I’ve seen 5 of them in town, here in Newark, DE. There’s another one that I frequently see when I’m commuting to King of Prussia. While that’s not many, it’s more than none.
So to speak.
When referring to a rat’s ass, I believe it’s called the NIMH phenomonon. Believe it or not, that’s how I first read it, anyway 
You invoked “coal”, and thus I came.
CO is not a serious pollutant from coal plants. Nor are particulates, for the most part. NO[sub]x[/sub] is, CO[sub]2[/sub] is, and, a BIG one you left out, SO[sub]2[/sub] is.
What does “some NO[sub]x[/sub]” mean, w.r.t. natural gas power production? NO[sub]x[/sub] is the prime regulated pollutant from gas turbines.
So that’s the reason they can’t keep them in stock!
I was wondering, here I though they were selling every one they made.
Okay, they might not be able to do anything about CARB, but they could lobby other state legislatures and discourage them from creating similar legislation, threaten to withhold campaign contributions and things like that. You know, the usual political crap.
1876: “Why would anyone buy a telephone? They’re expensive and we already have the telegraph.”
1978: “Why would anyone want to buy a VCR? They’re so expensive and who watches that much TV anyway?”
1982: “Who would buy a home computer? They’re so expensive and I can’t think of what anyone would do with them.”
1996: “Why would anyone buy DVDs? The players cost lots more than VCRs and you can’t record with them.”
The point, of course, is that all technology is very expensive when it is new and the usefulness is not always immediately apparent. All successful technology is first an expensive luxury toy only the wealthy can afford, then it’s a less-expensive luxury that the wealthy buy to impress the neighbors and to show off their wealth, then it’s a moderate luxury that even the middle-class can afford, then it eventually becomes a necessity that is affordable by all but the very poor. Right now, alternatives to the internal-combustion engine is at the “expensive luxury toy” stage. Perhaps in fifty years or so, it will become a necessity that nearly anyone has to have. (But this depends upon many things: How fast will the U.S. population continue to grow? Will it eventually flatten out and even decline? Can we continue to find petroleum and extract it economically? Can we make the i-c engine even more fuel-efficient and pollute even less?)
Same here in Sebastopol, CA (note, we’re a “Nuclear Free Zone”, and our city council has a Green Party majority) - many Honda Insights, several Toyota Prius’, and a smattering of Corbin Sparrows - http://www.corbinmotors.com .
I’m all for electric/hybrid vehicles, but comparing them to new technologies like the telephone, VCR, home computer, et al is flawed. A much better analogy would be to say “Who needs a solar powered home computer? We already have one that works off the wall outlet.” There’s perfectly valid reasons that immediately appeal to the public eye to switch engine types. Diesel engines in ships represented a visible benefit from steam power. Steam powered ships were obviously faster and more reliable than wind power. Most reviews that I’ve read for electric/hybrid cars have them as handling and accelerating slightly worse than traditional engines. I’m not arguing the benefits of an electric/hybrid motor, but the only obvious benefits they give is decreased pollution and less money spent at the pump. While these may be wonderful, they don’t come close to comparing with steam over diesel, VCRs over not seeing your program, the telephone over the telegraph, television over radio or whatever other historical example you want to come up with. Until gasoline becomes ungodly expensive (which can’t yet be the case if people are still willing to drive inefficent status vehicles) or the new cars start driving at least as well as traditional ones, I don’t see a mass uproar for their purchase happening.
Again, I’m all for them, but let’s keep some perspective.