新能源汽车 英文文献

Policy Sci(2007)40:1–34

DOI10.1007/s11077-006-9022-7

O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E

The allure of technology:How France and California promoted electric and hybrid vehicles to reduce urban air pollution

David Calef·Robert Goble

Received:15May2005/Accepted:19July2006/Published online:1March2007

C Springer Science+Business Media B.V.2007

Abstract All advanced industrialized societies face the problem of air pollution produced by motor vehicles.In spite of striking improvements in internal combustion engine technol-ogy,air pollution in most urban areas is still measured at levels determined to be harmful to human health.Throughout the1990s and beyond,California and France both chose to improve air quality by means of technological innovation,adopting legislation that promoted clean vehicles,prominently among them,electric vehicles(EVs).In California,policymakers chose a technology-forcing approach,setting ambitious goals(e.g.,zero emission vehicles), establishing strict deadlines and issuing penalties for non-compliance.The policy process in California called for substantial participation from the public,the media,the academic com-munity and the interest groups affected by the regulation.The automobile and oil industries bitterly contested the regulation,in public and in the courts.In contrast,in France the pol-icy process was non-adversarial,with minimal public participation and negligible debate in academic circles.We argue that California’s stringent regulation spurred the development of innovative hybrid and fuel cell vehicles more effectively than the French approach.However, in spite of the differences,both California and France have been unable to put a substantial number of EVs on the road.Our comparison offers some broad lessons about how policy developments within a culture in?uence both the development of technology and the impact of humans on the environment.

Keywords Environmental policy.Technology policy.Policy styles.Air pollution. Sustainable transport.Electric and hybrid vehicles

D.Calef( )

Visiting Fellow,Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei,Corso Magenta,6320123Milan,Italy

e-mail:dacalef@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bd794212.html,

Current address

D.Calef

Via Carlo Alberto,24,00185Rome,Italy

R.Goble

Research Professor,Environmental Science and Policy Department,Clark University,950Main Street, Worcester,MA01610

Springer

Introduction

In an effort to reduce air pollution in Los Angeles and other metropolitan areas in the state of California,the California Air Resources Board(CARB)1adopted in September1990a plan to encourage the development and use of zero emission vehicles(ZEVs).At the time only battery-powered electric vehicles(EVs)quali?ed as ZEVs while other potential ZEV technologies,such as fuel cells and?ywheels,were far from being commercially viable.The ZEV mandate was just one component of a multi-pronged attack on pollution,but it was the one that attracted the most attention throughout the following decade.2

The regulation created in California is an example of technology-forcing;it required the regulated industry to produce and sell ef?cient EVs,within a set period of time,even though the technology was not fully developed when the regulations were created.As in the case of the1970Clean Air Act Amendments(CAAA)that compelled the auto industry to introduce catalytic converters,the major automakers,the oil industry as well as several policy analysts bitterly contested the ZEV regulation.Indeed the mandated development of EVs triggered a controversy about the merits of the new technology that engaged substantial public par-ticipation in California and in the rest of the country.This is not surprising.To a far greater degree than people in other industrialized countries,Americans often vigorously debate tech-nological issues,whether concerning electric cars,information technologies,antidepressant drugs(Prozac),public health measures(?uoridation)or national defense systems(Strategic Defense Initiative).And the controversies that typically accompany public discourse on any of these technologies have usually intensi?ed each time the new technology was regulated by the federal government or,as in the case of the ZEV mandate,by a state agency.3 Over the same time period,starting in1992,and throughout the1990s,the French gov-ernment designed policies and passed legislation to encourage the deployment of EVs as a means to improve air quality.But in France the process of creating regulations designed to promote EVs was devoid of con?ict between government and industry and the role of interest groups was much more restrained than was the case in the United States.Indeed one would have been hard pressed to?nd any debate at all about EVs in France.

Our study contrasts the EV policies adopted in California and France,the relationships between industry and government,societal attitudes toward technology and the role of in-terest groups.We explore the distinctive features of US regulation of air pollution in the transportation sector and describe how and why Americans have paid heightened attention to electric cars,show how polarized the debate about EVs was in the United States,and contrast that debate with the collegial atmosphere that characterized the emergence of EVs in France. We compare what has happened to date in the two settings with respect to EV technology and the effects on urban air pollution.Our objective is to extract from the comparison some broad lessons about how policy developments within a culture in?uence both technology development and human impacts on the environment.

1Established in1967to promote and protect public health,the CARB has focused on three main objectives: (1)attain and maintain air quality throughout the state;(2)conduct research into the causes of and solutions to air pollution;and(3)attack serious environmental problems caused by motor vehicles.

2In the United States,between1992and2000,academic and technical literature as well as the national print media devoted a great deal of attention to the ZEV mandate.Throughout those years,think tanks,university research teams,newspapers,large-circulation magazines and business organizations produced essays,reports, editorials,cover stories and ads that focused on the zero emission component of a broader pollution-reduction strategy.

3For an analysis of the con?icts surrounding new technologies in the US see Mazur,1981and Nelkin,1992.

Springer

Policy styles:An overview

There is a tradition of cross-national studies which over the last25years has tried to make sense of the variety of environmental,risk and consumer regulations adopted in various industrialized nations(Ashford et al.,1982;Brickman et al.,1985;Badaracco,1985;Kelman, 1980;Lundqvist,1980;V ogel,1986,2003;Wilson,1985).The speci?c subject of these comparative studies ranges from air and water quality control to chemicals regulation and occupational health hazards.Although in the majority of these cases the aim of the regulatory actions in France,Germany,Sweden,the United Kingdom and the United States was similar, the design and the implementation of the policies differed greatly.In particular,all the analyses emphasized how sharply the American policymaking environment differed from its European counterparts.

Starting in the early1980’s,analysts who tried to explain why environmental and risk regulations varied so much among industrialized nations used the concept of“policy style”introduced by(Richardson,1982).In his work,Richardson argued that nation states develop “standard operating procedures”for making and implementing policies and those different styles of policy are in?uenced by deep values rooted in societies.Furthermore,he formulated a basic typology of policy styles based on two main features of policymaking:(1)the govern-ment’s approach to problem-solving,which ranges from anticipatory(or active)to reactive, and(2)the government’s relationship with other actors involved in the policy process.This de?nition translated into a matrix composed of four hybrid styles:anticipatory-consensual, anticipatory-impositional,reactive-consensual and reactive-impositional.In the years since Richardson and his collaborators proposed the matrix,several analysts have enriched the pol-icy style canvas with additional typologies(van Waarden,1995.)Analysts often found that even when outcomes were similar,policy patterns of different nations were quite diverse.The concept of“national styles of regulation,”introduced by V ogel in1986,became an important framework for analyzing policy issues(V ogel,1986).More recently,the question of“policy convergence,”that is,the trend of policy alignments brought by forces such as economic inte-gration treaties,international legal constraints and the ongoing transfer of technological and scienti?c expertise,has emerged.Since the last twenty years have witnessed a sharp reduction of the barriers to economic,political and cultural exchange,it seems timely to ask whether this trend has eroded governments’capacity to design distinctive national policies.In our study we examine in one detailed case whether these recent globalization trends were able to offset countervailing forces such as distinctive national cultures,legacies of past policies and speci?c domestic circumstances.We address the following questions:Regarding clean air policies affecting passenger cars,is it still possible to identify clearly national policy styles in California and France and,if so,to what extent do these affect policies and policy outcomes? Air pollution in California and in France

Over the past33years,California has distinguished itself for passing the most innovative and advanced legislation to control and reduce air pollution produced in the transportation sector,mainly because the Los Angeles basin and other metropolitan areas in the state have suffered the worst air quality in the country.4

4Los Angeles and its suburbs lie in a basin surrounded by a ring of mountains to the east and onshore winds from the west,both of which serve to trap the pollution.Strong sunlight activity produces the photochemical reactions that lead to smog formation.

Springer

Table 1The rise in population,registered vehicles,and VMT in California:1960–2004

Year

Population (Million)Registered vehicles (Million)Vehicle miles travelled (Billion)1960

168711980

24171552000

33.423.4306.3200336.425.2330.7

Sources:Caltrans,2001,2004;U.S.Census Bureau,2005;and U.S.Federal Highway Administration (FHW A),

2003

Ozone Air Quality Trends: 1976-2000

1976198019841988199219962000Y ear

# o f d a y s e x c e e d i n g h e a l t h s t a n d a r d l e v e l s

Fig.1Ozone air quality violations in Los Angeles and Paris between 1976and 2000.Sources:Airparif,2003;and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD),2003

Nowadays,in most metropolitan areas,cars and trucks are the major source of air pollution.This holds true in California,where on-road mobile sources are responsible for 51%of nitrogen oxides (NO x )and 33%of reactive organic gases (ROG)both ozone precursors (CARB,2005).5Over the last ?ve decades,automobile use has increased steadily in California as well as in the rest of the United States (California Department of Transportation (Caltrans),2004)and in every other industrialized country (European Commission,2005;Schipper,1995).Table 1shows the progressive growth in population in California,paralleled by the rise in the number of registered vehicles and number of vehicle miles travelled (VMT).

These trends show no sign of abating soon:as measured by VMT,automobile use is forecasted to increase for the foreseeable future (CARB,2005).Despite the steady rise of population and VMT in the Los Angeles area,air quality has improved substantially,as shown by the trend in Figure 1.(ozone trends in the Basin Area and the Ile-de-France).Nonetheless,there are still numerous days when ozone levels remain higher than the standard judged safe by the state.

Thus progress in air quality achieved by means of strict air pollution control regulation and ever-improving emission control technology has been insuf?cient.The air of the Los Angeles Basin remains extremely unhealthy and the state of California dominates the U.S.smog “top ten,”boasting ?ve areas with the highest ground level ozone levels and eight areas 5In 1990,when the ZEV mandate was

proposed,on-road mobile sources accounted for 55%of NO x emissions and 47%of ROG emissions (CARB,2005).

Springer

Table2Data on road transportation for France,the USA and California in2002?

Population#of vehicles Public transport Private transport

(million)(million)ps-km(billion)ps-km(billion)#of EVs France61.529.241720(2001)7,744

U.S.288.2228.977.6(2001)7136(2001)5,200(2000) California3529.1N.A.841.93,900a

?Except where noted.Passenger-km(ps-km):One passenger traveling the distance of one km.Total passenger-km traveled gives the total distance traveled by all people.Sources:(1)Population:Census Bureau,2005 (US and CA);Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques(Insee),2004(France);(2) Motor vehicle registrations:FHW A,2003(US and CA);Comit′e des Constructeurs Fran?c ais d’Automobiles (CCFA),2003(France);(3)Passenger Activities:FHW A,2003(US and CA);CCFA,2003;(France);(4) Motor Vehicles:FHW A,2003US;CARB,2002(CA);CCFA,2003(France);(5)EVs:Joyce,2001,(US); Cackette,2003(CA);Groupe Interminist′e riel V′e hicules Electriques(GIVE),2003(France)

a The highest number of EVs in California and in the US was recorded in2000.Since then,the number has been declining due to the recall by Ford,Honda and GM of their EV models(Fagan,1999;Maynard,2002; Glover,2000;GM,2002).

with the most frequent violations of the federal standard.6Moreover,the CARB maintained that projected increases in VMT(384billion in2010and475billion in2020)would slow and,possibly,reverse the decline in ozone levels(Caltrans,2001).Along with the rise in miles driven,the main reason for the inadequacy of emission reduction improvements is the stagnation in automobile fuel economy over the last eighteen years.In1987,the combined (cars and trucks)?eet fuel economy was25.9miles per gallon(mpg)and in2004it was24.4 mpg(EPA,2005a).The decline in fuel economy is largely due to the growth(27%in1987to 48%in2004)of the market share of sport utility vehicles(SUV)and light trucks,which are about a third less fuel-ef?cient than passenger cars(EPA,2005a).The increasing popularity of SUVs and light trucks,subject to lax government fuel ef?ciency standards,as well as the rise in VMT has largely offset the air quality gains brought by pollution reduction technologies (catalytic converters,fuel injection,variable valve control).Furthermore,throughout the period under examination,the worsening urban traf?c congestion produced by growth in car-based mobility precipitated adverse social consequences(e.g.gridlock,rising volumes of polluting exhaust and monetary losses(Shrank and Lomax,2002).7

In France,the transportation system has provided French residents with a high level of personal mobility,although less than that enjoyed by Americans.8See Table2for a comparison of transportation data in France,the United States and California).

