中国破坏了世界第一艘电动货船的下水意义，因为它用这艘船来运煤 [美国媒体]

The good news is that China, the world leader in electric vehicle production and use, has launched the world’s first all-electric, 2,200-ton cargo ship. The bad news is that the groundbreaking vessel is being used to haul coal.

好消息是，中国是世界上电动汽车生产和使用的引领者，它已经推出了世界上第一艘全电动的2200吨货船。坏消息是，这艘具有开创性的电动传播正被用来运送煤炭。

Since shipping is poorly regulated and runs almost entirely on heavy fuel oil, the trillion-dollar industry is a major polluter. Major ports are notorious for having unhealthy air.

由于航运业缺乏规范，而且几乎完全依靠重油为动力，这个价值万亿美元的产业是一个主要的污染来源。一些主要港口因为空气不健康而臭名昭着。

And even though the industry generates some 3 percent of global carbon pollution, the 2015 Paris climate agreement doesn’t even cover shipping, since it targets emissions by nations, not transport between them.

尽管该行业产生了约3%的全球碳污染，但2015年巴黎气候协议甚至没有涵盖航运业，因为它的目标是各国国内的排放，而不是各国之间的运输。

That leaves much of the job of cleaning up the industry to individual companies. So it should be a welcome moment that China’s Guangzhou Shipyard International has launched “the world’s first electric ship with a capacity” of 2,200 tons, as the state-run Global Times reported earlier this month.

这就使得让这个行业清洁化的大量工作都留给了企业而不是国家。因此，本月早些时候，国有媒体《环球时报》报道称，中国的广船国际公司已经推出了“世界上第一艘吨位达2200吨的电力船”，这是一个可喜的时刻。

The ship is short-haul: It can travel about 50 miles with its 1,000 lithium batteries after two-hour charge, which is the loading and unloading time for the ship, state news site ChinaNews.com reports. So it can be charged while it is docking.

据中国新闻网报道，这艘船适用于短途运输：在经过两小时——这也是船的装卸货时间——的充电后，它可以用1000个锂电池航行约50英里。所以它可以在入港的时候进行充电。



Sadly, the Chinese spoiled the launch of this otherwise green cargo ship by using it to transport coal for electricity generation on the Pearl River in Guangdong Province. The ship can carry up to 2,300 tons of coal, though ChinaNews.com reports such vessels could in the future be used for “passenger ships, ro-ro ships [roll-on/roll-off vessels carrying wheeled cargo] engineering vessels” and similar purposes.

令人遗憾的是，中国在广东珠江上用这艘船来运输煤炭进行发电，从而破坏了这艘绿色货船的下水意义。这艘船可以装载2300吨的煤，不过中国网报道说，这艘船将来可能会被用作“客船、滚装船、装载轮式货物工程船”以及类似的目的。

“This kind of ship takes into consideration the harmony between humans and nature and can protect water quality and marine life, and should be copied by other ships sailing on local rivers,” Chinese environmentalist Wang Yongchen told the Global Times.

中国环保人士Wang Yongchen对环球时报说：“这种船考虑到了人类和自然之间的和谐，可以保护水质和海洋生物，应该值得其他在当地河流上航行的船只学习。”

Certainly running on electricity of any kind is better for the local environment than burning heavy fuel oil. But moving rapidly off of coal generation is the only way China can ensure that the total lifecycle emissions of transporting cargo on an all-electric ship is beneficial to both their country’s air quality and the world’s effort to preserve a livable climate.

当然，任何形式的电力供应都比燃烧重油更有利于当地环境。但是，迅速摆脱煤炭发电是中国能够确保货船整个生命周期的排放既有利于其国家的空气质量和全球保持宜居气候努力的唯一方式。



[–]ek515 8384 points 19 hours ago 
Electric boat: “What is my purpose?” China: “You haul coal.”

