KhaoYai

It certainly does but could it be that that flexibility is the root cause of the problem? There is, as far as I know, no limit to the amount of entries one can make to Thailand and likewise to the total amount of time that can be spent in the country - other than in most cases, a stay has a maximum time limit of 90 days + potential extensions. Nevertheless, it is possible to leave and enter again immediately. That leaves Immigration Officers with the possiblity of refusing entry to anyone they see fit. Not that I'm suggesting they would do that for no reason but in the past, when, in the I.O.'s opinion, someone has entered too many times, they have found a reason to deny them entry that fits with the rules they do have (usually not having the required 20,000 baht). However, I suspect that far more people have been warned to get a visa (as is the case with the OP) than have been denied. I don't know the rules in all countries but certainly the UK for example, has a total time spent limit of 6 months in 12. Further, once that limit has been reached, the entrant must stay out of the country for 6 months. It would be much better if Thailand had a written policy with limits - it must be a hell of a disappointment to be denied entry and no doubt a lot of money has been lost, but knowing how things are in Thailand, I can't see that ever happening.

I wish people would stop posting about how they've been entering Thailand visa exempt on multiple occasions for many years and never had a problem. That's not very helpful is it? Prior to covid there were often reports of people who'd been denied entry. On each occasion that I saw on here, the I.O. had used the old - 'you don't have 20,000 baht in cash excuse' because there is no actual law that prevents multiple entries (at airports). You may well have entered plenty of times on visa exempts - if someone's posting about a denial or a warning, what are you suggesting they do next time? Enter exempt again and tell the I.O. its fine, plenty of other people have told me they do it all the time? In terms of the total amount of daily visa exempt entries, I'm pretty sure the number of denials is very low but it can and does happen. The last thing an enquirer wants to read is how you've never had a problem, he/she's got one!

Not that you would be in a position to argue with an I.O. on entry but: I was given a similar warning a few years back and questioned the I.O. as to what the problem was. Another, possibly higher ranking I.O. who spoke better English joined the conversation. I asked him why they should be worried about someone visiting regularly and was told that the suspicion was that people who visited regularly were working in the country illegally. In other countries you would simply provide proof of your employment and that should deal with the problem. However, we are talking about Thailand and if the I.O. wants to refuse entry, there's not a lot you can do. Apparently you can appeal but from what I'm told, you're locked up in an immigration jail whilst that's decided. I don't see why you can't be considered as a tourist - you spend your time off work in Thailand, presumably relaxing. Is that not a holiday? Next time you arrive (hopefully successfully) I would go to the immigration counter, with proof of your employment and ask for advice. They have the ability to add notes to the passport details they hold on you. Its unllikely that they will help but they certainly won't if you don't ask. If by any chance, you are already married to a Thai, you could travel to a neighbouring country and obtain a 12 month Multi Entry Non O. There are still a few consulates that offer that visa. One point that may help: Prior to covid, quite a few people reported that they were either given a hard time on entry or were actually denied. On the vast majority of the posts that I read on the subject, the I.O. concerned was female. Perhaps being careful over which queue you join will have a bearing on your chances.

Thanks for that but I can't see anywhere in his post where he says he's already had an extension. Has he posted about this on another thread or something?

I've never been denied an extension but mine were extending a NON O for the purpose of visiting my wife. I was however, under the impression that any stay can be extended once - why would he be denied? Serious question, not trying to be a smart Alec.

Coming from both the automotive and construction industries, I have an understanding of vehicles and I've also been involved in the laying of electricity cables. Cables are mostly, as you will know, run in conduits. Those conduits whilst being bigger than the cables themselves, are limited as to how big a cable they will accept. On a drawing it all looks good, you drag one cable out and install another. In practice that can't be done. Main power cables have 'T's' off them that feed sub stations and then go down in size with 'T's' off to individual supplies. The amount of additional power that will be required to supply EV charging systems will not only require upgrading of the T's to indivdual supplies, it is almost certain that in most locations, the main cable will have to be upgraded. How do you drag a cable through a conduit when it has T's off it? You don't is the answer, you have to dig it up. On the other matters, I think you've hit the nail on the head - human greed. Maybe not so much human greed as human/commercial greed. That's been the problem in the past and without fully investigating matters, will almost certainly have a bearing on what's going on now. When we put profit over environmental cost, we will always receive a bill. The bill for what we've done over the last 250 years is now overdue for payment and it seems, that our supposed quest for clean energy is also going to have a cost. It beggars belief that, facing such a serious crisis as we do now, we appear to have learned nothing. We are already causing massive damage to the jungles of Africa and Asia in order to provide the batteries for our 'clean vehicles'. But, just as it is with rubbish from Europe being dumped in places like Turkey, the jungles of Africa and Asia are thousands of miles away and out of sight. I wonder how many people would buy an EV if photos of the mining needed to make the batteries that run those EV's were stood next to the vehicle in the showroom? How many would buy if they could see the children working in those mines and the names of the people that have died there? The TV adverts that are used to sell EV's project happy families driving around in their 'clean vehicles' all smiling - maybe they should show chemicals being injected into mountain-sides as well as the thousands if not millions of trees that have been cut down to allow the mining to take place. As an aside, when considering the amount of additional electricity required to power electric vehicles, we should also acknowledge that there are other new technologies that are creating massive demands on the power network. The internet and in particular 'The Cloud', require huge amounts of power. For years we've been seeing more efficient electrical appliances being introduced - I thought we would actually be using less electricty now. The facts are that we are already using far more than we ever did - and that's without EV's.