But,as in the United States,the growth in automobile mobility has worsened air quality.In 1993,two years before a major French EV legislative act was enacted,cars,trucks and buses produced about half of the ozone-forming hydrocarbons,60%of all the carbon monoxide pollution and68%of the oxides of nitrogen(NO x),90%of lead and41%of the particulates (Centre Interprofessionel Technique d’Etudes de la Pollution Atmosph′e rique(CITEPA), 1998).And if between1980and1993,as Table3shows,total(i.e.from industrial,service and transportation sectors)emissions of NO x have declined considerably,the contribution

6In1987,California set a state standard for ozone equal to0.09ppm(180μg/m3)for a1-hour averaging time. There are many areas in the state where the state standard for ozone is exceeded more than a hundred times per year(SCAQMD,2003).

7According to the Texas Transportation Institute(TTI),in2001,three California cities(Los Angeles,San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose)ranked in the Institute’s top ten list of the most congested cities in the US. 8With520cars per1,000inhabitants,France reached in1995the level of motorizations attained in the early 1970s in the United States(CCFA,2003).

Springer

Table3NO x emissions(total and from the transportation sector)in France1980–2003

Pollutant19801990199320002003

France NO x total19891830174213901220

France NO x transport82710931090728586

Data are in kilotons.

Source:CITEPA,2005

Table4California standards for light vehicles

Category NMOG a(g/mile)CO(g/mile)NOx(g/mile)

CV b0.250 3.40.4

TLEV0.125 3.40.4

LEV0.075 3.40.2

ULEV0.04 1.70.2

ZEV0.0000.00.0

Source:CARB,1990.

a Non-methane organic gases(i.e.hydrocarbons with the exclusion of methane).

b Conventional vehicles

of the transport sector to NO x emissions output over the same period did not decline.NO x emissions from cars and trucks started to decline only in1994.

Although new cars met ever stricter standards,in several metropolitan areas,includ-ing those of Grenoble,Lyon,Marseilles,and Paris,air quality remained far from satisfac-tory throughout the1990s owing to the increase in volume of road traf?c(Patel,1995). Ile-de-France,the region around Paris where19%of the French population(11million people)lives,has received the greatest attention because it is one of the most polluted and politically important areas of the country.

The California ZEV mandate

In September1990,convinced of the inadequacy of existing federal air quality standards,the CARB proposed new regulations based on new de?nitions of types of vehicle as a policy to reduce motor vehicle emissions in California.The proposal required the phased introduction of low-emission vehicles and the clean fuels needed by them.The low-emission vehicles were to meet one of four sets of exhaust emission standards.The emission standards(shown in Table4)established by the Board were:Transitional Low-Emission Vehicles(TLEVs), Low Emission Vehicles(LEVs),Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicles(ULEVs)and Zero-Emission Vehicles(ZEVs)(CARB,1990).

Unlike the standards for TLEVs,LEVs and ULEVs,those for ZEVs could not be met by means of gasoline-powered cars,even those equipped with the most advanced emission-control technology available.The portion of the new regulations that dealt with ZEVs(here-after the ZEV mandate)required that2%of all passenger cars and light trucks(less than3750 lbs.loaded vehicle weight)sold in the state by every major car manufacturer must emit zero exhaust,beginning with the1998models.9The percentage of zero emission vehicles was to

9The category of“major manufacturers”denoted all those whose sales equaled at least35,000units in the state and included Chrysler,Ford,GM,Honda,Mazda,Nissan and Toyota.

Springer

increase to5%in2001and to10%in2003.The CARB could?ne an automaker failing to meet the ZEV requirement up to$5000for each violation.

Although strongly opposed to the mandate,Chrysler,Ford and General Motors (GM)responded to the challenge presented by the CARB by forming,together with the Department of Energy(DOE)and the Electric Power Resource Institute(EPRI) (representing the electric utilities),the U.S.Advanced Battery Consortium(USABC).The primary objective of the consortium was to improve existing battery technology,as it was generally assumed that,without major improvements in that sector,no electric ve-hicle meeting a satisfactory range(～100miles with one charge)would be ready by 1998.

In1992and1994,the CARB reviewed the status of technological progress and up-held the mandate in its original form.The CARB focused on the state of the art of bat-tery technology,which was recognized by most stakeholders as the Achilles’heel of elec-tric cars.In the early1990s,the few types of batteries considered reliable(e.g.,lead-acid, nickel-cadmium)were also the ones that provided the most disappointing performance.In 1995,the CARB commissioned an assessment of the current state and the future prospects of battery technology.The study(Kalhammer et al.,1995)concluded that:(a)lead-acid (Pba)and nickel-cadmium battery technology had improved signi?cantly during the early 1990s and could be deployed in1998,although some of their characteristics would remain well below the midterm criteria set by the USABC;(b)several types of advanced batter-ies(nickel-metal hydride,lithium ion,sodium-nickel chloride)showed excellent promise to meet the USABC midterm goals and were good enough to allow the development of pilot-scale production;(c)the plans to initiate commercial-scale battery production(10,000–40,000battery packs per year)depended on commitments made by car manufacturers to buy batteries on that scale;and(d)the battery manufacturers and researchers interviewed by the panel were unanimously convinced that the ZEV mandate had accelerated invest-ment and progress in developing advanced batteries for electric vehicles.Further progress hinged on a stable program aimed at developing EVs with advanced batteries.Finally,in a best-case scenario,with no technical or decision delays in any of the various development phases,electric vehicles powered by advanced batteries could become available in2000or 2001.

By the end of1995,the CARB technical staff reached conclusions re?ecting those con-tained in the expert assessment(CARB,1995):

1.Lead-acid batteries remain the primary high-volume option for1998electric vehicles,

but would not be able to satisfy long-term requirements such as reasonably long vehicle driving range per electric charge.

2.Although some advanced batteries(i.e.,non-lead-acid)would be available by1998,high

production volumes of advanced batteries were not expected until2001.

3.The existing ZEV requirements should be altered to be more responsive to these issues.

In March1996,the CARB suspended the ZEV requirements for the model years between 1998through2002,replacing them with an agreement under which the automakers commit-ted to introduce electric vehicles as early as1996and to supply as many as3750EVs(～0.02%of all the cars sold in California in one year)between1998and2000.The CARB also worked out separate Memoranda of Agreement(MOAs)with each of the seven automakers subject to the ZEV requirement.According to the MOAs,automakers would manufacture cleaner light-duty vehicles nationwide by2001and would continue the R&D efforts aimed

Springer

at introducing large volumes of EVs by200310.For its part,the CARB was obligated to work with the state and local authorities to ensure the development of ZEV infrastructure, remove barriers to the introduction of ZEVs and contribute to the implementation of incen-tive programs for ZEVs(CARB,1996a).If the automakers breached the MOAs by failing to ful?ll their obligations,the CARB had the authority to reinstate the provisions of the original ZEV mandate and to impose damage penalties of up to$100million for breach of contract.

In1995,the CARB staff had discussed possible amendments to the Low Emission Ve-hicle(LEV)regulation in order to provide greater?exibility to the auto industry to meet California’s emissions requirements.After having reviewed the existing information about the technology of hybrid electric vehicles(HEVs),CARB staff proposed that HEVs with an all-electric range of at least30miles could receive partial ZEV credits(CARB,1995)11but in June1996,CARB decided to drop the proposal of partial ZEV credits for HEVs(CARB, 1996b).Two years later,CARB changed its mind about hybrid technology:hybrid electric vehicles had become increasingly attractive to policymakers because they did not require exotic technology and provided already substantial bene?ts towards the goals of automobile emission reduction and fuel-ef?ciency improvements.12The HEV models offered on the US market after1999provided the same range drivers expected from Internal Combustion En-gine Vehicles(ICEVs),did not suffer from the recharging-time problems(whether perceived or real)of EVs and were signi?cantly more fuel ef?cient than most conventional gasoline cars.13At the end of1998,the CARB amended again the mandate introducing a new category of extremely clean cars:the super ultra low emission vehicle(SULEV)standard that stood to gain partial zero emission vehicle(PZEV)credit toward the10%requirement.14Under the1998amendments,4%of the cars offered for sale by the automakers had to be electric, while the remaining6%of the original10%ZEV requirement set for2003could be met with PZEVs(CARB,1999).

10Furthermore,the seven manufacturers were required to?le a report providing information regarding the number and type of ZEV placed in California and in the United States and data about the purchase of advanced battery technology within ninety days following the close of each year.

11Hybrid electric vehicles are equipped with two power sources:an internal combustion engine coupled to an electric motor.For a review of HEV technology see Wouk,1995.

12Models currently available on the markets are not designed to operate exclusively with the electric motor. Such capability,however,could produce further bene?ts by controlling when and where emissions occur.With appropriate batteries(NIMH for example)that allow for a signi?cant all-electric range,HEVs can be driven as ZEVs and can thus further contribute to the original CARB emission-reduction goal.The idea that HEVs could signi?cantly reduce exhaust pollution and fuel consumption in targeted areas at particular times was advanced already in the1960s(Hoffman,1967;Wouk,1976).

13In2003,the EPA rated the fuel economy of a Honda Civic hybrid to be48mpg(combined city/highway cycle)whereas a conventional Honda Civic was estimated to achieve only37mpg(EPA,2003a).According to EPA tests,the2004Toyota Prius gets60mpg in the city and51mpg on the highway(EPA,2005b).In2005 the product-rating organization Consumer Reports found that the EPA overstates hybrid vehicles mileage by failing to re?ect actual on-the-road driving conditions(Consumer Reports,2005).Consumer Reports’analysis shows that although discrepancies between the EPA fuel ef?ciency ratings and“real world”fuel economy exist for all types of vehicles,the biggest differences are for hybrids.Nonetheless,hybrids remain among the most fuel ef?cient vehicles available on the market(Murphy,2005).On the fuel economy of hybrids see also Duoba,Lohse-Busch,and Bohn,2005.

14The creation of the new SULEV standard re?ected the advancements of technology for gasoline,hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles.In the spring of1998,Honda had already offered for sale in California a compressed natural gas vehicle with emission levels at one tenth of ULEV and Toyota had begun selling the Prius,its?rst hybrid electric vehicle(CARB,1998a).SULEVs emitted0.010(g/mi)of NMOG,1.0(g/mi)of CO and0.02 (g/mi)of NO x(CARB,1998b).

Springer

Ten years after the ZEV mandate was?rst proposed,the most crucial uncertainty about the feasibility of large volume sales of EVs concerned the cost and the performance of rechargeable batteries.In order to answer lingering questions about recent progress made by battery manufacturers,the CARB contracted a second battery-technology assessment in June 2000,which produced a second report about batteries.The panel concentrated its investigation on advanced batteries having estimated that lead-acid and nickel-cadmium batteries would not provide the performance expected by large numbers of customers.According to the panel’s?ndings the best candidate EV-battery was NiMH(Nickel-Metal Hydride).On the basis of the battery panel assessment,the CARB biennial review held in September2000 con?rmed the requirement for4%pure ZEVs by2003.

