Systems Analytics and Environmental Sciences Department, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan 48121-2053, USA.
Environ Sci Technol. 2010 Apr 1;44(7):2702-8. doi: 10.1021/es902329h.
The title question was addressed using an energy model that accounts for projected global energy use in all sectors (transportation, heat, and power) of the global economy. Global CO(2) emissions were constrained to achieve stabilization at 400-550 ppm by 2100 at the lowest total system cost (equivalent to perfect CO(2) cap-and-trade regime). For future scenarios where vehicle technology costs were sufficiently competitive to advantage either hydrogen or electric vehicles, increased availability of low-cost, low-CO(2) electricity/hydrogen delayed (but did not prevent) the use of electric/hydrogen-powered vehicles in the model. This occurs when low-CO(2) electricity/hydrogen provides more cost-effective CO(2) mitigation opportunities in the heat and power energy sectors than in transportation. Connections between the sectors leading to this counterintuitive result need consideration in policy and technology planning.
这个标题问题是通过一个能源模型来解决的，该模型考虑了全球经济所有部门（交通、供热和电力）的预计全球能源使用情况。通过全球 CO(2)排放的限制，在 2100 年之前将全球 CO(2)排放稳定在 400-550ppm，以实现最低的总成本（相当于完美的 CO(2)总量管制与排放交易制度）。在未来的情景中，如果车辆技术成本具有足够的竞争力，可以使氢气或电动汽车具有优势，那么低成本、低 CO(2)电力/氢气的可用性将延迟（但不会阻止）模型中电动汽车/氢气汽车的使用。当低碳电力/氢气在供热和电力能源领域提供更具成本效益的 CO(2)缓解机会时，就会出现这种情况，而不是在交通运输领域。在政策和技术规划中需要考虑导致这种违反直觉结果的部门之间的联系。
