Longwood50

4 minutes ago, macahoom said:

Hello. Can you please give me a link to where I can find these figures?

https://www.electrifying.com/reviews/mg/zs-ev/performance

22 hours ago, KhunLA said:

I ran the numbers, and I think ROI would be well worth the extra money with the ZS EV vs ICE.

Well excuse me for suggesting that the U.S. Department of Energy may have a bit more expertise than "your calculation" 
Here is what its calculator estimated comparing a BMW 5 series to a Tesla S.  Notice they estimated the "total cost" of the Tesla to be higher. 

Also your notion of having to pay cash and having "no cost" is nonsensicle.  If I purchase a car and finance it, that additional amount has a finance cost.  However if I withdraw money from my investment account and only withdraw 799,000 baht and not 1.19 million baht, I have another 320,000 baht EARNING MONEY in my investment account.  Even earning a modest 5% rate of return on that money means the extra 320,000 cost me 527,072.

So there may be many reasons to buy an EV but I suggest "saving money" is not one of them.  If a person was only concerned with saving money, they would buy a 10 year old gas powered vehicle with nominal value. The estimated total cost of owning a new car ranges from $7,000 for a small sedan to over $`10,000 for a truck.  So even if a person was paying upwards of $2,500 per year for petrol it is only a fraction of the total expense and the person is only saving a portion of that by switching to electric. 

If the case for Electric Vehicles is so compelling then why is it that governments around the world are providing cash subsidies and having to ban ICE vehicles in order to entice people to buy them. 

Throughout history better technology is recognized by consumers and they rush to it.  

No one subsidizes an Iphone though it is far more expensive than other phones.  No one had to entice customers to purchase a cell phone rather than a land line.  No one has to entice customers to switch to inverter AC when replacing an AC unit. 
No one had to entice customers to purchase an LED television set vs. a Plasma, or conventional TV.  No one had to provide any incentives or ban VCR's in order for people to purchase digital video recorders. 

Isn't it strange that will all the accolades and attributes you believe EV vehicles provide that they appear to be the only area that government has to step in to provide cash subsidy offsets and ban their ICE alternatives in order for consumers to believe they are worth it. 



https://afdc.energy.gov/calc/

20 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

But even if you bit the bullet and spent the $14K for all new, that should be good for another ten years, yes? 

Yes but using that logic a person can buy a 10 year old gas powered vehicle and replace the engine.  

I am not anti EV I just think that those who profess that they are "saving money" are not taking into account the higher cash outlay, up front, the loss of income on that extra money, the lower residual value, the cost of the charging station.  They are also assuming that electric rates will be low, which may or may not be true. 

Again, you may have googled it however if that was "retail" pricing at a dealer that is not what you as an owner would get.  It would also "likely" include a battery replacement since I can not imagine a dealer selling a ten year old Tesla with a ten year old battery in it.  

This is Kelly Blue Book what is the most recognized source of used car pricing in the USA.  Here is what they say the ten year old Tesla S. Top model is selling for at private party sale. 

19 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

That is not why I would buy a hybrid. I would buy a hybrid for the extra 130hp-ish kick I would get went pulling away or when passing

Well the reports are with the MG ZS which is what I was comparing shows the EV will go 0-60 KPR in 8.2 seconds while the gas model which is turbo will go 0-100 KPR in 8.2 seconds. 

18 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

Edited 11 minutes ago by VocalNeal

He says that batteries will not be "thrown away"  Again, maybe true but here is what is said about lithium car batteries and recycling. 

 

Are Lithium Car Batteries Recyclable?

Although lithium car batteries are recyclable, it is a costly and energy-intensive process. One significant setback is the modular composition of the battery cells within a battery pack. The cells are welded and glued together with such solidity that breaking them down requires a lot of human or machine power and emits greenhouse gasses along the way.

Most commonly, lithium batteries are recycled in large plants by a process of shredding the whole battery down to a powder. This powder is then either smelted (pyrometallurgy) or dissolved in acid (hydrometallurgy), thereby extracting the individual elements for resale.

