1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

When compared to modern double-glazed, tinted façades, the advantage is far less clear. High-performance glazing already blocks a large portion of solar radiation while still allowing daylight, avoiding added heat from artificial lighting.

What AI are you using, anyway?

You need to switch to Gemini.

By shrinking window area and increasing solar panel area, we can have a huge net gain in energy efficiency, and also comfort.

And, of course, we are talking about THAILAND, here.....and I hope we realized this from the beginning.

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

What AI are you using, anyway?

You need to switch to Gemini.

By shrinking window area and increasing solar panel area, we can have a huge net gain in energy efficiency, and also comfort.

And, of course, we are talking about THAILAND, here.....and I hope we realized this from the beginning.

I highlighted the difference between climates specifically to show how the benefits vary depending on conditions (the discussing can be widened beyond Thailand - for example - if you wish to prove your point you can example buildings in Europe where solar cladding is utilised on 'some' buildings).

In Thailand, yes - reducing window area and adding solar panels could improve energy efficiency, as it cuts down solar heat gain, as you keep pointing out. But it’s not the huge net gain you’re implying, because modern double-glazed, tinted glass already blocks a significant amount of heat while still allowing daylight in. If you reduce glazing too much or cover it, you increase reliance on artificial lighting, which adds heat and energy use back into the building. And if panels aren’t properly installed with a ventilated air gap, they can trap heat rather than reduce it - plus they require ongoing cleaning and maintenance, especially in tropical environments. So overall, it’s not a simple win - it depends on design, balance, and execution.

But here’s the key point - solar panel facades aren’t some new breakthrough. Architects, civil engineers, and energy specialists have been analysing and applying these systems for decades. Some buildings do use solar facades effectively, but not all - because the best solution depends on orientation, climate, daylight needs, cost, and maintenance. The continued use of glass in many buildings isn’t an oversight, it’s a deliberate, optimised choice based on those trade-offs - and as you mentioned costs - but that would also be unrealistic, a pipe dream in the real world.

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I highlighted the difference between climates specifically to show how the benefits vary depending on conditions (the discussing can be widened beyond Thailand - for example - if you wish to prove your point you can example buildings in Europe where solar cladding is utilised on 'some' buildings).

In Thailand, yes - reducing window area and adding solar panels could improve energy efficiency, as it cuts down solar heat gain, as you keep pointing out. But it’s not the huge net gain you’re implying, because modern double-glazed, tinted glass already blocks a significant amount of heat while still allowing daylight in. If you reduce glazing too much or cover it, you increase reliance on artificial lighting, which adds heat and energy use back into the building. And if panels aren’t properly installed with a ventilated air gap, they can trap heat rather than reduce it - plus they require ongoing cleaning and maintenance, especially in tropical environments. So overall, it’s not a simple win - it depends on design, balance, and execution.

But here’s the key point - solar panel facades aren’t some new breakthrough. Architects, civil engineers, and energy specialists have been analysing and applying these systems for decades. Some buildings do use solar facades effectively, but not all - because the best solution depends on orientation, climate, daylight needs, cost, and maintenance. The continued use of glass in many buildings isn’t an oversight, it’s a deliberate, optimised choice based on those trade-offs - and as you mentioned costs - but that would also be unrealistic, a pipe dream in the real world.

The original focus of our discussion was electricity generation using solar panels, electric power that condo owners could use to power their EVs.

You stated that this would not work for buildings of 26 floors.

I say it will work.

You stated it would make the building too hot.

I stated it would not.

Therefore, in conclusion: I win on both points. Simple as Pie....

19 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

If I were KING OF THE WORLD, then this WOULD be an option for condo dwellers.

All roof space should be divided between condo owners, equally.

And, roof space must be reserved for solar.

Simple as pie.

Fire Risks in Parking Structures Ignited by Electrical Vehicles

https://www.greatamericaninsurancegroup.com/content-hub/loss-control/details/fire-risks-in-parking-structures-ignited-by-electrical-vehicles

Underground parking in Condo buildings should not be permitted for EV charging. It is extremely dangerous.

8 minutes ago, Screaming said:

Fire Risks in Parking Structures Ignited by Electrical Vehicles

https://www.greatamericaninsurancegroup.com/content-hub/loss-control/details/fire-risks-in-parking-structures-ignited-by-electrical-vehicles

Underground parking in Condo buildings should not be permitted for EV charging. It is extremely dangerous.

This is a VERY MISLEADING headline, and was published by insurance companies.