电动船：“我的目的是什么？”
中国：“你要运煤。”
    
[–]theinfamousdoctoroak 2613 points 16 hours ago 
Using an electric ship to haul coal is ironic. However it makes sense. The ship likely runs on batteries and those batteries need to be charged. Well Im sure an electric ship requires a lot of power to charge; this isnt a Tesla Model S. You probably need a power plant to charge an electric ship. Well an industrial area has alot of power plants which require alot of coal. So the Chinese decided to make it a coal hauler.

用一艘电船来运煤是具有讽刺意味的。但是它是有意义的。这艘船很可能是依靠电池运行的，而这些电池需要充电。我肯定一艘电力船需要大量的电力来充电；这不是特斯拉的Model S，你可能需要一个发电厂来充电。一个工业地区有大量的发电厂，它们需要大量的煤。因此，中国决定让它充当煤炭运输者。
   
[–]teastain 2380 points 16 hours ago* 
The ship’s range could be easily extended by installing a coal fired boiler and generator.
Just kidding.

通过加装燃煤锅炉和发电机，可以很容易地延长船舶的航程。只是开玩笑。
    
[–]Shitposted_666 1127 points 14 hours ago 
I know this is ironic. However I feel there is a major misconception about electrical vehicles vs fossil fuel powered vehicles.

我知道这很讽刺。然而，我觉得人们对电动汽车和化石燃料驱动的汽车有很大的误解。

Vehicles need to move. That's why they can't carry heavy engines and equipment needed to make THE MOST out of burning fuel. Stationary power plants don't have this limitation. They can have equipment designed to harvest things like heat and use it to power steam turbines.

车辆需要移动。这就是为什么它们不能携带重型发动机和设备来最大限度地利用燃烧的燃料。固定的发电厂则没有这种限制。它们可以用专门的设备来收集热量，然后用它来驱动汽轮机。

As a result you can get twice as much (or even more) power by using fossil fuels in stationary power plants vs moving vehicles:

因此，在静止不动的发电厂使用化石燃料可以获得的电量是在移动的车辆上使用化石燃料所获得的电力的两倍(甚至更多)。
    
[–]masterveerappan 1341 points 13 hours ago 
Not a problem in China

在中国没毛病。
    
[–]nik282000 382 points 12 hours ago 
Good point.

好点子
    
[–]Backlists 246 points 12 hours ago 
Which is why in recent history they have built so many more nuclear power plants than any other country.

这就是为什么在最近的历史上，他们建造的核电站比其他任何国家都多。
    
[–]SerpentineLogic 383 points 11 hours ago 
They also built a lot of solar.
I think the take-away from this is that they build a lot of everything.

他们也建造了大量的太阳能发电场。我认为，从这一点上来说，他们什么东西都制造了很多。

[–]Tearakan 128 points 9 hours ago 
Plus everyone forgets that france gets almost all of its electricity from nuclear and they haven't had a problem in decades.

另外，每个人都忘记了，法国几乎所有的电力都来自核能，而且几十年来都没有出现过问题。
    
[–]17954699 39 points 9 hours ago 
The US still has the most nuclear reactors of any country by far. I believe there are over 98 operational. China I think has 40 with plans for another 20. Nonetheless neither China or the US crack the top 10 for percent of grid that uses nuclear power.

到目前为止，美国仍然拥有最多的核反应堆。我相信仍在运行中的还有98个以上。我认为中国已经有40座核发电厂了，它还要计划再建造20座。尽管如此，中国和美国都没有在核能使用百分比中跻身前十。

[–]Norose 133 points 11 hours ago 
It's also worth it to note that in China public opinion is actually strongly in favor of nuclear power.

值得注意的是，在中国，公众舆论强烈支持核能。
    
[–]Regalian 68 points 9 hours ago* 
Because they know they need it. It's funny how in Taiwan where we live would rather not use the 4th nuclear power plant we already built, and already this year we're experiencing blackouts and according to news with somewhere around 10000 people dying each year of lung cancer because we opt to use other ways to produce our electricity.