One problem with this process is that when you remove the scarce, expensive metals like cobalt from the battery, the recycling industry is left with a lower value product to resell. Lithium is so cheap to mine so there’s no incentive to recycle the lithium in car batteries. Ironically, removing controversial elements like cobalt from the battery makes the process less worthwhile for companies that recycle lithium car batteries

19 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Don't need to attend either.  It's a battery & an electric motor.  Pretty simple stuff.  Unplug, plug in,

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

Owners of Tesla 3 would definitely disagree. 

My point is that I am making an guess that the value of used EV whether Tesla or other brands will depreciate very fast. 

I can't believe that people are going to take a 7 or 10 year old car that requires a very expensive battery replacement without a huge discount.  Since technology is rapidly improving the quality, performance, and range of electric vehicles since the were first generation, I would be surprised if the residual value of them is anything but nominal after 10 years.  

If and I repeat if I am correct a person evaluating if EV are cost effective has to take into account the loss of value.  Also If I have to spend more for an EV lets take an MG ZS.  The top model gas has an MSRP of 799,000 baht.  The EV model is 1,190,000 baht.  So just to get my money back, I have to save enough over 10 years to recoup 391,000 baht.  That says nothing about the "opportunity cost" loss from not having that extra 391,000 invested for ten years.  

So at least for me, I question if electric cars when you add up all the additional costs such as the home charger, and likely battery replacement at 7 - 10 years, the additional MSRP, and the loss of income on the additional cost if a person truly saves. 

So much of this is a "guestimate"  Will petrol prices continue to climb.  Will electric rates stay stable.  Will resale values be strong or weak on used EV's.  

Who knows. I know I won't purchase an all EV vehicle.  Not because of the cost or projected savings but because of the inconvenience of having to put a charger in my home, the lack of charging stations nation wide.  The uncertainty about the dealerships having adequate repair knowledge on EV vehicles, 

I know I don't want to be on a road trip to Phuket from Pattaya and be constantly worried about finding a charging station and then when I do find one having to park there while the car charges. 
 

19 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Before

I would imagine that is a guess.  However I am not sure where you "cherry picked" the resale value of the Tesla at.  However if you go to Kelly Blue Book the private party value of a 2012 Top Model Performance S. is with average mileage and average condition is as follows.  The trade in value is less.  The retail value is irrelevant since you are not a car dealer. 

It is not known if the used car values reflect if the battery pack has been changed.  If it has, the original owner got very little residual value from the 10 year old Tesla.  If it has not, the person paying $18,000 - $20,000 and facing a $20,000 expense to put in a new "high performance" battery pack is crazy.  That would mean the person is paying almost 50% of the cost of a new Tesla for a ten year old car. 

19 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

It is almost certain the new battery technology can be incorporated into a ten year old car. 

And did you attend MIT or Cal Tech? 

19 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Volt was a total joke, and shouldn't even be mentioned in any intelligent conversation about any cars

Yes it was, and perhaps we will be saying the same thing about the first genration Tesla as well.  

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

So after 10 years the Tesla cost of ownership is less than a similarly prices BMW330i, yes? 

Again, not my calculations.  But rather a very renowned financial magazine calclulated that the TESLA was slightly more expensive over 5 years. 

Here is another question.  Is that 10 year old TESLA value before or after a battery replacement?  If it is afterwards you have to factor in the $15,000 to $20,000 that someone had to pay to extend the life of the car. 

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

As far as range, the batteries will likely improve (at least somewhat) over the next ten years which should extend the range of the old vehicles as well. 

Perhaps, but that is an assumption.  I would think that future advances in EV cars are from a combination of improved batteries and improved efficiencies of other technologies incorporated into the car.  

Even assuming that the "new" batteries can be incorporated into a 10 year old car it would mean that the old car would only be receiving the benefits of the improved battery and not other advancements in the new EV. 

One thing is for sure. Here is what Kelly Blue Book says a 10 year old Chevy Volt is worth.  They originally sold with a MSRP of just over $40,000 USD.  

6 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

My calculations definitely proved to me, they'll pay for themselves way before the 8 yr warranty expires.

Perhaps but here is what Forbes said.  It also said that the cost effectiveness of an electric car depends on assumptions on fuel/electricity in the future. Whether you drive in the city, or mostly highway.  That EV efficienty goes down much more rapidly than an gas power car on hilly terrain and in cold temperatures. 