In January2001,the CARB approved new amendments requiring that,by2003,only 2%of the cars(roughly equivalent to4650EVs)were to be pure ZEVs,another6%to be PZEVs and the remaining2%as advanced technology partial zero emission vehicles(AT-PZEVs)(natural gas,hybrid electric),capable to satisfy the SULEV standards and having near-zero evaporative emissions with an15-year/150000mile warranty for the emission control equipment(CARB,2001).From the early1990s until2002,at any given time,there were never more than3900EVs in California,half of which were owned by government and utility?eets(Cackette,2003)

Technology-forcing and the biennial review mechanism

The CARB staff recognized that one of the most delicate issues of the LEV regulations was the technological feasibility of the proposed standards.Indeed the?rst CARB proposal for the LEV regulation admitted that:

The requirement for ZEVs is based on the projected viability of electric vehicles after receiving input from vehicle manufacturers and electric vehicles design engineers.It is widely acknowledged that further research and development will be needed before vehicles capable of meeting the emission standards in use are ready for commercial production(CARB,1990).

In order to monitor the progress made by automobile manufacturers,the technical team of CARB claimed that“it would continue to work closely with the vehicle and fuel industries in implementing the regulations and identifying any appropriate changes to the regulations that may be needed in the future.”The staff recommended that it would report back to the Board every two years on the implementation of the ZEV program.

Although in1990,battery technology was still costly and no breakthroughs had occurred for many years,the CARB’s selection of electric vehicles as an appropriate technology to reduce the problem of urban air quality was not haphazard.As was true of other past technology-forcing regulations,the ZEV mandate expected that the industry was relatively close to developing a viable technology(La Pierre,1977;Ashford et al.,1985).Indeed,after a prototype program was launched by GM in the late1980s,the CARB staff thought that the EV technology option was realistic.15

15In the late1980s,GM invested considerable?nancial and human resources on a program to manufacture an electric car,the Impact,a prototype that became in1996,under the name EV1,the?rst EV offered for sale by a major American automaker.GM took advantage of the massive conversion programs at the end of the Cold War that redirected the resources of large military industrial companies(such as Hughes and Rockwell,both GM subsidiaries)toward civil and commercial production(Shnayerson,1996;Scott,1995).

Springer

The success of the ZEV program depended greatly on the CARB’s ability to design an appropriate regulatory strategy to facilitate the emergence of a cost-effective and reliable EV. In this respect CARB made several decisions that illustrate the agency’s effort to consider new technological developments and address industry’s concerns without weakening the technological momentum created by the mandate.Critically,CARB postponed the deadline for the?rst ZEV requirement from1998to2003and allowed automakers to gain ZEV credits by means of hybrid cars that had unexpectedly bene?ted from the advances in battery technology.16

Although formally the CARB allowed automakers their choice of technology to meet the ZEV requirements,EVs were the only feasible option when the mandate was conceived. Indeed the ZEV mandate sparked an international revival of EV technology that had been dormant for decades.American,French and Japanese automakers that had neglected research on EVs and advanced batteries throughout the1970s and the1980s resumed their interest in it mainly as a result of the ZEV mandate(Cornu,1998;Sato,2001).Created in1990as a public policy biased in favor of the development of battery-powered electric cars,the ZEV regulation ended up accelerating the development of other clean-vehicle technologies,such as fuel cells, which many consider a promising long-term clean propulsion technology for automobiles (Ogden,1999).17Discussing the development of fuel cells,Firoz Rasul,CEO of Ballard Power Systems,one of the leading?rms in fuel cell R&D,acknowledged that the mandate functioned as a catalyst for the development of the new technology.In2001,Rasul remarked: It’s not just going to happen by market forces...I can certainly tell that Ballard would not be here today,if it was not for the zero emission vehicle regulation set in1988. Without that requirement we could not have raised the money(Rasul,2001). Reactions to the ZEV mandate

Predictably,the strict standards imposed by the ZEV mandate caught the attention of many interest groups in California and in the rest of the country eliciting a vast array of reactions. Perceiving the appearance of EVs as a direct threat to their monopoly on fuels for automobiles, the oil companies were bluntly hostile to the ZEV mandate while the major automakers were at best reluctant to recon?gure their industry around electric motors powered by rechargeable batteries.18On the other hand,electric utilities saw the CARB’s regulations as an opportunity to expand their markets and optimize the existing electricity generating capacity.Indeed, a market for EVs would affect utility rates(Ford,1994)and would also create potential 16HEV technology was spurred on by the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles(PNGV),an R&D program developed jointly by several US government agencies and the three main American automobile companies in1993to produce a passenger car with a fuel economy of80mpg(National Research Council,1996; DOE,2002b).Over the years,various commentators have debated the real effectiveness of the PNGV program (which was terminated in2002to make way for the FreedomCar program)in advancing the development of HEVs(Sperling,2002;Malakoff,1999).

17In light of the potential of fuel cells to power zero emission vehicles and given the similarity of certain components that exist both in battery-and fuel cell-powered vehicles(the electric drivetrain for instance), the CARB mandate was instrumental in persuading venture capitalists to invest money in companies such as Ballard(Rasul,2001).

18Both the automobile manufacturers and the oil companies claimed that the electric vehicles available on the market had one crucial shortcoming(limited driving range)and were too costly to be marketable.See Rienzeman,1995and Henriksen et al.,1994for a review of the main features of rechargeable battery technology and battery-powered motor vehicles.

Springer

new customers.Environmental groups and public health organizations welcomed the ZEV mandate,but were not as forceful in their support as the oil and the auto industries were in their opposition to it.Within a year of the mandate’s approval,both the oil and the auto industry engaged in a vigorous campaign to oppose the CARB regulation.The degree of hostility towards the mandate was different for the two industries since the stakes were different.Whereas automakers would continue to manufacture automobiles regardless of the regulations,in the long run oil companies risked the loss of signi?cant fraction of the market and perceived the emergence of electric vehicles as a long-term threat to their business.

The anti-EV camp employed many strategies to in?uence the outcome of the policy decision-making process including:19political contributions,advocacy advertising,funding of studies,traditional lobbying and astroturf lobbying,and challenges in the courts. Lobbying and public relations

With considerable?nancial resources and political clout at their disposal,the anti-EV camp made extensive efforts to in?uence the public debate about the mandate.The oil compa-nies indirectly in?uenced public policy formulation by contributing money to candidates for political of?ce.Atlantic Rich?eld Co.,BP America,Exxon,Mobil Oil Co.,Phillips Petroleum,Shell Oil Co.and Texaco donated a total of$1.1million to legislative candidates in1994and in the?rst six months of1995.During the same period,the auto industry do-nated$276000(Kasnitz and Mashke,1996).In particular,California’s governor Pete Wilson received$325000and$76000from oil and auto industry groups,respectively.

Mobil Oil Corporation attempted to secure the approval of the general public through advocacy advertising.The company regularly purchased advertising space in the New York Times,USA Today,the Wall Street Journal,the Washington Post and large-circulation news magazines such as Newsweek and Time,spending an estimated$3.5million(Kasnitz and Mashke,1996).Aimed at discrediting all potential alternative fuel vehicles,including electric cars,the Mobil campaign sought to accomplish three things:

1.Reassure customers that the world was not running out of oil.As part of the Clearing

the Air series,the Running out of oil?ad(Mobil,1995a)warned readers that a“sizeable number of regulators and politicians are pushing mandates and subsidies to drive the public to buy alternative fuel vehicles.”20

2.Illustrate the inadequacy of EV technology as a means of transportation for the average

American and discredit their environmental bene?ts.21An ad titled Who pays for plugging in?reassured the general public that:“We have no problem with electric cars competing in the marketplace.We do have a problem,though,with mandates,particularly mandates 19Note that the LEV program was subject to a biennial review designed to con?rm the requirements or alter those that were bound to face problems of technological feasibility.

20Curiously,the ad was intended to comfort readers with the assertion that”at current consumption rates there is enough oil to support our planet’s petroleum needs for about45years.”Indeed the estimates of world total oil proven reserves collected by the Oil&Gas Journal over the period1990–2000averaged at about 1000billion barrels.Assuming that demand does not increase,i.e.at current consumption levels(～75million barrel/day),the world would run out of relatively cheap oil in41years.According to Mobil’s own literature the world’s oil reserves will be severely depleted before2050.

21One ad(Mobil,1995b)reported the?ndings of a study carried out at Carnegie-Mellon University widely considered very partial against EVs.See Socolow and Thomas,1997for a critical review of the study and also the next section of this article.

Springer

at this time that would lock in our current electric technology.That technology simply is not good enough.”

3.Foster the values of the free-market system,which Mobil saw as threatened by ever-

expanding government regulations.

4.Stir up economic apprehension by arguing that the mandate would cause tax increases. The oil industry did not limit itself to advocacy advertising.Concerned that the general pub-lic would be skeptical of positions taken by“big business,”oil companies also resorted to astroturf lobbying,a strategy whereby corporations conceal their involvement in lobbying initiatives behind the guise of grassroots movements.22Western States Petroleum Associa-tion(WSPA),a trade organization of the oil industry,mobilized two consumer groups that ordinarily lobby to keep utility bills low:Toward Utility Rate Normalization(TURN)and Utility Consumer’s Action Network.Over the course of the anti-ZEV campaign,a group called Californians Against Utility Company Abuse(CAUCA)was set up by oil compa-nies in order to promote senate bill SB1819and assembly bill AB3239which would have prevented the legislature from using utility revenues to develop an infrastructure for natural gas and electric vehicles.23To further its astroturf strategies,WSPA also created arti?cial grassroots movements such as Californians Against Hidden Taxes(CAHT)and the National Institute for Emergency Vehicle Safety.24

Ultimately the essence of the automakers’and oil companies’lobbying efforts could be found in a Request for Proposal issued in the spring of1995by the American Automobile Manufacturers Association(AAMA),an organization that includes Chrysler,Ford and Gen-eral Motors.While it acknowledged that“Recent surveys indicate a majority of Californians believe zero emission vehicles(ZEVs)are a‘workable and practical’means of reducing air pollution,”the Proposal’s objective read as follows:“The AAMA is conducting a search for a quali?ed contractor to manage a statewide grassroots and educational campaign to create a climate in which the state’s mandate requiring automakers to produce a?xed percentage of electric vehicles beginning in1998can be repealed”(AAMA,1995).

Industry groups that favoured the ZEV mandate did not refrain from using astroturf tac-tics either,although they did so primarily in response to the oil industry efforts.Electric utilities hired a PR?rm,PS Enterprises,to organize the Santa Monica-based Californi-ans for Jobs and Clean Air(CJCA).The main objective of CJCA was to create press releases aimed at counteracting the oil industry’s bleak news about the effect of EVs on the California economy.25In typical astroturf style,the press releases did not disclose 22Astroturf refers to the synthetic grass product.

23CAUCA,managed by the public relations?rm Woodward&McDowell,sent a letter to200,000ratepayers urging them to protest against the proposed$600million utility investments in alternative support systems. The letter,signed by TURN executive director Audrie Krause and by Howard Owens,director of Congress of California Seniors,made no mention that it had been written by Woodward&McDowell or that the whole effort had been paid by the WSPA.CALPIRG estimated that WSPA gave$1million to Woodward&McDowell over a period of20months(Kasnitz and Maschke,1996).

24Campaign and Elections magazine described astroturf as“grassroots program that involves the instant manufacturing of public support for a point of view in which either uninformed activists are recruited or means of deception are used to recruit them”(Faucheux,1995).Astroturf coalitions are distinguished from genuine grassroots movements because they are created or co-opted by public relations?rms for their corporate clients.See Graebner,1995,Grefe and Linsky,1995and Beder,1997.

