Their vehicles are attractive, the product offerings have grown in number, the “reservations” are in, the enthusiasm is palpable, the novelty factor is there, and they promise to deliver the clean wave of the heavy trucking future with high tech. Nikola is a hit. And, it’s still all on paper.

他们的车辆很有吸引力，产品种类越来越多，“预订量”不断增加，人们的热情明显，新颖性很高，它们有望以高科技带来重型卡车未来的清洁浪潮。 尼古拉很受欢迎。 而且，它仍然全部在纸上。

Analysis upon analysis of the Nikola story tends to focus on the financial feasibility of launching a vertically-integrated hydrogen fuel company such as the one it is marketing itself to be some day, from stations that produce and deliver the hydrogen fuel, to vehicle sales and maintenance sites, to the heavy trucks themselves. “This is the unlevered IRR of infrastructure capex; this is how many billions in sales interest have been generated; these are the details of the total cost of ownership leases; these are the target costs of the critical inputs of electricity and water in order to produce affordable hydrogen fuel in the first place.”

分析于分析尼古拉的故事往往把重点放在推出一个垂直整合的氢燃料公司的财务可行性，如一个它是营销本身是有一天，从站产生并提供氢燃料，车辆销售，维修地点 ，交给重型卡车 。 “这是基础设施资本支出的无杠杆内部收益率； 这就是产生了数十亿的销售兴趣； 这些是所有权租赁总成本的详细信息； 这些是电力和水的关键输入的目标成本，以便首先生产可负担的氢燃料。”

Beyond the economics of it all, there are other real concerns to be examined. Namely, how cleanly can Nikola actually “decarbonize” the trucking industry in the United States?

除了这一切的经济性之外，还有其他实际问题需要检查。 就是说，尼古拉实际上可以干净地使美国的货运业“脱碳”吗？

As a recent piece by Barron’s points out, hydrogen fuel currently costs $16 per unit. Founder Trevor Milton hopes to bring this down to around $2-3 per unit, comparable to a gallon of unleaded gasoline in many parts of the country. In order to do that, Nikola will have to source cheap electricity and water, as those are the two elements that the company is going to need a inordinate amount of; they have opted to create hydrogen fuel by splitting water via electrolysis, as opposed to the steam-methane reformation of natural gas.

正如巴伦最近指出的那样，氢燃料目前的价格为每单位16美元。 创始人特雷弗·米尔顿(Trevor Milton)希望将价格降低到每单位2-3美元左右，相当于该国许多地区的一加仑无铅汽油。 为了做到这一点，尼古拉将不得不获得廉价的电力和水，因为这是该公司需要大量使用的两个要素。 他们选择通过电解分解水来生产氢燃料，这与天然气的蒸汽-甲烷重整相反。

Creating hydrogen fuel via water electrolysis is incredibly energy intensive. Where will that electricity come from? On its website outlining the advantages of hydrogen fuel, Nikola indicates that it will utilize solar power at its own stations (which will not be close to sufficient), along with supplemental grid power. Separately, in an interview with publication Ars Technica back in April 2019, Nikola's vice president of hydrogen technology, Jesse Schneider, mentioned they would leverage renewable and low-carbon options such as hydropower, followed by fossil-fuel powered options probably offset with carbon credits.

通过水电解产生氢燃料非常耗能。 电力从哪里来？ Nikola在其网站上概述了氢燃料的优势 ，指出将在自己的电站中利用太阳能(这将远远不够)，同时还将利用电网的补充电力。 另外，尼古拉氢能技术副总裁杰西·施耐德(Jesse Schneider)在2019年4月接受出版物Ars Technica 采访时表示 ，他们将利用可再生能源和低碳选择(例如水力发电)，其次是化石燃料动力选择，可能会抵消碳信用额。

Existing electrical grid utilities charge according to their own costs, without any markup to the end consumer, by law.¹ Electricity from a utility source that is cheap enough to make for economical hydrogen fuel production may be low-carbon hydroelectric or nuclear, yes, but there are a limited number of those kinds of facilities in the United States. Much of the electricity may have to come from the burning of cheap fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas. In that case, the increased need for energy, now to generate hydrogen fuel, would increase the amount of fossil fuels burned every year. Even a Tesla is only as clean as the source of the electricity that recharges it.

现有的电网公用事业公司根据法律按自己的费用收费，而对最终用户没有任何加价。¹来自公用事业公司的电力价格便宜到足以进行经济的氢燃料生产，可能是低碳水力发电或核能发电，是的，但是在美国，此类设施数量有限。 许多电力可能必须来自燃烧廉价的化石燃料，例如煤炭或天然气。 在那种情况下，现在要生产氢燃料的能源需求的增加将增加每年燃烧的化石燃料的数量。 即使是特斯拉，其清洁程度也仅与为其充电的电源一样。

Will carbon offsets really rectify that reality? Detractors would question that. Also, wouldn’t buying carbon offsets increase costs somewhat, the same costs they say they are trying to minimize?

碳补偿会真正纠正这一现实吗？ 批评者会质疑这一点。 另外，购买碳补偿会不会增加成本，就像他们说要尽量减少的那样？

Then there’s the water. But never mind the cost of that water, what about the supply? The hydrogen-powered future painted by Nikola will depend on “filtered, fresh water,” the same water that most hydropower facilities, the general public, agrarian operations, aluminum refineries, and food and beverage conglomerates depend on.