Think yourself lucky things didn't go well and lead to a second date. That would have involved dinner for her entire family, her neighbours and her pet dog. It would have set you back at least 15,000 + you'd need to have a blessing by the local Monk and they're not cheap ????.

I note that in typical Thai fashion, its not 1 on 1 - looks like at least 4 on 1 but one guy does at least appear to be trying to stop the punches. So brave those Thai bouncers!

Well its not really off topic as the whole point in Toyota producing the new engine is to meet emmissions standards that we are told are required to combat Climate Change. Of course I'm not suggesting any culling or any 'one child' policy as China did. What I am saying is that there probably isn't a solution and I'm not alone in believing that we have both left it too late to tackle climate change and that the environmental consequences of changing to battery powered EV's seem to be being ignored. On the face of it, it would appear that hydrogen power may be a better solution but that may also have consequences, I haven't looked into to that. If I am wrong and its not too late then we are at the very least on our last chance - and that's why we must get this right. Your comments on cabling are totally without understanding of the mechanics involved and do you not think that if batteries could be produced in an environmentally friendly manner, they would be? Today's batteries are the result of many years of experimentation with different materials. Did you bother to read the links I posted regarding the environmental and social issues that are taking place as a result of mining for rare earth metals in Africa as we write? There were scientists and scholars around 250 years ago - maybe they didn't fully understand the consequences of the smoke that was belching out of the chimneys of the rapidly springing up factories in the North of England where the Industrial Revolution began. However, I don't think anyone needed to be particularly intelligent to know that no good could come of it. Gouging out vast swathes of virgin jungle, pumping toxic chemicals into the mountains of Africa, caring little for the health of the people working in the mines - doesn't sound an awful lot different to what went on in the UK 250 years ago. You don't solve one problem by creating another and as I say, this time we must get it right.I firmly believe that its too late for that but even if that view is wrong, some of the world's leading scientists agree that the measures being taken to tackle Climate Change fall woefully short of what's required. Why? Because to do what's necessary would mean a complete sea change in our attitudes to both production and and consumption and there's no will to do that - just as there's no will to reduce the world's population. The economy rather than the environment will always come first to the majority of people and their governments. Of course vehicles that run on fuels that are not damaging to the environment will go some way towards tackling the issues the world faces and on the face of it, it seems that Hydrogen power is far less damaging. However, as Isaac Newton said 'for every action in nature, there is an equal and opposite reaction'. Translated into environmental terms - that would be 'for every action, there are environmental consequences'. Its our duty to take the path that creates the least damage. If Toyota's engine makes a contribution towards the environmental defecit we face then it can only be good news. One of the most difficult issues to tackle in human transport is the pollution created by aircraft - I'm no expert but it seems to me that the technology being employed by Toyota in their new engine would be far easier to adapt for air transport than batteries could ever be.

When I wrote the above post I couldn't find the article I was looking for - a report into the use of Ammonium Sulphate to mine Rare Earth Metals in Congo. Apparently this chemical is injected into mountain sides at high pressure in some form of leach mining. I can't find that report at the moment but as a result, I found that even more environmental damage is being caused by the same process in Myanmar. If you care about the planet and the health of the people that are mining these metals you might find this website very interesting. It will probably prevent me from ever buying an EV: https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/natural-resource-governance/myanmars-poisoned-mountains/ Sorry to repeat myself but I am even more convinced now that the solutions to climate change are far more likely to be found in population reduction than any other measure.