25Unlike automobile manufacturers and oil companies,California’s electric utilities were not hostile to the ZEV mandate.Utility companies assumed that most of EV charging would occur at night thus opening a new market exploiting idle off-peak generation capacity.As in many other states in the U.S.,California could bene?t from replacing ICEVs with EVs since state electricity is produced from relatively clean fuel sources.In

Springer

the origin of the funding for CJCA which was a consortium of electric utilities(Parrish, 1994).

Studies about the ZEV mandate

The campaign run by interest groups to discredit or to support EVs and the ZEV mandate borrowed technical arguments from the debate that took place among scientists,engineers and policy analysts who assessed the new technology.Between1993and1996,researchers around the country analyzed the technical and the policy issues involved in the ZEV mandate. In several cases,the technical expertise offered during the crucial years of the mandate turned out to be almost as tendentious as the rhetoric that fueled the slogans of lobbyists and PR of?cials.Indeed,quite a few studies produced to discredit EVs made assumptions that either con?icted with undisputed data or,more subtly,emphasized the weaknesses of EVs,omitting their strengths.These studies happened to be the ones that attracted the most attention from the media.

The honor of opening the?rst round of salvos against the ZEV mandate went to Sierra Research(SR),a consulting?rm based in Sacramento,California,which published?ve re-ports on the emission bene?ts and the cost-effectiveness of California’s low-emission vehicle regulation.Funded by the AAMA,the report“The Cost-Effectiveness of Further Regulating Mobile Source Emissions”concluded that:“The ZEV mandate does not appear to be a cost-effective control strategy even assuming that new car sales volumes are unaffected and power-plant emissions are zero”(Sierra Research,1994).26To reach these conclusions SR had to discount emission reductions achieved by EVs in attainment areas or during seasons with no air quality standards violations,effectively treating those reductions as without value. Furthermore,in comparing EVs and ICEVs,SR analysis ignored the vehicles’operating costs and considered only initial vehicle costs,thus giving an unfair advantage to ICEVs,whose operating costs are higher than those of EVs.

The Sierra Research reports were greeted warmly among groups hostile to the ZEV mandate.Shortly thereafter,another study brought the controversy to the national stage.In May1995,Science published the results of the study“Environmental Implications of Electric Cars,”27conducted at Carnegie-Mellon University by https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bd794212.html,ve,C.T.Hendrikson and F.C. McMichael.28The thrust of the report was that,since the mandate would require the use of many electric vehicles powered by lead-acid batteries,lead emissions would increase and pose a threat to American citizens.The authors concluded that“electric cars do not deliver the promised environmental bene?ts”and that“a1998model electric car is estimated to release 60times more lead per kilometre of use relative to a comparable car burning leaded gasoline”(Lave,Hendrikson and McMichael,1995).Lamentably,the article contained several errors the mid1990s,more than32%of the electricity consumed in the state was produced by renewable resources, almost15%came from nuclear energy,and about15%from natural gas(California Energy Commission, 2002).

26During the public workshops sponsored by CARB in1995several organizations hostile to the mandate, including some astroturf groups,cited the SR’s bleak conclusions about the ZEV regulations’effectiveness (Mangels,1995;Dale,1995).

27The title of the article implied that all EVs use lead-acid batteries,whereas it is generally known that lead-acid batteries are only one type of the batteries that power EVs.

28The technological assessment carried out at Carnegie-Mellon was partly funded by Green Design Con-sortium,a coalition of industrial groups that included Exxon Research and Engineering,GM-Delco Chassis, GM-Packard Electric,Mobil R&D,and Shell Development(Kasnitz and Maschke,1996).

Springer

that undermined the dramatic conclusions reached by the https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bd794212.html,ve and coauthors used obsolete data indicating,for instance,that the energy density of the lead-acid battery used in the General Motors Impact29was18Watthour per kilogram(Wh/kg)while the?gure given by GM was40Wh/kg(GM,1996).Although this error was corrected in the accompanying text,it appeared that all the calculations were based on the incorrect?gure.The battery mass for the Impact was listed as1378kg(but it was522kg according to GM)which was greater than the entire mass of the car(1350kg).According to Lave et al.,the Impact’s range was 50miles when GM estimated it to be at least70miles.

In order to estimate the amount of lead emissions in the environment Lave and co-authors assumed that the lead used in the batteries was virgin-mined lead,when in fact about97% of lead batteries is recycled and only a fraction is produced from virgin lead.Furthermore, the article did not differentiate between the air-borne emissions of lead and lead solid waste which is relatively easier to monitor.30In1996further skepticism about the environmental bene?ts of EVs emerged in a study carried out at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)(de Neufville et al.,1996),but the study had faults comparable to Lave et al.:thus the setbacks encountered by sodium-sulphur batteries were mentioned but the achievements of NiMH were not.The MIT researchers claimed that the average life span of several advanced batteries did not reach the1.5–2years range when in fact it does(Karlhammer et al.,1995). Furthermore,their assertion that supplying additional electric loads to power EVs would inevitably require using dirty and inef?cient power plants is refutable since electric utilities’emissions vary greatly depending upon the energy mix and,in many cases,EVs have been shown to provide net environmental bene?ts(U.S.GAO,1994;MacKenzie,1994).

The ZEV mandate and the courts

It is not surprising that,in a country where the law has traditionally played a central role in the solution of public policy issues,the controversy about the ZEV mandate became the subject of judicial review.31Indeed,as various versions of the ZEV mandate were adopted,practically all the parties affected engaged in recurring actions to challenge them in courts around the country.In May1992,Massachusetts and New York adopted the California LEV plan, including the ZEV mandate.Less than two months later,the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States(MVMA)and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers(AIAM)?led a suit against the New York Department of Environmental Conservation(Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the U.S.,Inc.v.New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,810F.Suppl.1331,1993,hereafter MVMA, 1993).The automobile manufacturers complained that the LEV rules adopted by the state of 29The Impact and the EV1are the same car.Believing that the?rst name lacked consumer appeal,GM renamed the car.

30Lave,Hendrikson and McMichael carried their analysis further in Environmental Science and Technology (Lave et al.,1996)where they claimed that the health hazards derived from EVs powered by PbA batteries compared unfavorably with those associated with the use of vehicles powered by leaded gasoline.The EST article became the subject of a thorough assessment carried out at the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Princeton University.The authors of the assessment challenged Lave et al.by stating that the hazards of lead-acid batteries and those of lead additives in gasoline were not comparable(Socolow and Thomas,1997). 31The US is known for its inclination to resolve public policy issues by means of formal,adversarial processes. Policy disputes in the US often involve legal rules,punitive sanctions and calls for judicial intervention.In contrast,in most other industrialized nations,advocacy and interest groups prefer informal methods to settle policy disputes,and judicial intervention is an exception rather than the rule.For a comprehensive critical analysis of American“adversarial legalism,”see Kagan,2001.

Springer

New York violated the“third vehicle”32provision of Clean Air Act Section177since New York had not adopted the clean fuels portion of the California’s LEV program.

The American Auto Manufacturers Association also sought to enjoin implementation of tailpipe emissions regulations adopted by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(DEP)(American Auto Manufacturers Association v.Massachusetts D.E.P.,31 F.3d,18First Circuit,1994,hereinafter AAMA,1994).The action suits?led against the two Northeast states were similar:the automobile manufacturers claimed that the rules adopted by Massachusetts and New York were pre-empted by the Clean Air Act(CAA).In1994, the court of appeals upheld the adoption of LEV regulation,but in1997the court ruled that Massachusetts DEP ZEV regulations were not identical to California standards as required by CAA Section177and thus,were pre-empted by CAA Section209(a)(AAMA,1998).In the following years,automakers and car dealers,in Massachusetts and in New York,repeatedly took action against the two states’environmental departments,usually following the ZEV mandate revision cycles(Association of International Automobile Manufacturers(AIAM, 2000;Daimler Chrysler et al.,2002).

In2001,General Motors?led a suit in California to overturn the mandate,alleging, among other things,that the CARB ignored the?nancial impact of the mandate on automak-ers(O’Dell,2002).The next year,General Motors,DaimlerChrysler and several car dealers ?led a second suit in California challenging the ZEV regulations on the grounds that the provisions pertaining to gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles were related to fuel economy stan-dards and,as such,were preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act,the federal law that established the CAFE standards in1975(US Court of Appeals,2002.)Subsequently several environmental and public interest groups?led a amicus briefs on behalf of the state of California(Hwang,2002),whereas private individuals,car dealers and the federal gov-ernment?led such briefs on behalf of the plaintiffs(Central Valley Chrysler-Plymouth,INC. et al.v.Michael Kenny,2002).

Environmental groups outside California also used the legal system to pursue policy goals in the courts.In January1996,shortly before the MOA were signed by the automakers and the CARB,the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund(now the Earth Justice Legal Defense Club)?led an antitrust complaint against the automakers and the oil industry.According to the Fund’s allegations,federal and state anti-trust laws had been violated by the industry in an effort to derail California’s LEV program.The Department of Justice investigated the charges (Electric Utility Week,1996)but eventually rejected the case(Becker,1998).

The French model of EV development

There are two good reasons to contrast the EV policies pursued by the CARB with France’s. First,roughly at the same time the ZEV mandate was developed,French regulators also developed a strategy that aimed at promoting EVs.Secondly,France was home to two prominent car companies,Peugeot and Renault,two major battery manufacturers,Saft and CEAC and Electricit′e de France(EDF),a large,resourceful national electric utility.

32For the purposes of the Clean Air Act(CAA),California is treated differently than the other forty-nine states on account of its particularly severe air pollution problems and for having led the nation in the?ght against air pollution since the late1950s.The CAA(title42,United States Code section7507)allows California to enact its own standards for motor vehicle emissions.Other states can adopt California’s standards instead of federal standards,but these must be identical to California’s standards,so as to not create a third set of standards, forcing automakers to produce a“third vehicle.”

Springer

In the early1990s,the worsening of air quality in French urban centers led to substan-tial activity in the policy and legislative arena.In1994the results of the project ERPURS (Evaluation des Risques de la Pollution Urbaine pour la Sant′e)Impact de la Pollution At-mospherique sur la Sante en Ile-de France:1987–1990,an epidemiological study on the effects of atmospheric pollution on human health in the Ile-de-France were published.The study established a quantitative linkage between the levels of NO x,SO2,O3and the num-ber of deaths and hospitalizations in the region around Paris(Medina et al.,1994).The results of the study were reported several times in the daily press and left little doubt about the seriousness of the air pollution problem in the Ile-de-France(Kremer,1995;Normand, 1995).

Providentially for the politicians who were under pressure to address the problem of air pollution,France was in a favorable situation for the development of electric vehicles for the following reasons:

1.The dense layout of French urban centers makes the use of EVs less problematic than it

is in the US.Recent surveys indicate that local(within80km)travel by car accounts for 95%of total car travel.It was estimated that the average distance covered in each car trip in1994was10km(Union Routi`e re de France(URF),1998).

2.EDF,which is administered under state supervision,33relies on the world’s most advanced

use of nuclear power.Nuclear power plants supplying roughly75%of the country’s electricity emit the least amount of pollutants compared with other energy resources.This means that France stands to bene?t the most from replacing ICEVs with EVs in terms of air quality34(U.S.GAO,1994).

3.The French government,like most governments in Europe,imposes heavy taxes on gaso-

line,making alternative fuels such as electricity more attractive to car buyers.

Of these favorable factors,France’s utilization of nuclear energy played the most pivotal role in the development of EVs.Although the production of nuclear energy attracts opposition or at least skepticism in most industrialized nations,it still enjoys strong support in France on account of the independence from foreign energy resources it affords.

