规划。不能指望可能优良的战术(全电动车)可以矫正错误的战略(发展私人交通)。
电池车不根本就不是零排放车，因为必须要考虑为电池充电的电力产生中的排放！
以燃油发电为例，电动车的能效是14%-20%(从原油到车轮子)，内燃机车是15%-19%。优势并不很明显。当然这是老数据，而且没有考虑车子的制造和回收。电动车的优势在于能使用非传统能源(如风电)。
村支书奥巴马没有变卦，可能是他发现米国在混合动力和纯电动车上没有技术优势，不愿补贴国外厂商吧。
我给的那个链接只是一个简短的消息. 真正完整的报告包含的内容远远比这个比较复杂. Dust to Dust 不仅仅包含了生产研发平台共享的费用.而且还包括使用, 维护, 维修, 车的寿命(不同车型市面上的平均寿命, 使用年限, 最终公里数, 不同的消费人群开车的方式不同那么上面所有的数据都不同)等等, 做出的最终的结果. 这个报告一共458页, 我到现在还没有看完.
还要纠正的一点是这个单位是cent per mile 不是dollar per mile
如果有兴趣的话, 可以下载完整的报告, 读一读.
如果不能下载, 请多刷新几次.
我对这个报告的最终结果也很干兴趣. 具体要等到我完整的看完报告之后才能继续讨论.
过来看井大河友给出了一个数据说是碳多排放13-23%, 不知道这个数据又是从哪里来的.
hybrid car is quite different from pure electric car, you should not mix up the two.
后面有关于能耗报告的分析