This is an industry-biased article.

Cancer is NOT directly caused by smoking....same same....

You should read the garbage article you posted, because it also says this:

The Problem: It’s More than Car Battery Fires. Combustible Plastics Play a Role, Too. 

Parking structure fires have become an increasing problem in recent years. Specifically, they have become more aggressive and difficult to extinguish, resulting in much more significant levels of damage.

The primary reason for this is an increase in the use of highly combustible plastic in the modern automobile, which is ~50% plastic by volume and ~10% plastic by weight. This design is driven by industry competition to improve gas mileage or electric vehicle (EV) drive range through reduced vehicle weight.

44 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Therefore, in conclusion: I win on both points. Simple as Pie....

You only win in your opinion!

You could not win a pie throwing contest as you have admitted in numerous posts that you live in a blacked-out hovel which you variously describe as a basement and or a blacked out house!

22 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

The original focus of our discussion was electricity generation using solar panels, electric power that condo owners could use to power their EVs.

You stated that this would not work for buildings of 26 floors.

I say it will work.

You stated it would make the building too hot.

I stated it would not.

Therefore, in conclusion: I win on both points. Simple as Pie....

How many EV's do you think you Solar could charge on an average condo?

Quick sanity check - you’re looking at roughly 50–70 m² of solar to take an 88 kWh EV from 30–90% in ~6 hours under good conditions. So straight away, the scale of the problem is bigger than people think.

Now take a typical 26-floor condo:

- Approx 182 units

- 30% façade coverage (you still need windows)

- Roof covered as much as practical

- Vertical panels less efficient than roof

- Full 12-hour daylight curve (not just peak sun)

- Battery storage to smooth it out

- No shading from other buildings (best case)

We're already into ballpark maths rather than precision, but even being fairly optimistic:

We get about ~22 EVs per day charged from 30–90%

Thats out of out of 182 units.

Now add reality:

- neighbouring towers

- partial shading

- non-ideal angles

That knocks it down by ~25–35%.

So realistically: ~15 EVs per building per day

So in a real city, with sensible solar coverage on roofs and façades:

~15 EVs per building per day

If charging an EV costs ~2,000 baht/month, that’s:

About 30,000 baht/month saved per building

Run the figures and see what you get.... I'm sure someone of your intelligence is capable of that - its 'simple as pie' after all !!!!

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Battery storage to smooth it out

To make this even remotely workable, one would need to sell power to the grid during the day, and then charge EVs at night.

Batteries are too costly.

So, how many KWhrs per day per 26-floor building for your preferred facade area?

Here is MY Estimate for my preferred facade.....for my THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, posed to my good friend Gemini...

Read this...and weep...Sir.....

I am right, once again, it seems....

So solly, Sir....

Please Note: If we add in ROOF PANELS, then there would be an 11-percent gain of electricity generation, according to this scenario....

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Cancer is NOT directly caused by smoking.

Are you saying we should bring back all those cigarettes and allow smoking everywher?

1 minute ago, scottiejohn said:

Are you saying we should bring back all those cigarettes and allow smoking everywher?

Only if you believe the literature published by the tobacco companies and their lobbyists.

On 4/13/2026 at 5:17 PM, SAFETY FIRST said:

Another negative with EV's.

You'd never see these conflicts, brawls at petrol stations

FALSE, and completely untrue, as you well know.

I recall shootings, as far back as the 70s, over something so silly as people's rights to fill up their tanks with petrol, as many times as they want, and with much petrol as they want.

We are very likely to see terrible strife at petrol stations, yet, in coming months.

Then, you will know what I'm talkin' 'bout.....

2 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Only if you believe the literature published by the tobacco companies and their lobbyists.

Please answer the question with a YES or a NO!

"Are you saying we should bring back all those cigarettes and allow smoking everywhere?"

No need for any more of your usual waffle as posted above.

3 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Please answer the question with a YES or a NO!

"Are you saying we should bring back all those cigarettes and allow smoking everywhere?"

No need for any more of your usual waffle as posted above.

Yes, and No.

I am NOT telling you what you should do, or what you should not do.

I have merely told you that if we used Solar Panels on the sides of condo buildings, we could generate a LOT of electric power which could power our EVs, and reduce aggression at public charging stations.

In fact: My calculations show that panels on the sides of a typical building could generate about 1.70 GIGAWATT-HOURS of power, annually. That is a HECK OF A LOT, Sir....!!!!

5 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Yes, and No.