Although its impact has so far been marginal,the French anti-nuclear movement has remained vehement in its opposition to the government nuclear program.35Therefore, despite the potential environmental bene?ts of a French EV program,36the majority of environmental groups would support EVs only if the electricity used to power them was produced by non-nuclear power plants.(Parvilliers,1998;Stephane,2000;Godinot, 2001).37

33The involvement of the French government in the generation,distribution,and sale of electricity is unique in Western Europe.

34In1998,76.5%and12.2%of electricity were generated by nuclear and hydroelectric power respectively (IEA,2001a).

35Despite massive mobilizations,the French antinuclear movement is not organized in a national lobby as similar movements are in Germany or Sweden.The regulatory process provided virtually no opportunity for public participation and French law did not permit challenges to nuclear-power-site decisions in the courts (Touraine et al.,1980;Nelkin and Pollak,1981).

36Concerns for the unsolved problem of nuclear waste disposal notwithstanding.See Touraine et al.1980. 37Two small environmental groups which had no problem in endorsing nuclear energy sources for EVs: l’Association des′Ecologistes pour le Nucleaire close at the time to the right wing party Le Front National (Comby,2002)and Le Mouvement National Lutte pour Environnement af?liated with the Parti Communiste Fran?c aise(Prince,2003).

Springer

Why France might have not been so serious about EVs

Along with the positive factors encouraging the development of EVs in France,a few factors have hampered it:

1.Car ownership is less diffuse in France than it is in United States and in California.

Whereas,in the early1990s,there were1.3people per vehicle in the United States, there were roughly2.1people per passenger car in France(CCFA,2003).Given the shortcomings of EVs(limited driving range,long refueling time and high price tag),it was unlikely that a household with only one car would have preferred an EV to a more reliable ICEV.

2.The majority of environmental groups gave at best half-hearted support to EVs since they

could not summon any enthusiasm for a technology that would reinforce the use of nuclear energy.38

3.A successful effort to electrify the?eet of passenger cars would entail substantial tax

revenues losses for the French government,as gasoline is taxed at about80%whereas electricity is taxed only at about20%(IEA,2001b).

EVs policies in France

The French government has been a key player in the development of EVs so far.The state-owned electric utility EDF,the auto industry(the three automakers Peugeot,Citro¨e n and Renault)as well as local administrative institutions have come together to contribute?-nancially to the development of the electric vehicle industry.An initial protocol,the1992 Accord-Cadre sur le Developpement du V′e hicule Electrique,coordinated by the Ministry of Industry,the Ministry of the Environment,EDF,PSA(a consortium formed by Peugeot and Citro¨e n),Renault and the government agency Groupe Interminist′e riel V′e hicules Electriques (GIVE,199239.)considered EVs a timely instrument to reduce pollution and noise in French cities as well as CO2emissions in French cities(GIVE,1992).The signatories pledged that within three years the automobile companies would manufacture thousands of EVs and EDF would build the appropriate charging infrastructure.Several government research agencies including ADEME,CNRS,and INRETS were called to participate in the EV program to bring about the protocol’s objectives.A more ambitious and formal agreement signed on April1995by the Minister of Industry,Renault,PSA,EDF and GIVE de?ned the modes of engagement of the various partners in the EV program.The1995Accord-Cadre aimed for the following by1999:

1.100,000EVs should be on France’s roads

2.Electric vehicles should constitute5%of the newly registered vehicles

3.10%of public sector vehicle?eets would be electric(GIVE,1995).

All the goals were voluntary and no penalties were established in the event the goals were not achieved.

To formalize cooperation between the government and the private sector and to provide tangible support for the development of a market for electric vehicles,a decree was signed 38The skepticism of the French environmental movement towards EV technology is summarized fairly well in an editorial by Les Amis de la Terre(Samuel,1995).

39An ad hoc consortium set up to foster the development of EVs

Springer

in May1995allocating?nancial aid(5,000FF～$1,050)for private citizens who bought electric vehicles.The decree was followed by another protocol in March1996that provided more subsidies from EDF(10,000FF～$2,100).

At the end of1996,given the persistence of poor air quality throughout France,the French government passed the Loi sur l’Air et l’Utilisation Rationelle de l’Energie(Law on the Air and the Rational Use of Energy)so as to curb air pollution and foster the rational use of energy.The Loi sur l’Air contained one provision aimed at promoting the development of alternative fuels vehicles.Under title VII,article L.8-B read:

Within two years from the publication of Law96-1236of December301996,the State, the public,national corporations...when they manage a?eet of at least20vehicles must acquire or use,at least,20%vehicles powered by electricity,liquid petroleum gas and natural gas.This measure applies to all the automobiles...with the exception of those which weigh more than3.5tons(Journal Of?ciel de la Republique Franc?aise, 1997).

Although the Loi sur l’Air called for the acquisition of alternative fuels vehicles by govern-ment agencies,no penalties were imposed on the administrative bodies that failed to equip their?eets with clean vehicles.

In order to make the French public aware of the bene?ts of electric cars,French author-ities set up several EV rental programs to alter the way people use vehicles in urban areas and foster car-sharing where a?eet of vehicles is used by multiple customers.40Praxit`e le, the most ambitious of these programs,was started in1997in the town of Saint-Quentin en Yvelines on the periphery of https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bd794212.html,unched by a consortium of industrial groups(in-cluding Renault,EDF,and Dassault)and two research institutes(INRIA and INRETS), Praxit`e le aimed at providing French citizens with the mobility,comfort and independence of private car ownership as well as with the bene?ts of public transit.At Saint-Quentin en Yvelines?fty electric Renault Clios were available in strategic places(parking areas near train and bus stations)for multiple users on a“use it and leave it”principle.Cus-tomers had access to the Clios by means of a special magnetic card and paid for the vehicle only when they were using it and not when it was parked(Parent,1997).Praxit`e le closed its operations in June1999as it was not considered pro?table by the automakers(Parent, 2000).41

By the end of2002,more than7,500EVs were circulating in France,far less than100, 000goal set in the1995Accord-cadre,but still more than any other industrialized country.42 In contrast to California’s50%,in France more than90%of all the EVs were used in?eets of municipalities and utilities,bearing out the intention of the government to strengthen EV 40Procotip,a shared-use vehicle program,had already been tested in1971in Montpellier with modest results (Benezra,1995).

41After an experimental phase initiated in1993,the city of La Rochelle established in1999LISELEC, another EV car-sharing project that remains active(Benezra,1995;Hoogma and Simon,1998).A no-table impulse towards EV development in La Rochelle was the personal involvement of the late Michel Cr′e peau the city mayor and former Minister of the Environment(1981–1984).After PSA shut down a factory in the region in the early1980s,Cr′e peau strived to make La Rochelle an industrial center for EV tech-nology with the dual aims of cleaning the air and reducing unemployment(Pasquet,1996;Hoogma and Simon,1998).Similar car-sharing programs have been set up in several US cities(Shaheen and Meyn, 2002).

42At the end of2002there were about3,500EVs in the rest of Europe(GIVE,2003)

Springer

policies by means of public procurement programs(Agence de l’Environnement et de la Ma??trise de l’Energie(ADEME),2001).

By1995,Renault presented the Next,a hybrid vehicle prototype43,and several French policy analysts have since suggested that HEVs could be a viable technological option to reduce air pollution(Larbaoui,1998,Badin et al,2000).However,French legislation and the buying public have barely acknowledged the existence of the new technology.In fact,to date,the only legislative act that has re?ected the progress of HEV technology came at the end of2000:a new provision in the tax code offering a tax rebate of1,525euro(～$1,600) to customers of HEVs.

Although,they do not deal with alternative fuel vehicles,two other titles of the Loi sur l’Air are germane to the cross-national comparison:title IV,Article12stated:“when the alert threshold is trespassed the prefecture takes measures aimed at limiting the intensity and the effects of the pollution on the population.The measures...entail a mechanism of restriction or suspension of the activities concurring to the pollution,including the circulation of vehicles...”

And title V,Article28-1,by imposing the adoption of plans de deplacements urban(PDU) (to urban centers with more than100,000inhabitants),encouraged a shift to travel demand to more ef?cient modes:from single occupant vehicle to higher occupancy modes(carpooling and public transit)or to non-motorized modes(pedestrian and bicycle).A revealing expres-sion of the intent to achieve the desired air quality goals by reducing the circulation of private vehicles was exhibited every time the government decreed a special arr?e t′e(ordinance)of cir-culation altern′e e(alternate circulation)in Ile-de-France in days when air pollution reached unhealthy levels.Under the circulation altern′e e policy,cars with odd-numbered license plates were banned from driving on odd days and cars with even-numbered license plates were banned on even days.

A view shared by many in the policy community is illustrated by a case presented at the workshop“Pollutions Atmosph′e riques:Transports and Sant′e,”organized by the Institut pour un Nouvel Environnement in2002.Philippe Lameloise,head of Airparif,the agency charged with monitoring air quality in the Paris area,spoke of the recent evolution of CO pollution in two locations in Paris.Over a period of ten years,the levels of CO in Place Victor-Basch have declined dramatically,while on the Champs-Elys′e es,only a few hundred meters away from Place Victor-Basch,the decline has been notably modest.The speaker noted that Place Victor-Basch has always been in a state of permanent congestion,so that traf?c volume can-not increase any further and the emission reductions re?ect the technological improvements in automobiles.However,on the Champs Elys′e es,traf?c growth continues offsetting the improvements of the new https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bd794212.html,meloise concluded that technological advancements alone would not attain satisfactory reductions of air pollution(Hopquin,2002).44Unfortu-nately,the actual effectiveness of the PDUs to date,has been disappointing.For instance, the regional plan approved in2000for the Ile-de-France called for a6%reduction of au-tomobile traf?c by2006,but by the end of2001,traf?c had increased by2%(Hopquin, 2002).

43In1996,R&D,Renault’s magazine,described the progress on its hybrid prototype in the following terms:“Renault has invented a revolutionary new concept car that was unveiled in1995,the Next...The Next has been specially designed with the aim of breaking all fuel economy records.It burns3.4L/100km of petrol. However attractive such a solution,though,it remains a futuristic dream”(R&D,1996).

44Note that the president of the F′e d′e ration fran?c aise des automobiles-clubs(which adopted the slogan“Non au PDU,oui`a la voiture”)has argued that“Pollution will be curbed by means of technological development and not through traf?c-volume reductions”(Hopquin,2002).

Springer

Matters of style:Liberalism vs.Dirigisme

In Section2we recalled that two notable components of policy style are(1)a government’s approach to problem solving and(2)its relationship with other policy actors.We now discuss how these components differed in France and in California.

California’s“round table”

There are two elements of the American cultural landscape that are relevant to this discussion of EV policies and that set the United States apart from France.To a large extent the industry reaction against the ZEV mandate can be explained in terms of the anti-government senti-ment that is prevalent among large segments of American society.Between1994and1996, while the oil and auto industries led their strongest efforts to derail the mandate,Republican members of the newly-elected104th Congress launched an unprecedented campaign against environmental regulation that was part of a broader crusade against the powers of central government.In those years the belief that the ZEV mandate was a typical example of suspect government interference in the workings of the market was rarely expressed more clearly than at a CARB workshop in December1995.Sacramento assemblyman Bernie Richter,declared:“...and the other decision that is similar to this(mandate)was made in1917,at the culmina-tion of the Russian revolution creating the Soviet State,and communizing,and socializing the Russian economy”(Richter,1995).Richter’s over-the-top historical analogy underscores that opposition to the ZEV mandate did not always arise from well-founded skepticism about purported advantages of electric vehicles but rather originated from traditional mistrust of governmental action.

