随着以特斯拉为代表的电动车开始奔驰于全球各地的道路上，电动车已经毫不疑问地成为了传统汽车的革命者，不管未来是多久，传统燃油车将势必退出历史舞台。不过，在现阶段，由于产品本身以及配套设施的不完善（比如续航、售价、充电桩普及程度等），对大多数人来说，未来它能顶半边天就已经是最好的结果了。
不过，麻省理工学院（MIT) 研究人员通过分析美国各地司机的驾驶习惯，发现“里程焦虑”被过分夸大了，他们认为 目前的电动汽车可以取代马路上 87%的私家车。此外，研究人员认为如果电池技术仍按照目前的速度发展， 到 2020 年，电动汽车可以取代马路上 98%的车辆。
研究人员发现，那些价格更为低廉的电动车，已经可以在售价和性能上达到完美平衡，而且也不是所有人都要开电动车长途旅行，它们是日常通勤的利器，因此，公共充电桩的建设对此类车辆来说并不是当务之急（用户可以回家充电）。此外，研究人员称，虽然电动车的售价稍高，但在养护上却比传统汽油车更有优势，整个使用周期中两者的花费已经差别不大。
据了解，因为电动汽车使用单一的电能源，省去了发动机、变速器、油箱、冷却和排气系统，所以结构较简单。因而维修保养费用有了一定幅度的降低，根据业内人士估算，下降幅度可达到 30%。
如果这一目标实现，美国的燃油消耗量将大降 60%，同时减少 30%的温室气体排放，精确到数字来说，可以减排 18 亿公吨的温室气体（相当于 2014 年美国交通中车辆排放的所有温室气体总量）
不过，想实现 87%的占有率目标可不容易，因为眼下美国的电动车市场占有率仅有 0.7%，而由于油价持续在低位徘徊，插电混动类车辆的销量在 2014-2015 年间下降了 17%。
这是一个有趣的发现，这个发现表明多少个家庭能够开始用比较环保的手段来出行，负责这项研究的杰西卡说到。比如说一个有两个汽车的家庭，一个燃油车，一个电动车。燃油车可以满足司机全国旅行的需求，这样就增大了大部分的短途采用电动车的可能。
这个研究也发现有更多大众可以购买的起的电动汽车，例如福特的福克斯和尼桑Leaf可以每天充电一次，不管在家里还是工作场所，是可以满足大家能源和钱包的需求。这样的话，公共充电桩的缺失，将不是一个很大的影响。虽然电动车的初始购买价格很贵，研究者得出结论电动汽车的运行成本远低于燃油车，这将使电动车的全寿命周期的成本可以和燃油车相比。
这个研究也说明偏远的地方比城市区域更难于接受电动汽车，但是不同城市对电动汽车的接受度是差不多的，不管是拥挤的纽约还是杂乱的休斯顿。数据显示，87%的传统车辆可以被电动汽车所取代。杰西卡说研究者正在研究一个APP，这个APP将告诉购车族一年里有多少天电动汽车可以满足他们的出行要求，并建议可能的两个车的车主在他们需要长途出行的时间里购买那种型号的电动车还是燃油车。
不管电动汽车的技术的先进性还是将来有更多的充电站，总有一些天电动车不能满足客户的要求，这时租车或者车辆共享服务这样的新型商业模式将会满足这样的需求。杰西卡指出，他们在电动汽车上需要更多的量化的研究。
杰西卡同时说道：基本的常识是不足以说明问题，基本常识容易使人民认为未来的潜力过高或者过低，你可能偏向极端的两个方向。很重要的是大家要提出这个问题，我们用数据来说明问题。
本文部分内容来自动点科技
英语的原文： MIT: 87% of cars could be electric（Amrith Ramkumar, Bloomberg News）
With all the limits on electric vehicles — battery life, cost, the availability of charging stations — you might expect that at most 50 percent of the vehicles on U.S. roads could be replaced by more-sustainable cars.
Buckle up: It’s 87 percent, MIT reckons, in a study published Monday in the journal Nature Energy. Such a proportion, if it were the case today, would lead to a 60 percent reduction in total U.S. gasoline consumption and a 30 percent decrease in the1.8 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions emitted by all American transportation in 2014. Transportation represents 26 percent of America’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
That’s huge. It’s also a thought experiment. Currently 0.7 percent of vehicles in the U.S. are electric, and plug-in electric vehicle sales declined 17 percent from 2014 to 2015.
But it’s an interesting one. The findings represent a “technical potential” that shows how many households could start living more sustainably now, said Jessika Trancik, who led the study. For instance, in a two-car household, having one electric car and one conventional vehicle could meet drivers’ needs across the country and significantly increase the number of electric vehicles on the road.
The researchers found that more affordable electric vehicles, such as the Ford Focus Electric and the Nissan Leaf, could meet our energy and affordability needs if people recharged their cars just once daily, either overnight at home or during the day at work. Then the scarcity of public charging stations wouldn’t be as pressing. And although electric vehicles’ sticker prices are higher, the researchers concluded that their operating costs would be lower than for conventional cars. This would make the overall costs comparable.
The study noted that rural areas had a slightly smaller adoptive potential than urban areas but found similar potential across different types of cities, ranging from more compact cities such as New York and to more sprawling ones like Houston.
Trancik hopes the research will show how the potential for EV adoption could exceed even 87 percent. She said the researchers are developing an app based on their model that could tell car shoppers how many days per year an electric vehicle could meet their needs and advise two-car households on which type of car, EV or regular, they should use on high-energy-consumption days.
Regardless of advances in technology and the addition of charging stations, there will always be days on which electric vehicles can’t get the job done. For these, Trancik said, there would need to be better car-sharing services or advancements in other environmentally friendly cars that could fill in the gaps. She also pointed to the need for further quantitative research on EVs.
“Common sense isn’t enough. Common sense leads people to conclude either that the potential is high or low. You have extreme views on both ends,” she said. “It’s important to unpack that question and ask research questions that we can answer quantitatively.”
希望大家在评论里留言，集思广益，分享您对该话题的观点，多谢。
