SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The rate at which new technologies get accepted into the mainstream never fails to confuse people. For the longest time, cell phones appeared to be the exclusive domain of yuppies, bankers and drug dealers. And then, suddenly, my mum had one. (No, she doesn't sell drugs.)
Could we see a similar rapid adoption for electric vehicles?
The LA Times reports that Q1 electric car (EV) sales are up 91% in California. Sales of Plug-In Hybrids (PHEV) are up 54% too. This is, of course, only one quarter, from one state, so let's not get too excited. And the actual number of units sold—13,804 EVs and 10,466 PHEVs—is still tiny compared to the 506,745 cars and light trucks sold in the state during the same period. But anyone who knows anything about math can tell you that it doesn't take long for a 91% growth rate to start making serious inroads into a particular market. (Electric car sales in Norway have already reached as high as 37% of new passenger vehicles.)
It's possible the muscle memory developed for cellphones could help with EV adoption, too: plug in the phone at night, plug in the car at night.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 26 2017, @11:48AM (3 children)
>What you seem to be saying is that California's economy is failing because of concern for the environment, while Michigan's is thriving because of disregard for the environment, and therefore Michigan is a larger market for autos even though it has fewer people.
This is what's so great about internet chat boards: people thinking for you - imagining things you would never have dreamed.
What I'm saying is that California is biased to buy EVs, Michigan is not. I'm speaking in percentages of market penetration, so overall population and economic productivity is relatively moot. Any conclusions as to "superiority" are purely fabrications of the reader's imagination.
As for "Mi-detroit-motor-city-chigan", as you point out: Detroit is the biggest part of Michigan, and has a strong effect on the mix of vehicles that it purchases.
Personally, I'd like to keep chickens in the yard for eggs and the occasional BBQ, commute to work via photons on fiber instead of in a metal box, ban sales of new diesel burning vehicles and immediately shut down all coal fired electrical generation (in favor of _anything_ that doesn't put heavy metal particulates into the air my children breathe, and the soil their food is grown from.) But, that's my bias, and irrelevant to the story.
The story is about progress "in the market" - and it's the market that has to be convinced to stop destroying the environment before there's nothing left to destroy, not me.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday May 26 2017, @01:18PM (2 children)
The reason I asked "Is that what you mean?" was that I was unsure of your meaning.
> What I'm saying is that California is biased to buy EVs, Michigan is not.
I don't dispute that.
> I'm speaking in percentages of market penetration, so overall population and economic productivity is relatively moot.
When you write "wake me up" that suggests to me that you find the story insignificant. If, as I guess from the story, roughly 2 million vehicles are sold yearly in California, I see some significance to the U.S. market where around 17 million were sold last year.
https://www.nada.org/nada-economic-briefing-first-quarter-2017/ [nada.org]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 26 2017, @06:21PM (1 child)
so, 5 percent of 2 million were EVs, the article didn't get into overall US market penetration.
Yes, I consider the "Greenest" state going from 2.5% EV to 5% EV insignificant.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Friday May 26 2017, @08:51PM
> the article didn't get into overall US market penetration.
Right, I worked it out for myself and posted as a reply to the article. Cheers.