For most of the1990s,there was intensive national media coverage of the ZEV mandate. Frequently,dailies ran front-page columns and large circulation weeklies published cover stories about electric cars or about the ZEV mandate itself.Mainstream publications covered the subject of EVs in neutral or even sympathetic terms(Woodruff,1994;Cook,1996)while conservative publications couched their hostility to the California legislation in explicit anti-government rhetoric(Taylor III,1993;McKenna,1995).

Several environmental groups challenged the CARB’s policies whenever they believed that the state agency was caving in to the pressures of the automakers and oil indus-try(Kasnitz and Maschke,1996;Heavner,2000).Throughout the1990s,many of these groups suspected that the state agency had been“captured”by the oil and automo-bile interests while the latter claimed that,on the contrary,the CARB had been un-duly in?uenced by the environmental lobby.Thus,the CARB,the industry and envi-ronmental groups remained locked in a confrontational relationship fueled by mutual mistrust.

Substantial public participation in the workshops organized by the CARB attests to the pluralistic nature of the American decision-making process.Under the pluralist model,the policy agenda was accessible to all organized interests.Ideally,a just public interest equi-librium should have emerged out of the competition of various policy claims.However, the process was characterized by untrammeled competition between interest groups deeply suspicious of each other,by recourse to the courts and intensive use of lobbying strategies, and by mistrust and open con?ict.The continued revisions of the mandate not only re?ect the dif?culty of developing a new pollution-control technology,but also suggest the perils encountered in a policy arena where the CARB was forced into endless brokering among various interest groups.

Springer

银行新能源汽车行业营销方案

银行新能源汽车行业营销方案 2009年3月，国家颁布了《汽车产业调整和振兴规划》，明确提出实施新能源汽车战略，推动纯电动汽车、充电式混合动力汽车及其关键零部件的产业化，推广使用节能和新能源汽车，形成50万辆纯电动、充电式混合动力和普通型混合动力等新能源汽车产能，新能源汽车销量占乘用车销售总量的5%左右。大力发展新能源汽车是汽车业应对未来能源危机和环保问题的必经之路。2008年以来从“十城千辆”到“十三城试点”，目前增加至25个试点城市，再到行业振兴规划，新能源汽车政策支持力度超出了预期。新能源汽车产业迎来了发展良机。 一、新能源汽车行业概况 （一）概念 新能源汽车包括混合动力汽车（HEV）、纯电动汽车（BEV，包括太阳能汽车）、燃料电池电动汽车（FCEV）、氢发动机汽车、其他新能源（如高效储能器、二甲醚）汽车等各类别产品。 电动汽车即指以车载电源为动力，全部或部分以电机驱动车轮行使，符合道路交通、安全法规的各种车辆。一般把新能源汽车中的混合动力汽车（HEV）、纯电动汽车（BEV，包括太阳能汽车）、燃料电池电动汽车（FCEV）统一归为电动汽车。鉴于电动汽车目前是新能源汽车的主流，也是目前行业的热点所在，因此，本篇中的新能源汽车将主要论述电动汽车。 （二）我国新能源汽车行业发展现状 我国从“十五”时期开始实施新能源汽车科技规划，形成了以纯电动、油电混合动力、燃料电池三条技术路线为“三纵”，以多能源动力总成控制系统、驱动电机及其控制系统、动力蓄电池及其管理系统三

种共性技术为“三横”的电动汽车研发格局。共计200多家整车及零部件企业、高校和科研院所，以及3000多名科技人员直接参加了新能源汽车专项研发。 经过近十年的发展，我国新能源汽车的研发取得明显进展。到2010年，我国已形成约1800项专利，并开发出了多款电动汽车样车。目前，共有近100个型号的各类电动汽车获得机动车新产品公告，其中，比亚迪、奇瑞、长安等企业的插电式、油电混合动力以及纯电动汽车已上市。电动汽车在我国正在进入快速发展新阶段。 目前我国北京、上海、天津、山东、湖南、湖北、广东等省市均出台了推动新能源汽车发展的政策，越来越多的城市重视新能源汽车的发展。 （三）行业发展前景 全球著名汽车咨询公司CSM 在发布的《中国电动汽车市场发展及展望》中,对中国电动汽车市场进行了中期预测：到2015 年，中国混合动力和纯电动乘用车(不包括非道路用车和商用车) 产销量将超过100,000 台，占整个中国乘用车市场的1%左右。其中，纯电动汽车的产销量将维持在20,000台左右的水平。 根据瑞士信贷的《全球电动汽车行业研究报告》，电动汽车在未来的二十年将是成长最快的行业。据他们预测，到2030 年，电动汽车的销售额将增长至4万亿，电池销售额将增长至1万亿，增量充电基础设施建设将至少增长1.7万亿。至2015 年，全球将有1.1%的交通工具以电为动力，并有超过150 亿的补贴。到2030 年，这一数字还将上升7.9%。混合电动车2030 年将由目前0.6%的比例上升到5.9%。锂离子电池市场预计将增长到超过1000亿美元。考虑到巨大的发展机会和锂离子电池成本高的特点，预计大型锂离子电池市场的规模将大大增长，20年内可达到1000 亿美元。随着成本价格的降低，市场

新能源电动汽车英文翻译

湖北文理学院 毕业设计(论文)英文翻译 题目在采用PWM逆变器下的变速感应电机驱动器中的传导性排放轴承电流的减少和鉴定 专业机械设计制造及其自动化 班级机制0911 姓名杨成杰 学号2009116140 指导教师 职称周立文（学校）冯南（企业） 2013年5月10日

┊┊┊┊┊┊┊┊┊┊┊┊┊装┊┊┊┊┊订┊┊┊┊┊线┊┊┊┊┊┊┊┊┊┊┊┊┊ Minimization and identification of conducted emission bearing current in variable speed induction motor drives using PWM inverter Abstract. The recent increase in the use of speed control of ac induction motor for variable speed drive using pulse width modulation (PWM) inverter is due to the advent of modern power electronic devices and introduction of microprocessors. There are many advantages of using ac induction motor for speed control applications in process and aerospace industries, but due to fast switching of the modem power electronic devices，the parasitic coupling produces undesirable effects. The undesirable effects include radiated and conducted electromagnetic interference (EMI) which adversely affect nearby computers, electronic/electrical instruments and give rise to the flow of bearing current in the induction motor. Due to the flow of bearing current in the induction motor，electrical discharge machining takes place in the inner race of the bearing which reduces the life of the bearing. In high power converters and inverters, the conducted and radiated emissions become a major concern. In this paper, identification of bearing current due to conducted emission, the measurement of bearing current in a modified induction motor and to minimize the bearing current are discussed. The standard current probe, the standard line impedance stabilization network (LISN)), the electronics interface circuits are used to measure high frequency common mode current，bearing current and to minimize the conducted noise from the system. The LISN will prevent the EMI noise entering the system from the supply source by conductive methods, at the same time prevents the EMI generated if any due to PWM, fast switching in the system, will not be allowed to enter the supply line. For comparing the results with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Special Committee on Radio Interference (CISPR) standards, the graphs are plotted with frequency Vs，line voltage in dB μV，common mode voltage in dB μV and the bearing current in dBμA without and with minimizing circuits. Keywords. EMI;a.c.drives; bearing current.

汽车全部零部件英文翻译

汽车全部零部件英文翻译 车轮系统 Wheeling System 轮毂 Wheel Hub 轮胎 Tire 轮胎汽门嘴 Tire Valve 轮圈 Wheel Disk 轮圈盖 Wheel Cover 车轮系统 Wheeling System 电装品 Electrical Parts 电瓶 Battery 中央门控 Central Door Lock 分电盘 Distributor 火星塞 Spark Plug 汽车用电子钟 Digital Clock 汽车音响 Car Audio 防盗器 Car Burglar Alarm 雨刷及雨刷连杆 Wiper / Linkage 保险丝座Fuse Seat 保险丝 Fuse 洗涤壶 Windshield Washer 配线 Wire Harness 马达类 Motor 高压线组 Ignition Cable 喇叭 Horn 发电机Alternator (Components) 开关类 Switch 蜂鸣器 Buzzer 预热塞 Glow Plug 仪表 Combination Meter 灯泡 Bulb 灯类 Lamp 点火线圈 Ignition Coil 继电器 Relay 倒车雷达 Reverse Sensor 电池充电器 Battery Charger

闪光器 Flasher 省电器 Energy Saving Unit 端子 Terminal 电动座椅装置 Power Seat Unit 马达零件 Motor Components 电装品 Electrical Parts 汽车用光盘 Car CD 汽车用液晶显示器 Car LCD 调整器 Regulator 整流器 Rectifier 电子点火器 Ignition Module 倒车显示器 Rear View Display 定速器 Cruise Controller HID车灯安定器组合 HID Ballast Complete Set for Headlights LED 灯 LED Lamp 车灯控制器 Lighting Controller 点火线圈模块 Ignition Coil Module 外装品 Exterior Parts 水箱饰罩 Radiator Grille 天线 Antenna 车身护条 Side Protector 防撞护垫 Bumper Pad 后视镜 Door Mirror 装饰贴纸、标志Ornament Mark 轮弧 Fender Trim 挡泥板 Mud Guard 扰流板 Spoiler 前防撞杆 Guard Assy (Front) 后防撞杆 Grard Assy (Rear) 内装品 Interior Parts 仪表板 Instrument Panel 中央置物箱 Console 孔塞 Grommet Plug 地毯 Floor Mat

新能源汽车外文文献翻译

文献出处：Moriarty P, Honnery D. The prospects for global green car mobility[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2008, 16(16): 1717-1726. 原文 The prospects for global green car mobility Patrick Moriarty, Damon Honnery Abstract The quest for green car mobility faces two major challenges: air pollution from exhaust emissions and global climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. Vehicle air pollution emissions are being successfully tackled in many countries by technical solutions such as low-sulphur fuels, unleaded petrol and three-way catalytic converters. Many researchers advocate a similar approach for overcoming transport's climate change impacts. This study argues that finding a technical solution for this problem is not possible. Instead, the world will have to move to an alternative surface transport system involving far lower levels of motorised travel. Keywords：Green mobility; Fuel efficiency; Alternative fuels; Global climate change; air pollution 1. Introduction Provision of environmentally sustainable (or green) private transport throughout the world faces two main challenges. The first is urban and even regional air pollution, particularly in the rapidly growing cities of the industrialising world. The second is global climate change, caused mainly by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. These two barriers to green car mobility differ in several important ways. First, road traffic air pollution problems are more localised, because of the short atmospheric lifetimes of most vehicle pollutants and . Thus regional solutions are often not only possible, but also essential – Australian cities, for example, can (and must) solve their air pollution problems themselves. Matters are very different for global climate change. Except possibly for geo-engineering measures

新能源汽车市场营销策略研究.doc

新能源汽车市场营销策略研究 2020年4月

新能源汽车市场营销策略研究本文关键词：新能源，汽车市场，营销策略，研究 新能源汽车市场营销策略研究本文简介：摘要：新能源汽车对于环境保护具有重要意义。新能源汽车在市场营销过程中陷入困境,难以打开局面,销售量相对传统汽车存在着较大差距。文章对新能源汽车市场营销策略进行研究,以供相关专业人士参考。关键词：新能源汽车;市场营销;整合营销策略;体验营销策略;新能源汽车核心技术还没有得到较大突破以及发展还不 新能源汽车市场营销策略研究本文内容： 摘要：新能源汽车对于环境保护具有重要意义。新能源汽车在市场营销过程中陷入困境, 难以打开局面, 销售量相对传统汽车存在着较大差距。文章对新能源汽车市场营销策略进行研究, 以供相关专业人士参考。 关键词：新能源汽车; 市场营销; 整合营销策略; 体验营销策略; 新能源汽车核心技术还没有得到较大突破以及发