A 10 year old BMW ICE still has residual value.  I question how much residual value there will be in a 10 year old Tesla given the expense of the battery replacement and the likelihood that newer generation electric cars will likely prove so much more efficient as to render them worthless.  If that is true, the person must factor in the near total loss in value of the original purchase price of a car.  I know this for sure.  I purchased a Lexus RX 400H and paid $10,000 more for it than the identical ICE RX350 SUV.  4 years later the resale value of the hybrid was exactly the same as the gas model and I got no better mileage.  So was the investment worth it.  Absolutely not. 

On 1/10/2022 at 6:21 PM, 2009 said:

Ever heard of the sun?

Yes, and do you know The toxic chemicals in solar panels include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride. Additionally, silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of producing crystalline silicon, is highly toxic.

At present there is a huge bias not to recycle a solar panel.  

With the current capacity, it costs an estimated $20-30 to recycle one panel. Sending that same panel to a landfill would cost a mere $1-2. The direct cost of recycling is only part of the end-of-life burden.  In a landfill it leaves the toxic chemicals to leach into the soil.  So "clean" hardly. 

On 1/20/2022 at 3:52 PM, BritManToo said:

Tesla batteries last less than 10 years and cost $22,000 (US) to replace.

Are you sure they'll pay for themselves?

It is not just the cost of the replacement.  If a current Tesla gets lets say 400 KM to a charge and 10 years from now a new Tesla gets 1,000 who will want the ten year old Tesla at any price. 

On 1/10/2022 at 9:16 AM, KhunLA said:

Price is the sticking point for me.  Even though long run, they'll pay for themselves vs petrol & maintenance, that's a big leap for range and performance / highway speed. 

Perhaps they pay for themselves?  At this point it is a guess.  Most of the comparison's show current fuel price to electric  They fail to take a number of things into consideration.  1. The higher price of the EV to begin with so more money "invested" in car  2. The current electric rate for home use, rather than the higher rate of electric if you use a commercial charging station.  3. The cost of the home electric charging station which is expensive and will be lost if you ever sell the home.  4. The residual value of the EV when you go to sell.  As those cars reach the time of having the batteries replaced and new technology makes them far less attractive the resale value will plummet. 

I have a hybrid toyota I get approximately 18 kilometers per litre.  No charging station, and no worries about having to search out a charging station on a route. 

For now, I think the jury is still out on whether electric cars are truly more cost effective.  I even question if the conversion to electric is not just trading one form of pollution for another.  

For the foreseeable future power plant generation will be dependent on fossil fuels.  So the cars don't burn it but the power plants do.  Also the mining, manufacturing, and disposal of car batteries is one of the most polluting group of processes that mankind is involved in. 
 

17 minutes ago, Speedhump said:

I never accept the refusals of the floor staff, I very politely escalate it to whoever is the most senior person on duty (usually claims to be manager,

Yes probably could have pushed it.  If in the USA I would certainly do.  Here, I guess I don't want to foster the reputation as the obstinate farang.  

More often than not, if I am returning something it is because I purchased an adequate amount of the item such as PVC connectors so that I don't get in the middle of the job and run short.  If they were used, I could understand but brand new with a receipt and a recent purchase and yet there is a push back.  

The USA goes too far the other way.  People with small children purchase shoes use them for a few weeks then return them when the child outgrows them.  The stores are so fearful of alienating a customer that they just accept them. 

1 hour ago, Banana7 said:

Looking for genuine Brother toner TN-267BK and the colours. Shopee and Lazada have sellers with a wide variety of prices from 1,490 to 2,890 toner baht for the black toner.

I am not familiar with that particular cartridge but I have owned several Brother multi function printers over the years.  I always go for the generic replacement and have found them to work just as good as the new.  Most products are built by a few manufacturers who produce OEM products and aftermarket under generic names.  

I have adopted the thought that it is better to go with a generic at a far lower price and throw it away if it didn't perform and buy another than paying the huge money for the OEM.  

I have even reloaded cartridges buying only the toner powder and replacement chip.  The chips are easy.  The refilling of the toner is a bit messy and if not sealed properly can lead to toner powder in the printer. 

 

25 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

He has his passport.

He going to immigration to get the stamp for his one year extension of stay stamp done at immigration at the end of a 30 day under consideration period.

Perhaps I misunderstoon but this was in his post. 