然后有水。 但是，不用担心那笔水的成本，那供水又如何呢？ 尼古拉描绘的氢动力未来将取决于“过滤后的淡水”，这与大多数水力发电设施，公众，农业运营，铝精炼厂以及食品和饮料集团所依赖的水相同。

How will the acquisition of that water be accomplished? Will the company pull this raw input from natural sources itself or pipe it in from public utilities, once again? And what would be the impact on that infrastructure and all current water customers, in the latter case? For instance, certain regions ration their water supply, alternating days on which customers can irrigate their lawns and/or farmland. This is but one minor example. How does an unprecedented water-hungry operation such as Nikola fit into this kind of established paradigm with its production and refueling stations?

如何获得水？ 公司会再次从自然资源本身提取原始投入还是从公用事业通过管道输送？ 在后一种情况下，对基础设施和所有当前水用户有何影响？ 例如，某些地区会按比例分配水量，而客户则可以每隔几天灌溉一次草坪和/或农田。 这只是一个较小的例子。 尼古拉(Nikola)等前所未有的耗水量大的业务如何在其生产和加油站中融入这种既定范例？

Interestingly enough, such an organization as Nikola may have more in common with aluminum refineries than we realize. They too require such massive amounts of electricity and water that they establish themselves near energy-generating facilities such as hydroelectric plants and acquire freshwater from a variety of sources, including that “which is supplied by external suppliers via water pipes, from site-owned groundwater sources or from rivers or lakes.”² But, unlike Nikola’s stations, aluminum refineries don’t follow a business model where they need to pepper the entire country’s landscape.

有趣的是，像尼古拉这样的组织可能与铝精炼厂相比有更多的共同点。 他们也需要大量的电力和水，以至于在水力发电厂等能源生产设施附近建立自己的公司，并从各种来源获得淡水，包括“外部供应商通过水管从现场拥有的地下水中提供的水”。 ²但是，与尼古拉的加油站不同，铝精炼厂不会遵循需要在全国范围内撒粉的商业模式。

Coincidentally, Nikola has already stated it may seek to locate some of its stations near hydroelectric plants for the energy they can provide relatively cleanly, though this would serve only a tiny fraction of stations Nikola has projected geographically. At any rate, will the company also likewise tap groundwater sources, or rivers and lakes, to feed its water needs?

巧合的是，尼古拉已经表示，它可能会寻求将其一些水电站设在水力发电厂附近，以获得它们可以相对清洁地提供的能源，尽管这只会为尼古拉在地理上预计的电站中的一小部分提供服务。 无论如何，该公司是否还会利用地下水或河流和湖泊来满足其用水需求？

Given the sheer scale of what Nikola has set out to do, could that not exacerbate existing water scarcity issues? Global water scarcity is already enough of a genuine concern that assessments of water scarcity impacts (WSI) and water scarcity footprints (WSFP) have been conducted on hydroelectric plants, as well as mining and refining operations. One wonders what the result would be of adding Nikola’s aggressive plans to the mix.

鉴于Nikola计划开展的工作规模庞大，难道这不会加剧现有的水资源短缺问题吗？ 全球水资源短缺已经引起了人们的真正关注，因为已经对水力发电厂以及采矿和精炼作业进行了水资源短缺影响(WSI)和水资源短缺足迹(WSFP)评估。 有人想知道将尼古拉的进取计划加入其中会带来什么结果。

Perhaps the concerns raised here are overstated. Surely someone will argue that Nikola could eventually build out its own clean energy farms, or just wait until enough public utility companies have upgraded their infrastructure to clean tech and are but shadows of their former, dirtier selves, bringing the cost of such energy down due to economies of scale. Nikola's not producing anything right now anyway. Meanwhile, the byproduct of a hydrogen fuel cell, Trevor Milton would have us believe, is “clean” drinking water. Maybe he can convince all of us to consume water from the host of vehicles we purchase from his company, instead of the tap. Either way, until real plans (and yes, figures) are also up for discussion, there are more reasons than the purely monetary to be Nikola-skeptic at this time.

这里提出的担忧也许被夸大了。 肯定会有人争论说，尼古拉可以最终建立自己的清洁能源农场，或者只是等到足够多的公用事业公司将其基础设施升级为清洁技术，而只是他们以前肮脏的自我的阴影，从而使这种能源的成本下降规模经济。 尼古拉现在什么都没生产。 同时，氢燃料电池的副产物特雷弗·米尔顿(Trevor Milton)让我们相信，它是“干净”的饮用水。 也许他可以说服我们所有人从我们从他的公司购买的大量车辆中而不是自来水上消耗水。 无论哪种方式，直到真正的计划(是的，数字)也可以讨论之前，现在还有更多的理由比纯粹的金钱更能使尼古拉产生怀疑。

Specifically, depending on how the electricity and water are sourced, the hydrogen-powered future envisioned by Nikola—if it ever gets off the ground, that is—could become just another case of luring folks in with a slick veneer, a situation of clean facade but dirty out back. That would be unfortunate. Their strategy warrants further due diligence on the part of investors, regulators, and the general public.

具体来说，根据电力和水的来源，尼古拉所设想的氢动力未来(如果能实现的话)可能只是用光滑的饰面吸引人们的另一种情况，即清洁的情况。门面，但脏回来。 那将是不幸的。 他们的战略值得投资者，监管机构和公众进一步尽职调查。

脚注 (Footnotes)

¹ Roberts, David. “The simple reason most power utilities suck.” Vox (2017).

¹ 罗伯茨，大卫 。 “ 大多数电力公司都难以接受的简单原因 。” Vox (2017)。

² Buxmann, K., Koehler, A. & Thylmann, D. Water scarcity footprint of primary aluminium. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21, 1605–1615 (2016).

²K. Buxmann，K. Koehler和D. Thylmann。原铝的缺水足迹 。 诠释J生命周期评估 21，1605至1615年(2016)。