展还不够成熟等, 导致新能源汽车规模化以及产业化发展方面还存在着严重问题, 某些学者还进行了问卷调查及访谈研究, 表明城市居民大多数对新能源汽车都有基本认识同时有一定购买的欲望, 但是还是对于新能源汽车有所顾虑, 新能源汽车购置成本比较高, 同时安全保护性能欠佳, 另外消费者还表示对售后服务表示担忧, 所以导致消费者普遍选择传统汽车而不会选择新能源汽车, 进而导致新能源汽车市场营销难以打开良好局面。 1 消费者采购新能源汽车的主要制约因素 1.1 消费者使用成本较高 新能源汽车营销之所以难以打开局面, 最主要制约因素是新能源汽车成本较高, 消费者想要直接购买一辆新能源汽车花费资金较大, 新能源汽车价格都较高, 例如, 同等性能比亚迪新能源汽车售价是相对于传统汽车几乎贵了一倍, 除此之外, 新能源汽车电池是其中重要零部件, 但是电池技术还不成熟, 消费者很担忧电池性能, 如果后期电池故障需要花费大量资金对电池进行更换, 但是对电池市

最新《新能源汽车》课程标准

新能源汽车课程标准 一、课程基本信息 表1 新能源汽车课程基本信息 二、课程性质 《新能源汽车》是一门能力拓展课。它的作用和任务是使学生系统的掌握电动汽车的基本概念、类型、结构原理和工作特性，了解电动汽车的基本设计方法，为做好毕业实习报告以及今后从事汽车技术工作打下基础。 本课程主要介绍了新能源汽车发展概况、电动汽车类型、电动汽车主要组成部分、电动汽车电机、蓄电池、电动汽车维修与包养等内容，同时介绍了国家现行的有关管理法规和政策，有一定的理论深度，是从事汽车行业人员在新能源汽车领域学习和参考的实用教程和资料。 三、本课程的基本要求 使学生了解新能源汽车国内外最新发展动态和国内相关政策；掌握电动汽车的基本原理与结构；了解电动汽车常用的动力电池的基本原理与结构、工作特性；了解电动汽车电池能量管理系统的功能；了解电动汽车常用驱动电机的基本结构原理与驱动特性；掌握电动汽车的行驶性能的基本计算方法；了解电动汽车保养和维护的相关知识。 通过本课程学习，主要让学生了解新能源汽车技术以及优势。了解行业发展动态，促进职业意识的形成，为学生毕业后择业提供可以借鉴和参照的新思想和

新观念。 本课程建议学时36学时。其中理论20学时，实践16学时。 四、课程目标 （一）知识目标 1．掌握新能源汽车原理与构造知识； 2．熟悉新能源纯电动车电气结构基础知识； 3. 熟练掌握新能源混合动力车电气结构基础知识； 4. 新能源汽车电子故障分级与诊断知识； 5. 熟练掌握新能源汽车电子维修知识。 （二）能力目标 1.有较强的自学能力； 2.能及时了解和掌握新能源汽车电子技术的新发展、新成就； 3.掌握新能源汽车动力系统安装、检测、调试能力； 4.新能源汽车混合动力和纯电动系统安装、检测、调试能力与管理岗位。（三）素质目标 1.具有高尚的思想道德素质和良好的心理素质； 2.具有吃苦耐劳的精神； 3.具有良好的人文素质和团队协作的团队精神； 4.具有良好的科学文化素质、专业业务素质和科学创新的意识。 五、课程内容 （一）课程内容结构安排 表2 新能源汽车课程内容结构安排

电动汽车应用前景(外文翻译)

电动车：正在进行的绿色交通革命？ 随着世界上持续的能源危机，战争和石油消费以及汽车数量的增加，能源日益减少，有一天它会消失得无影无踪。石油并不是可再生资源。在石油消耗枯竭之前必须找到一种能源与之替代。随着科技的发展和社会进步，电动车的发明将会有效的缓解这一燃眉之急。电动汽车将成为理想的交通工具。 面临能源成本居高不下、消费者和政府更加重视环境保护的情况下，世界汽车制造商正加大对可替代能源性混合动力汽车技术的开发投资。该技术能极大削减燃料消费，减少温室气体排放。许多人把目光投向了日本和美国的汽车制造商，关心他们开发混合动力和电池电动车的进展情况。丰田普锐斯一跃成为世界上销量最好的混合动力车。美国的新兴汽车制造商，Tesla Motors，推出了该公司首部电池电力车，名为Tesla Roadster。截至2010年底，通用汽车公司计划推出备受赞誉的V olt混合动力汽车，而克莱斯勒公司最近已经宣布同样的计划正在进行之中。 目前，中国在新能源汽车的自主创新过程中，坚持了政府支持，以核心技术、关键部件和系统集成为重点的原则，确立了以混合电动汽车、纯电动汽车、燃料电池汽车为“三纵”，以整车控制系统、电机驱动系统、动力蓄电池/燃料电池为“三横”的研发布局，通过产学研紧密合作，中国混合动力汽车的自主创新取得了重大进展。形成了具有完全自主知识产权的动力系统技术平台，建立了混合动力汽车技术开发体系。混合动力汽车的核心是电池（包括电池管理系统）技术。除此之外，还包括发动机技术、电机控制技术、整车控制技术等，发动机和电机之间动力的转换和衔接也是重点。从目前情况来看，中国已经建立起了混合动力汽车动力系统技术平台和产学研合作研发体系，取得了一系列突破性成果，为整车开发奠定了坚实的基础。截止到2009

汽车英语单词常用缩写

汽车英语单词常用缩写 汽车英语单词常用缩写 CVVT是英文ContinueVariableValveTiming的缩写，翻译成中 文就是连续可变气门正时机构 TSI是Turbo-charging，涡轮增压;Super-charging，机械增压 和Injection，燃油直喷,三个关键特色的首字母缩写。 DSG(DirectShiftGearbox)中文表面意思为“直接换挡变速器”。 ABS即英文AntilockBrakingSystem的缩写，意为“防抱死制动 系统” 4WD即英文FourWheeldrive的缩写，意为“四轮驱动系统” 4WS即英文FourWheelSteer的'缩写，意为“四轮转向系统”。 SRS即英文SupplementalRestraintSystem的缩写，意为“汽车 安全气囊” MPV的全称是Multi-PurposeVehicle，即多用途汽车 GPS即英文GlobalPositionsystem的缩写，意为“全球导航系统” EGR即英文ExhaustGasRecycle的缩写，意为“废气再循环系统” ATF即英文AutomaticTransmissionFluid的缩写，意为“自动 变速器油”。 ECT即英文EmissionControlSystem的缩写，意为“电子控制自 动变速器” PPS英文ProgressivePowerSteering的缩写，意为“电子控制 液压动力转向系统”

VIN即英文VehicleIdentificationNumber的缩写，意为“机动 车身份条形码” OBD即英文OnB0ardDiagnostics的缩写，意为“车载诊断系统” ASR即英文AccelerationSlipRegulation的缩写，意为“汽车 驱动防滑控制系统” VSC即英文VehicleStabilityControl的缩写，意为“汽车稳定 控制系统” TWC即英文ThreeWayCatalyticConverter的缩写，意为“三元 催化转换器” ISC是“怠速控制系统”

BYD新能源汽车营销方案

BYD新能源汽车营销方案 小组成员： 目 录 市场营销摘要 3 正文 4 一、目前营销状况 4 1. 市场状况 4 2. 消费者心理状况 4 3. 产品状况 4 4. 竞争状况 5 5. 宏观环境状况 5 二、SWOT分析 5 三、市场营销目标 7 四、公司STP战略 8 五、营销组合政策4P 8 1.产品（Product） 8 2.价格（Price） 10 3.销售渠道策略 (Place) 10 4、促销策略(Promotion) 11 六、电动车的推广费用预算 14 六、前景评估 15 七、简历表 16 市场营销摘要本方案旨在推广、宣传BYD新能源汽车。打响比亚迪汽车的美誉度，树立起比亚迪公司的企业形象，为开拓并占领新能源汽车市场奠定基础。 BYD的新能源汽车主要包括F3DM，e6和K9。 通过对比亚迪公司介绍、比亚迪新能源汽车优势的分析、汽车市场营销环境分析和swot分析，这样子才能更加有的放矢地针对比亚迪新能源汽车进行市场目标定位和制定有效地营销推广策划方案。 本营销策划书的最大亮点是为比亚迪F6在汽车市场的推广宣传设计了两套促销方案，以便达到最大化的促销效果。具体的体现在行动方案中。

通过对整个营销策划策划方案制定了详细的行动过程和细节控制，并加上具体合理的市场推广费用预算，使得本营销策划方案更具有可行性、操作性和可控性。 增加对本次比亚迪新能源汽车市场的前景评估与总结，为接下来开展的促销活动提供经验。 前言比亚迪汽车——比亚迪股份的直属子公司。代表车型包括F0、F3、F3-R两厢、F6、F8运动型家用轿车、DM 双模电动汽车、e6等。作为电动车领域的领跑者和全球二次电池产业的领先者，比亚迪将利用独步全球的技术优势，不断制造清洁能源的汽车产品。 比亚迪作为民营企业，一直本着“服务为人，方便大众”的理念不断推出新产品，并且不断将新技术融入汽车中。 比亚迪股份有限公司创立于1995年，是一家香港上市的高新技术民营企业。比亚迪现拥有IT和汽车两大产业群。 比亚迪坚持以人为本的人力资源方针，尊重人，培养人，善待人，为员工建立一个公平、公正、公开的工作和发展环境。 公司在持续发展的同时，始终致力于企业文化建设，矢志与员工一起分享公司成长带来的快乐。始终坚持“技术为王，创新为本”的发展理念。 比亚迪倡导做爱心企业，将社会责任当成企业精神的重要内容加以传扬，关注支持并积极参与赈灾救危、捐学资教、

课程标准(新能源汽车)

课程标准(新能源汽车)

新能源汽车课程标准 课程名称：新能源汽车 适用专业：汽车运用与维修 1、前言 1.1 课程性质 《新能源汽车》是汽车运用与维修专业的一门专业课程，其作用是使学生初步了解新能源汽车的现状与发展，以及插电式混合动力汽车的结构与工作原理。为其学习公交客车技术课程打下基础。 1.2 设计思路 本课程总体设计思路是以国内新能源汽车的发展现状为依据设置本课程。 本课程的具体设计是以新能源汽车的发展、目前国内新能源汽车的发展为背景，共包括动力蓄电池与储能装置、能量管理系统、电动机驱动与控制系统、纯电动汽车、插电式混合动力系统等5个学习模块。课程内容的选取紧紧围绕完成以上学习主题的需要循序递进，以满足职业能力的培养要求。 本课程建议学时数为72学时。

2、课程目标 使学生了解新能源汽车的构成；掌握新能源的种类及特性；知道纯电动汽车的基本结构，掌握其的工作原理，培养学生诚实、守信、善于沟通和合作的品质，并达到以下具体职业能力培养目标： ●能掌握新燃料汽车发动机燃料供给系的结 构 ●工作原理能认识到燃气安全的重要性 ●掌握它们常见故障、日常维护 3、课程内容和要求 学习主题学习内容与要求参考学时 1.新能源汽 车概述1.新能源汽车的发展背 景 ●简要说明我国的能源 紧缺 ●说出汽车尾气排放对 人类社会的影响 2

