placeholder

Funny. Not so long ago expats were complaining if they couldn't get vaccinated here. That the Thai government was discriminating against them.

What exactly do you mean by "To say people should be forced to get vaccinated to protect others is weak."? We had hospital ICU's overflowing with vaccine refuseniks. What's "weak" about putting a stop to that kind of disaster?

And if a financial advisor tells someone to invest all their money in the lottery because they can win millions, is that a lie? Does it matter that, technically speaking, it's true?

So false. Remember not too long ago about how measles was back because of the nonsense propagated by anti-vaxxers? And how they were endangering communities? America’s Measles Crisis Amid the Anti-Vaccine Movement "Fauci best describes strong herd immunity as “even if someone enters into the community who is measles infected, the measles virus will have little opportunity to spread because most of the community is already vaccinated.” In a community, there are certain people with immunodeficiencies who cannot get vaccinated, thus making them highly vulnerable to diseases such as measles. The herd, which is the vaccinated population, protect the vulnerable ones from the spread of the virus." https://pha.berkeley.edu/2019/12/01/americas-measles-crisis-amid-the-anti-vaccine-movement/

Actuallly, your reasons why EV will fail in Thailand could also have been applied with little change to show why automobiles would never replace the horse-and-buggy. It is true that currently most electricity in Thailand is produced by fossil fuels. But that should change as solar and wind continue to decline in cost. As for farmland being used instead for solar energy. Are you aware that most of the gasoline/petrol in use in Thailand is supplemented with alcohol distilled from various crops and diesel is supplemented with bio-diesel? In addition, the amount of land needed for solar power is far less than its opponents would have you believe. If all electric power in the US were provided by solar, that would amount to about 10,000 square miles. https://www.vivintsolar.com/learning-center/how-many-solar-panels-to-power-the-usa Which is roughly 0.3% of the continental US land mass. Also, there is no reason why solar and farming can't share the same space. Agrovoltaics is just in its initial stages but research is promising. And this takes no account of wind power. As for SF6 guess, it is a real problem. But not an unsolvable one. If you get through the BBC article you linked to, you'll not that SF6 is not being used in a huge new wind farm. So the problem is beginning to be addressed.

Actually, the case for warming being due to the fact that we're in an interglacial period is false. It's true that we're in an interglacial period. But warming actually reached its highest level about 7000 years ago. Since then, there's been a very very slow decline in average global temperature until the extraordinary recent spike. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”

China’s Popular Electric Vehicles Have Put Europe’s Automakers on Notice The name MG used to be synonymous with spirited but finicky sports cars from Britain. Nowadays the iconic octagonal badge serves a different kind of motoring ambition: China’s push to become a big player in the global auto market. SAIC Motor, one of China’s Big Four automakers, bought the MG brand in 2007 and is stamping it on a line of electric sport utility vehicles on sale in Germany and other European markets. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/31/business/electric-cars-china-europe.html The article goes on to say that almost 10% of autos sold in Western Europe are EVs and that MG has 350 dealers in Europe with more on the way.

Who said we are near extinction? Michael Moore? What are you on about?

That is what i meant. Thanks. I corrected it.

Just a few minutes ago you wrote this: "I don't need anyone to tell me their BS. Prefer to think for myself." But apparently it does depend on who is doing the telling.

So you want people to watch a highly defective documentary in order to arrive at that realization? What I don't understand is why people rely on films and video for information at all. Written words are obviously a far better source. They take up less time and are easier to fact check. I guess the dyslexic might have a good reason to use them for information, but as for the rest of us, at least those of us who are literate, not so much.

So why mention Moore's political opinions at all? Clearly irrelevant here. In fact, misleading, since support on the left is very strong for renewables and EVs and Moore is clearly an exception.

When I was about to go for my license renewal someone told me that if I went the day after it's expiration, my new license would be valid for 5 years +364 days . I was dubious but I gave it a try and it turned out to be true. Don't know if it still works or not. EDIT: originally stated "a year plus 364 days".

Would you rather it come from some right wing extremist? Because that's where the overwhelming majority of denialists are coming from.

As for computers in Internal Combustion Engine vehicles: How cars have become rolling computers The average car today can have between 25 and 50 central processing units (CPUs) controlling these functions and more, often networked but sometimes operating independently. The level of sophistication is likely to rise as self-driving vehicles move closer to mass production. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/how-cars-have-become-rolling-computers/article29008154/ And this article was published over 5 years ago. And finally I will conclude with a quote from you: 55555555555555555

Michael Moore produced a film about climate change that’s a gift to Big Oil Planet of the Humans deceives viewers about clean energy and climate activists. https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21238597/michael-moore-planet-of-the-humans-climate-change Michael Moore’s ‘Planet of the Humans’ documentary peddles dangerous climate denial The YouTube film offers outdated and wildly misleading information on renewable energy, sacrificing progress in pursuit of unachievable perfection. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/05/michael-moores-planet-of-the-humans-documentary-peddles-dangerous-climate-denial/ Fact Check: Planet of the Humans Gets It Fundamentally Wrong on Renewable Energy https://acore.org/fact-check-planet-of-the-humans-gets-it-fundamentally-wrong-on-renewable-energy/

You should definitely get in touch with EV manufacturers and tell them "computers don't last". We can be sure that these engineers won't laugh at your advice because they know nothing about this: Rugged computer A rugged, or ruggedized computer is a computer specifically designed to operate reliably in harsh usage environments and conditions, such as strong vibrations, extreme temperatures and wet or dusty conditions.[1] They are designed from inception for the type of rough use typified by these conditions, not just in the external housing but in the internal components and cooling arrangements as well.[2] Typical environments for rugged laptops, tablet PCs and PDAs are public safety, field sales, field service, manufacturing, retail, healthcare, construction, transportation/distribution[3] and the military. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugged_computer

I, for one, read your post. Did you? Here it is in full: "So do we kick the can down the road until we see these available for reasonable cost? Everything seems to be 'coming', yet everything we use seems to depend on polluting batteries that get thrown away and have hardly changed in decades." What does "everything" mean to you?

You're long on attitude and short on facts.

For example: Everything You Need To Know About Tesla’s New 4680 Battery Cell https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/22/everything-you-need-to-know-about-teslas-new-4680-battery-cell/

I think we can both agree that we hope that the probably fictional party in question is on the mend.

Just a tinge? And what about that clickbait name chosen for the topic?

Batteries have hardly changed in decades? You sure you want to stick to that position?

Those prices you cherry picked are for completely depreciated plants only.

No, the Lazard figures don't differ much from the previous year at all when fossil fuel prices were low. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/