因为他们知道自己需要核能。很有趣的是，在台湾，我们的生活方式不愿使用已经建立的第四核电站，我们今年已经遭遇到了停电，据新闻报道，大约每年有10000人死于肺癌，这都是因为我们选择使用其他方式来发电。
    
[–]loki0111 161 points 10 hours ago 
What happens when the decision makers don't have to deal with mobs of pseudoscience morons.

当决策者不必和伪科学的暴徒打交道时，会发生什么呢？
    
[–]jstock104 26 points 9 hours ago 
Probably this is a result of no being able to see 20 feet through the air.

这可能是无法在空中看到20英尺之外地方的结果。
    
[–]frzferdinand72 37 points 9 hours ago 
For all the fucked up things China does, there's a lot they do right. Massive public transit investment, disregarding NIMBYism, etc.

尽管中国做了很多很糟糕的事情，但他们也做对了很多事情。它进行了大规模的公共交通投资，尽管存在着不顾邻国死活的情况。    

[–]enigmatic360 24 points 9 hours ago 
While true, it's all relative. The US built up a massive cutting-edge public transit system in the mid-twentieth century. Often old and shitty now, yes. But we'll see where China stands in 60 years.

虽然这是真的，但都是相对的。美国在20世纪中叶建立了一个庞大的顶级公共交通系统。但是现在已经老旧不堪，非常垃圾，是的。但我们将看到60年后中国的样子。
    
[–]Neglectful_Stranger 14 points 5 hours ago 
Better than us with a 120-year old public transit system lol

比我们有120年历史的公共交通系统更好

[–]InADayOrSo 31 points 12 hours ago 
What about all of the nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers being used by navies all over the world?

世界各地的海军如果都使用核动力潜艇和航空母舰怎么样？    

[–]lanismycousin 49 points 11 hours ago* 
The limiting factor on nuclear submarines is food for the crew, not really anything else. They can produce fresh water and oxygen from their surroundings. Nuclear power allows them to just hang out underwater in some hidden area for a month or two quietly waiting to see if they get that radio signal to launch a nuke.

核潜艇的限制因素是船员的食物，而不是其他任何东西。它们可以从周围环境中制造淡水和氧气。核能可以让他们在某个隐蔽的地方待一个月或两个月，静静地等着，看他们是否会受到命令发射一枚核弹的无线电信号。

The older style diesel submarines have to get on the surface (or at least to snorkel depth) every day or so when their batteries, which means that they aren't as effective as nuclear subs because they spend more of their time on the surface which changes their behavior and makes them theoretically easier to find.

旧风格的柴油潜艇需要每天浮出海面(或者至少达到通气管深度)或当它们的电池没电的时候也要这么做，这意味着它们不如核潜艇那么有效，因为它们要花更多的时间浮出海面，改变它们的行动计划，导致它们在理论上更容易被找到。
    
[–]Rhear 36 points 9 hours ago 
I read that the counterpoint is that diesel subs can completely switch off for extra stealth while nuclear subs cannot stop generating heat.

我读到过的一种观点是：柴油潜艇可以完全关闭，而核潜艇却不能停止产生热量。
    
[–]lanismycousin 28 points 8 hours ago 
Yeah, diesel subs can be a bitch to find when they go into full electric mode. Not really any noises coming from that. The downside is that they can't do it for very long because batteries can't store enough power for them to stay fully submerged for very long plus the diesel engine needs precious oxygen to run which is limited when they are underwater.

是的，当柴油潜艇进入全电动模式时，几乎不会被发现。并不是所有的噪音都来自于此。缺点是它们不能长时间地使用电池，因为电池不能储存足够的能量让他们在水下停留很长时间，而且柴油发动机需要宝贵的氧气来运行，它们在水下的时候是有限的。

Nuclear subs can't exactly shut off like that, need to have pumps running all the time to keep the reactor safe.

核反应堆不能完全关闭，需要水泵一直运行以保证反应堆的安全。

[–]RobertNeyland 6 points 8 hours ago 
Diesel subs are incredibly quiet when they are underwater and running on their batteries, but relatively loud as shit and exposed to detection when they do go up to the surface to recharge.