I think you're over-simplyfying the electricty supply matter. At the moment it seems to be working but there are only a small amount of EV's on the road in most countries. The additional supply they will require will mean; first of all, additional power stations, then digging up all the roads to bring the supply to charging points. In addition, the average home doesn't have enough current for a fast charger so those that want that capability will have to have their supply upgraded = more supply so more cabling and more disruption. In the UK we don't really notice these problems at the moment but they will come as EV sales increase. I can only comment on the situation in the UK - I have no knowledge of other countries but: There are varying opinions on supply - some say infrastructure is already in place, others say its not. Last year I talked with some guys from the National Grid who were repairing an underground cable outside my home. They told me that the grid itself won't cope as some nuclear power stations are being decommissioned shortly and a lack of planning means that their replacements won't come on stream for several years after they close. They also confirmed that there will be major disruption as many areas don't have cabling that will cope with additional supply. I tend to believe these guys as they work in the real world, they don't have any commercial or political interest in the matter. I also asked them about some claims that the UK already has the cabling infrastructure to cope with the expected demand. They said that (discounting the closing power station matter above) the total capacity available in the UK is enough to more than cope with EV requirements - on paper. But they said, the figures for estimated supply/available supply are simply numbers. True numbers but those numbers include supplies to redundant former industrial areas/sites. In short, there is capacity but its in the wrong places. Hence there will be major disruption and cost whilst new cabling is installed. Don't get me wrong, I'm neither for or against EV's, I just think we need to get it right. The Chinese idea of having battery swap stations seems far better - less supplies in fewer areas. The hydrogen combustion engine, if it can be made safe, seems a much better solution to me - for one thing, we already have the servicing and repair availability for such vehicles as in essence, they don't seem much different to petrol/diesel engines. It would, I believe, not be too difficult to convert many existing petrol stations to hydrogen and there would be much less need for new cabling and the disruption it causes. I have also talked to a few EV owners who tell me that whilst they are generally happy with their cars, the manufacturers claims on mileage between charges are vastly over-estimated. Apparently if you drive at night and use the heater, those figures drop dramatically. Human activity has caused massive damage to this planet and it seems we have learned nothing from past mistakes. People may be interested to see exactly how the metals required for EV battery production are mined, who is mining them and what environmental impacts there are. You might find these articles interesting: https://earth.org/environmental-impact-of-battery-production/ https://unctad.org/news/developing-countries-pay-environmental-cost-electric-car-batteries I am very sceptical of claims made regarding anything environmental these days. I've seen several programmes that expose what's really going on and its worrying. Remember, we are supposed to be urgently trying to avoid a climate crisis - not create other problems. For example, the UK's local authorities have been directed to recycle XX% ? of its rubbish. To achieve those targets, many local authorities have paid private companies to take their rubbish and recycle it. A recent BBC investigation found rubbish from the UK dumped in Turkey. On a BBC radio programme the former manager of a recycling plant told investigators that much of what was taken to the plant he worked at was not recycled at all - it wasn't profitable to do so. What really happened was that the figures were falsified. The local authority used the figures for the tonnage taken to the plant by them and totally ignored the fact that much of that tonnage was actually being dumped at landfill/burned. As I say, I'm not for against any of the current solutions, what I want to see is the truth - not the 'truth' that is told by those with commercial/political interests. The fact of the matter I believe, is that if we could achieve (pie in the sky) a serious reduction in the world's population, that would do far more to solve climate change than anything because it affects so many things - not just what type of vehicle we drive. Is that likely to happen? Not a hope in hell.

Never had it done free - had around 4 and they've always charged me 500 baht. OP, you shouldn't have any problems with the officers at Korat but don't ever get on the wrong side of them. A friend of mine did and everything he needs to do now is either made impossible or takes forever. The only way to deal with them once that happens is through a lawyer.

People consume. Thus, if the world's population increases there will be higher consumption. Whilst I have no time for 'religious maniacs' - the problem is not who consumes, its simply the amount of consumption. The world's current economic model, capitalist or otherwise, relies on us all having more, newer, the latest model etc. etc. and the economists tell us that there must be growth. Therefore, under the current system, we actually rely on increasing consumption.

Solar certainly makes sense in countries like Thailand where sunshine is abundant. I don't understand why the government doesn't give some sort of assistance to people to encourage them to install it. Oh, silly me, I'm forgetting that the Thai government doesn't do anything that doesn't increase the wealth of its members. In the private sector, mortgage providers could increase loans to include the cost of solar installation. I will be installing solar in my Thai home next year. I doubt I'll live long enough to get any payback but I'm not doing it for that - its just the right thing to to and I can afford it.

It was quite a few years ago when I read about the problems associated with the storage of Hydrogen - that may have improved. I do get my knickers in a twist about CNG powered vehicles - I've seen some of the horrors when accidents have occurred in them. Science will help slow Climate Change down, it will not solve it. Broken down to basic maths - 5 into 4 doesn't go. You cannot take out more than you put in. We have to start taking care of what we do to this planet, not just talking about it. That would involve a complete change of mindset and our reliance on 'the economy'. It doesn't really matter which nations are increasing their populations - there have been far too many people for at least a century and the world's population continues to grow. It is currently standing at almost 7.9 billion and is projected to reach 9.7 billion in just 27 years!!! How does who grows matter?