Apologies, but just want to see if anyone can tell me if my Thai wife MUST go with me to immigration (Korat) when I go to pick up my passport after the 'under consideration

It sounds to me as if he was asking if his wife needed to be with him to pick up his passport. 
 

Just a guess on my part but I would think if you have the card to pick up your passport, I doubt anyone will ask you when it is presented to show your wife.  When I have picked up my passport at Chonburi immigration, I hand the small numbered tag to the person at counter 8, she retrieves the passport and hands it to me.  They don't even verify if they gave you the correct passport or look at the picture to see if it is you. 

16 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Hopefully you would be fair to the next minority applicant and not punish her based on a bad experience with one of your hires.

She was "not my hire"  She was a person who I inherited when I took over as the divison head.  She actually reported to a female department head who reported to me.  I had to address the problem when she brought it to my attention along with the documentation of poor performance "she" gave the employee for several years. 

My point is that laws that "protect" certain classes give them "rights" that are superior to those that don't.  That can give a hiring manager pause in terms of considering future candidates fearing that if they make a mistake in hiring they can do little to remedy it.  If they make a mistake in hiring a member of a non-protective class they can immediately take actions to terminate them.  That perversely works against protected class employees who are qualified, 

In my experience, these protected class laws only benefit and are used by problem employees.  They use their age, race, sexual orientation as a weapon and defense.  The truly good employee does not need such protection.  Companies are loathe to rid themselves of a good employee irrespective of race, color, creed, or sexual orientation.  They are too hard to find. 

 

13 hours ago, Speedhump said:

I've returned things to Home Pro, Lotus and Makro, never a problem.

I have just found that the stores here are particularly difficult with returns.  At Makro I had a bad case of coke, it was flat.  They would not take back because " I had opened two bottles"  Yes the first one was flat so I opened a second one.  When both were flat I attempted to return the remainder.  The two opened but flat bottles still contained almost all of the coke. 

Thaiwatsadu is the store that when I returned some extra PVC fittings that I did not use would only provide store credit and when I did not buy enough to cover the return demanded I buy more until I used up the entire credit. 

 

37 minutes ago, Nojohndoe said:

And that is how distorted it has  become

Yes, I can tell you from personal experience that I had a female minority employee that was terrible.   Despite numerous documented instances of poor behavior, attendance and job performance Human Resources would not allow us to put her on probation leading to terminating her.  They openly said, she had threated to sue for discrimination if she was released. 

I can assure you that experience imprinted on many of us the hesitation to hire additional "protected class" employees.  If we made a mistake hiring a caucasian male, they were put on probation and terminated.  A member of a protected class if we made an error in hiring there was little recourse but to live with the mistake. 

One of the tactics I saw employed was to give the worker great reviews and suggest they apply for other positions that were promotional opportunities.  Essentially passing the old maid card to another area.  

We eventually were able to get rid of the employee but it took a great deal of effort.  We had to combine certain departments and eliminate as part of it positions that were "no longer required"  Hers was one of the positions that was deemed no longer required.  That meant for some years we could not rehire into a similar position but rather her job responsibilities were split up and assigned to other workers to perform. 

12 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Why should companies not be allowed to choose who they employ?

You are absolutely correct.  I can tell you from working for several major banks in the USA that the laws that were passed to provide "equal" rights have had some perverse unintended consequences. 

Instead of being "equal" certain groups based on age, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation can "sue" for discrimination if they either don't get a position or are terminated or demoted.  That means if you are not one of the protected groups you actually are not equal, you have fewer rights. 

Second, because of the threat of lawsuits, companies are extremely reluctant to discipline or fire those that are part of the protected groups because of both the fear of losing the lawsuit and the expense of defending against the lawsuit.  They find it easier just to "cope" with the problem.  That has the perverse effect of making the organization very hesitant to hire even more employees who are part of the protected class for fear they are adding to the population of employees that potentially could sue them.  That hurts the very qualified candidate who is part of a protected class but now finds that works against them. 

Also you raise a good point about other factors.  If you work for lets say a liberal organization like the New York Times or internet based Salon.com it is not just your job qualifications but also if the candidate is a good fit in the workplace.  A staunch conservative at either of those companies will hardly be a welcome addition to  their fellow coworkers.