柴油潜艇在水下凭借电池运行时非常安静，但它们的声音相对大一些，当它们在水面上充电时，它们会暴露在敌人的探测之下。    

[–]bobbabouie91 5 points 5 hours ago 
I’m not sure if you’ve ever heard about it, but I read this article recently about the classified reports released on the technology that soviet subs used to track other subs without sonar. I honestly think it’s amazing given the time.

我不确定你们是否听说过，但我最近读到的这篇文章是关于苏联潜艇在没有声纳的情况下用来跟踪其他潜艇的机密报告。老实说，考虑到年代问题，这真是太棒了。

[–]Gerhard2202 3 points 8 hours ago 
The fact that the limiting factor on a nuclear powered submarine is the amount of food you can pack into it speaks volumes about how excellent nuclear power is.

核动力潜艇的限制因素是它可以装载的食物数量，这充分说明了核能是多么的优秀。

[–]ThatGuyBench 21 points 11 hours ago 
He is not saying that nuclear is bad, judging by the context, he is saying that it doesn't matter how great nuclear power might be, if public opinion towards it is highly negative, switching to it unlikely.

他并不是说核能是不好的，从环境的角度来看，他是在说，如果公众对核能的看法是非常负面的，那么核能就是不可能的。

[–]TheSillyLion 10 points 11 hours ago 
Public opinion AND cost. There has been a few merchant vessels that was nuclear powered but it’s simply not cost efficient (at the moment). Now in my opinion as public opinion changes in nuclear energy we could see a reduction in costs with increased R&D.

公众舆论和成本。有几艘商船是由核动力驱动的，但这根本不需要耗费成本(目前来说)。在我看来，随着公众舆论的改变，我们可以看到随着研发的增加，成本会降低。
    
[–]Lawls91 35 points 9 hours ago* 
I find it utterly incredible that the world just seems to ignore this colossal source of clean energy; it's constant, consistent and high output power and it's significantly less carbon intensive than even utility scale solar panels. I really think there should be a broad effort on governments' part to educate the public about just how safe nuclear power really is. Again, looking at solar, nuclear is superior with 90 deaths per trillion KWh whereas rooftop solar has 440.

我觉得世界似乎忽视了这个巨大的清洁能源的来源，这是不可思议的。它是恒定的，持续的，高的输出功率，而且它的碳排放强度甚至比实用的太阳能电池板都要低得多。我真的认为，各国政府应该广泛努力，让公众了解核能到底有多安全。再一次看看太阳能，制造每万亿千瓦时核能90人的死亡要低于屋顶太阳能的440人。
    
[–]pisshead_ 6 points 6 hours ago 
It's also outrageously expensive. The UK is planning on a new nuclear power plant We're going to have to get the Chinese to fund it, and in return will have to pay them inflated energy costs for decades and decades. It doesn't make any sense when renewable costs are plummeting.

这也是贵的离谱。英国正在计划建设一座新的核电站，我们将不得不让中国人为它提供资金，作为回报，我们将不得不向他们支付数十年的能源成本。当可再生能源成本直线下降时，这没有任何意义。

The British navy is also moving away from nuclear to gas electric for cost reasons, having a military nuclear program is expensive unless you put all your government spending into the military like the US and Russia.

出于成本的考虑，英国海军也在从核能转向天然气发电，除非你把所有的政府支出都投入到美国和俄罗斯这样的军事项目中，否则军事核项目是昂贵的。

[–]freechowmein 7 points 7 hours ago 
Nuclear power plants deteriorate over time and have to be decommissioned after around 30 years of operation. Destroying old nuclear plants, constructing new ones, and storing radioactive waste is costly and difficult. That's the main problem.

随着时间的推移，核电站会逐渐老化，它必须在30年左右时间内退役。摧毁旧的核电站，建造新的核电站，储存放射性核废料都是昂贵且困难的。这是主要的问题。

The second is public opinion.

第二个是公众舆论的问题。