学习主题学习内容与要求 学时 2. 新能源汽车的发展 趋势与分类 ●了解能源的概念与特 2 点 ●掌握能源的分类 3.新能源汽车的分类与 结构特点 ●说出新能源汽车的分 类 ●掌握纯电动汽车的基 4 本结构特点 ●掌握插电式混合动力 汽车结构 ●了解其他新能源汽车

汽车内饰件常见英语翻译

汽车内饰件常见英语翻译

01-零件（Part） 一、零件总成(Parts Assembly) 1、发动机舱系统（Engine Compartment System） 1.引擎盖隔音垫Hood 2.前围前隔音垫Dashout 2、乘员舱饰件系统（Passenger Compartment System） 1.主地毯Carpet 2.顶棚Headliner 3.前围后隔音垫Dashinner 4.脚垫Mat 5.衣帽架Package Tray 6.中通道隔音垫Tunnel Insulator 7.座椅靠背地毯Seat Back Carpet 3、行李箱饰件系统（Trunk Trim System） 1.侧饰板Side trim 2.备胎盖Trunk

Carpet 3.内饰板Decklid Trim 4、外饰系统（Exterior Trim Systems） 1.密封条Sealing 2.轮罩Wheel House 3.防水膜Water Shield 二、外协件（Outsourcing Parts） 1.塑料固定扣（尼龙扣）Plastic Fixed Buckle (Nylon Buttons) 2.塑料尾部连接块卡扣Plastic Tail Connection Buckle 3.塑料尾部连接块顶端卡扣Plastic Tail Top Connection Buckle 4.金属连接扣Metal Connection Buckle 5.塑料保险带扣Plastic Seat Belts Buckle 6.组合卡子Combination Bands 7.尼龙拉手Nylon Shake Hander

外文翻译-汽车新能源现状与发展的探究

各专业全套优秀毕业设计图纸 The Investigation Of Car new energy'S Present Condition And Development As the world energy crisis, and the war and the energy consumption of oil -- and are full of energy, in one day, someday it will disappear without a trace. Oil is not in resources. So in oil consumption must be clean before finding a replacement. With the development of science and technology the progress of the society, people invented the electric car. Electric cars will become the most ideal of transportation. In the development of world each aspect is fruitful, especially with the automobile electronic technology and computer and rapid development of the information age. The electronic control technology in the car on a wide range of applications, the application of the electronic device, cars, and electronic technology not only to improve and enhance the quality and the traditional automobile electrical performance, but also improve the automobile fuel economy, performance, reliability and emissions purification. Widely used in automobile electronic products not only reduces the cost and reduce the complexity of the maintenance. From the fuel injection engine ignition devices, air control and emission control and fault diagnosis to the body auxiliary devices are generally used in electronic control technology, auto development mainly electromechanical integration. Widely used in automotive electronic control ignition system mainly electronic control fuel injection system, electronic control ignition system, electronic control automatic transmission, electronic control (ABS/ASR) control system, electronic control suspension system, electronic control power steering system, vehicle dynamic control system, the airbag systems, active belt system, electronic control system and the automatic air-conditioning and GPS navigation system etc. With the system response, the use function of quick car, high reliability, guarantees of engine power and reduce fuel consumption and emission regulations meet standards. The car is essential to modern traffic tools. And electric cars bring us infinite joy will give us the physical and mental relaxation. Take for example, automatic transmission in road, can not on the clutch, can achieve automatic shift and engine flameout, not so effective improve the driving convenience lighten the fatigue strength. Automatic transmission consists mainly of hydraulic torque converter, gear transmission, pump, hydraulic control system, electronic control system and oil cooling system, etc. The electronic control of suspension is mainly used to cushion the impact of the body and the road to reduce vibration that car getting smooth-going and stability. When the vehicle in the car when the road uneven road can according to automatically adjust the height. When the car ratio of height, low set to gas or oil cylinder filling or oil. If is opposite, gas or diarrhea. To ensure and improve the level of driving cars

新能源汽车市场营销策略研究

新能源汽车市场营销策略研究 新能源汽车是指采用非常规的车用燃料作为动力来源，综合车辆的动力控制和驱动方面的先进技术，形成具有新技术新结构的汽车，下面是搜集整理的一篇相关，欢迎阅读查看。 近年来，环境污染和石油资源的日益枯竭使得人类对传统汽车的质疑越来越强烈，为此节能环保的新能源汽车成为各大汽车企业乃至各国关注的焦点。然而，由于各方面条件的限制，新能源汽车的销量一直未能取得大的突破。笔者认为对于新能源汽车，制定正确的营销策略格外重要，它的销售方式与销售理念在遵循一般汽车销售的原则上，还需要结合其自身的特质，制定正确的销售策略。 1 销售现状 据中国汽车工业协会公布的数据显示，2014年上半年我国新能源汽车生产20692辆，销售20477辆，比上年同期分别增长2.3倍和2.2倍，产销量超过2013年全年数量。其中，纯电动汽车产销分别完成12185辆和11777辆，插电式混合动力汽车产销分别完成8507辆和8700辆。 2 国家政策 我国2001年将新能源汽车研究项目列入“863”计划，以此鼓励新能源汽车产业的发展，随后一系列扶持政策相继出台。除了往年提出的优惠政策外，自2014年9月1日至2017年底，将对获得许可在中国境内销售(包括进口)的纯电动以及符合条件的插电式(含 增程式)混合动力、燃料电池三类新能源汽车，免征车辆购置税。 同时，国家公务用车也明确将进行“新能源化”，中央国家机关及示范推广城市，3年 内公务用车中采购新能源汽车的比例不低于30%;而在京津冀、长三角、珠三角等重点区域，从今年起采购比例不低于15%，并逐年提高至30%以上。 3 新能源汽车的特点 目前我国新能源汽车主要包括混合动力汽车和纯电动汽车两种类型，其中纯电动汽车既能实现节约能源又能实现真正的零排放，是各大汽车厂商主要的研发力量所在，也是未来新能源汽车的主要发展趋势。 下面以纯电动汽车为例，与传统汽油车相对比，来分析其优缺点。(见表1)

新能源汽车专业技术课程教学标准

新能源汽车技术课程教学规范 一、课程在人才培养中的地位和作用 本课程是新能源汽车专业的专业核心课程。主要任务是全面系统地介绍新能源汽车新技术。针对本专业的特点,系统阐述了新能源汽车的类型,发展新能源汽车的必要性和新能源汽车发展现状;重点介绍额电动汽车用动力电池、电动汽车用电动机、纯电动汽车、混合动力电动汽车和燃料电池电动汽车的结构、原理及设计方法等；对天然气汽车、液化石油气汽车、甲醇燃料汽车、乙醇燃料汽车、二甲醚燃料汽车、氢燃料汽车和太阳能汽车的特点、发展现状及趋势也进行了介绍。本课程授予学生新能源汽车构造原理等规律性的知识，使学生具有举一反三的分析能力，对结构原理不断更新的适应能力，为学习后续课程和参加专业实践奠定基础，对于适应地方经济建设的应用性人才培养目标具有十分重要的意义。 二、课程的教学目标 （一)知识目标 通过本课程的教学,使学生掌握新能源汽车的分类、基本结构、组成和原理，,并对新能源汽车用的电动电池、电动机等各部分的有机联系有清楚的认识。了解新能源汽车领域的新材料、新工艺、新技术，并具有一定的分析能力。 （二）能力目标 通过本课程的教学，培养学生以下能力: （1）掌握基础的理论知识，提高新能源汽车构造原理的应用能力和发展本专业的能力,提高和专业有关的工作适应性。 (2)有较强的实践技能和解决实际问题的能力，使学生受到较强的专业训练,具有一定的实践能力,同时具有一定的创新意识。 （三）素质目标 培养学生的工程意识和创新意识；培养学生严谨求实的科学态度和刻苦钻研的学习作风,具有良好的社会责任感和良好的职业道德；激发学生的求知欲望,培养学生的探索精神和创新意识。 三、新能源汽车技术的知识体系 新能源汽车技术包括电动汽车用动力电池、电动汽车用电动机、纯电动汽车、混合动力电动汽车、燃料电池电动汽车和其他新能源汽车共六大部分。知识体系的结构化分为三个层次,分别是知识领域,知识单元和知识点。一个知识领域可以包括若干个知识单元,一个知识单元又包含若干个知识点。知识领域是知识体系结构的最高层次,代表一个特定的学科子域。每个知识领域用字母表示，如Ａ1表示电动汽车用动力电池部分，Ａ2表示电动汽车用电动机,Ａ３表示纯电动汽车，A4表示混合动力电动汽车,A5表示燃料电池电动汽车,Ａ6表示其他新能源汽车。知识单元是知识体系结构的中间层次,表示知识领域中独立的主题。每个知识单元用该知识领域名称后加一个字母表示，如A1ａ表示电动汽车用动力电池分类、性能指标和要求,A1b表示电动汽车用动力电池之铅酸蓄电池。知识单元分为核心知识单元和选修知识单元。核心知识单元是最基本的、学生必须学习掌握的知识单元,此外还要根据不同的专业特点学习部分选修知识单元。知识点是知识体系结构的最底层,表示知识单元中的某个具体问题。 汽车构造知识体系由6个知识领域和３2个知识单元构成，其中核心知识单元2８个，

纯电动汽车外文翻译

纯电动汽车 1 电动汽车技术概述 电动汽车的优点是具有简单的机械传动机构。电动汽车能够像传统的汽车一样将本身的能量转变成汽车的动能，但它却还可以沿相反方向进行转换，利用能量再生制动系统将动能转换成汽车的电能储备，这说明它的能源和工作回路是双向的。此外，电动汽车的运动部件电动马达主要由电枢（直流电机）或转子（交流电机）和轴承组成，电机不仅仅具有结构简单效率高的优点，而且它的输出扭矩适合车辆的扭矩曲线。电动汽车的动力传动系统往往只需要一个传动比，不需要倒档，因为旋转运动方向的变换可以通过改变电力输入的极性来实现。 电池系统的充电是相当复杂的。通过电源插座传送的是交流电，必须转换成直流电，才能被用来为电动汽车电池充电。如果电动汽车采用了直流电动机，来自电池的能源必须被“切”成具有一定周期的可变占空比，才能用以控制发动机的速度和扭矩。随着电动汽车越来越多的采用交流电机，为了提供交流电和控制汽车动力输出的能量，从电池来的直流电必须进行复杂的能源转换。纯电动汽车的主要缺点是电池能源有限，而混合电动汽车的复杂的动力系统是困扰其质量提高和成本的居高不下的原因。 2 纯电动汽车 纯电动汽车，也叫电池电动汽车，它有一部分作为一些专用汽车，另一部分作为汽油车的替代品。下面介绍一些电动车，像通用公司的EV1、福特的Ranger和丰田的Prius。 2.1 通用电动车EV1 第二代的通用EV1的主要设计目的在于提高其软件方面的品味，使其具有良好的通过性和操作性能，通用EV1的主要零部件见图1。首先EV1具有两种蓄电池技术：分别是更先进、容量更大的铅酸蓄电池和可选装的镍氢电池。 2.1.1 动力/电子设备 ?发动机布置形式：横置安装、前轮驱动。 ?电动机形式：三相交流电机。 ?额定功率：在7000转每分钟时的功率是102千瓦(137马力)。 ?驱动桥类型：双级主减速器。 ?电源管理系统：绝缘栅双极晶体管（IGBT）逆变电源。 ?蓄电组： 标准：26组阀控式大容量铅酸模块。 可选择的：26组阀控式镍氢模块。 ?蓄电池组的额定容量： 标准：大容量铅酸电池组容量是18.7千瓦时每60安时(312伏)。 选配：镍氢电池组容量是26.4千瓦时每77安时(343伏)。 电池重量： 标准：大容量铅酸电池是594.21千克。