Sales for electric, plug-in cars strong in October

[Bozita]

Source: Detroit News

November 2, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Sales for electric, plug-in cars strong in October
By David Shepardson and Karl Henkel
The Detroit News


Plug-in and electric vehicles had their strongest month of 2012 in October.

Last month, the plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt had another best-ever month, selling 2,961 vehicles. In the first 10 months of the year, General Motors Co. has sold 19,309 Volts, up 286 percent.

GM had to scale back its sales forecasts for the Volt for 2012 after it failed to meet expectations in 2011.

The Nissan Leaf also had its best monthall year, selling 1,579, up 86 percent from a year ago. Still, the company has said it is "falling short" of meeting its goal of selling 20,000 electric Leafs in 2012 in the United States.



Read more: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121102/AUTO01/211020442#ixzz2B6zzZZ8x

---

This will really piss off the GOPers.

[DemoTex]

2. Cue Pet Clark ..

Sign of the Times

[madrchsod]

3. time to dig out my early 50`s speed age magazine...

there`an article about the first electric plug in car. the biggest problem the driver encountered were unpaved roads and electrical outlets to plug in the charger.

i think it was 1910 or so that would be what? around a hundred years ago?

[griloco]

4. might have been 100, i donno. forgot to charge my abacus n/t

[tclambert]

5. I hate it that electric cars and hybrids have become a political football.

Just like global warming. I suppose it was inevitable, though, that conservatives would oppose the future. They're so in love with the past, they always want to take us back to the 1950s . . . or the 1850s. (Bring back the horse and buggy and slavery!)

From what I hear the Volt is a really, really good car. I'm looking forward to the Ford Focus EV, too. I want to get one of these two, but I can't decide which.

[harun]

6. +1

[rightsideout]

7. Here's my EV. 144 volt Ford Escort. Been running for 19 years. We may get an OEM EV someday.

[link:|

[NoOneMan]

8. Why will the GOPers be mad?

Don't they own the coal plants that power them?

[dmallind]

9. You forgot a bit

Don't they own the coal plants that power 44.5% of US electricity, and only 8% in Southern California, which is by far the strongest for EV sales

[NoOneMan]

10. Much of California's economy is powered by coal

Say what?!? But you have stats....

Think about the multiplier effect of Californian commerce. They do not live in a bubble. For every dollar of GDP that California makes, an equal amount of reciprocal commerce must, at some time, be done in some part of the world--a world that runs on coal & oil.

So while a Californian could work at a hemp factory, the debt notes that are issued to them can only be honored if a reciprocal amount of value production is done somewhere else. This is how our economic and currency system really works. In the case of them buying an EV, a very large amount of the production required to produce an EV actually runs on dirty energy. You may work at the "greenest" place on earth, but to buy most of the products of earth, your work will cause "dirty" work to happen (unless you do not spend your money at all, or only trade among an isolated group of approved vendors who do the same).

California has done a good job in reducing the average global carbon intensity of energy, but what is really killing the globe is the aggregate amount of carbon emissions. If the velocity of energy consumption is increasing at a rate far beyond the intensity reduction, than the economic machine is only speeding forward in a more dangerous manner. In fact, how "green" a product or someone's practices are becomes very irrelevant if they continue to increase the overall velocity of energy with their contribution to the economy.

[dmallind]

11. And would all that be better with EVs or ICEs?

Since economic activity will continue, should continue, must continue, is it not better to make cars that run on electrons rather than oil? The choice is not EVs or nothing - it is EVs or combustion engines.

[NoOneMan]

12. It depends, its complicated and thats a false dichotomy

The best option in the short term is to reduce the velocity/consumption of energy (to address the immediate climate crisis). The easiest way to do that is to not produce more new things (EVs or ICEs). If there is a demand for vehicles, we have the ability (if it takes less energy) to repair, recycle and retrofit existing vehicles, as well as promote public transportation.

Now, to address the dichotomy, I am still not really sure. Not only does the EV take more oil to make, it takes more oil-energy derived debt notes to purchase. Considering both measurements (as many studies do not), it may take a very, very long time to become carbon-equivalent to the ICE, and even-so, it it continues to increase the energy velocity of the economy (multiplying outward a larger amount than the ICE would), then it is fueling the economic engine that is killing the earth to a larger degree. This is a lot of theory here, but we really don't know because our models have been thus far short sighted and full of over-optimistic exuberance.

In any case, this disturbs me:

Since economic activity will continue, should continue, must continue

Economic activity does not just continue, it grows exponentially. It is accelerating daily, and its volume correlates directly to atmospheric carbon (as currency is a symbolic representation of energy to be commanded). Until we recognize this and understand that our number 1 mechanism to throttle climate change is to reduce the velocity of energy/currency (IOW throttle the economy), we are marching the entire world towards extinction. And if thats the case then the question becomes personal preference: do you want to roll into the final drought/fire/disease/hurricane/famine in a Tesla or a Dodge Ram? I can't answer that for you.