I am NOT telling you what you should do, or what you should not do.

I have merely told you that if we used Solar Panels on the sides of condo buildings, we could generate a LOT of electric power which could power our EVs, and reduce aggression at public charging stations.

In fact: My calculations show that panels on the sides of a typical building could generate about 1.70 GIGAWATT-HOURS of power, annually. That is a HECK OF A LOT, Sir....!!!!

What has that load of cr@p got to do with my question;

Please answer the question with a YES or a NO!

"Are you saying we should bring back all those cigarettes and allow smoking everywhere?"

No need for any more of your usual waffle as posted above.

10 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

To make this even remotely workable, one would need to sell power to the grid during the day, and then charge EVs at night.

Batteries are too costly.

So, how many KWhrs per day per 26-floor building for your preferred facade area?

Here is MY Estimate for my preferred facade.....for my THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, posed to my good friend Gemini...

Read this...and weep...Sir.....

I am right, once again, it seems....

So solly, Sir....

Try again... The methodology isn’t bad - but the inputs are fantasy.

You’ve assumed near-total facade coverage and ended up with 3–4x the real output.

To estimate the potential for electrical generation from a 26-storey building in Bangkok, we apply building geometry, local solar resource, vertical-PV penalties, and an urban shading adjustment.

Thailand has strong solar potential, but facade PV does not perform like roof PV, and real residential towers cannot devote anything like 75-80% of the façade to active panels - that 'potentail' number is closer to 30%.

Thailand’s reported PV yield is roughly 1,489-1,531 kWh per kWp per year.

Studies show facade PV potential averages about 68.2% of rooftop potential across cities - before adding the reality of neighbouring-building shading. 

Building Geometry & Solar Area

- Building height: approximately 91 metres
- (26 floors × 3.5 m average floor height)

- Footprint: assume a square residential point block of 30 m × 30 m

Total façade area:
- 91 m × 120 m perimeter = 10,920 m²

- Active solar area: a more realistic assumption is:

- 30% façade coverage = 3,276 m²

- 85% roof coverage = 765 m²

-  Total active PV area: 4,041 m²

That is still ambitious, but it is at least believable for a residential tower with windows, balconies, access, and usable roof space.2. Installed Capacity (STC)Assuming modern PV at about 200 W/m²:

-

Façade PV: 3,276 m² × 200 W/m² = 655 kWp

Roof PV: 765 m² × 200 W/m² = 153 kWp

Total nominal peak power: 808 kWp

Irradiance, Vertical Tilt, and Urban Shading

Bangkok has strong solar resource, but vertical PV suffers from orientation and tilt penalties. A reasonable planning assumption is that facade PV delivers about 55% of rooftop-equivalent yield in this kind of tropical high-rise use case. So, a realistic city-shadowing penalty of roughly 25-35% to reflect neighbouring towers and reduced low-angle sun access.

So, for a realistic Thai City case:

Estimated Electrical GenerationUsing Thailand’s PV benchmark and the reduced façade yield:

- Roof output: about 637 kWh/day

- Façade output before urban shading: about 1,503 kWh/day

- Total before urban shading: about 2,140 kWh/day

- Total after urban shading: about 1,390-1,605 kWh/day

- Annual total: about 0.51-0.59 GWh/year

That is a much more credible range than the earlier 4,200 kWh/day claim, which mainly came from assuming absurd facade coverage.

As a thought experiment (still)

- Energy density: about 53-62 kWh per floor per day

- EV charging potential: an 88 kWh EV charged from 30% to 90% needs 52.8 kWh

So best case scenario the building could theoretically charge about:

26-30 EVs per day from 30% to 90%, using stored solar energy and assuming realistic city shadowing

But you 'want to win' so I'll give you your 100% facade coverage - which makes the makes the maths simple, but this hypothetical building utterly absurd to live in.

Using the same Bangkok/Thailand yield assumptions as before:

- Roof output: about 642 kWh/day

- Façade output before urban shading: about 5,038 kWh/day

- Total before urban shading: about 5,676 kWh/day

Then apply the same urban shadowing penalty:

- After 25% shading: about 4,257 kWh/day

- After 35% shading: about 3,689 kWh/day

So the So the building could theoretically charge:

- about 107 EVs/day with no urban shading

- about 81 EVs/day with 25% urban shading

- about 70 EVs/day with 35% urban shading

There - I got you 'close to your win - in a building no one would want to live in covered 100% in solar cells...

... And this is why I don't normally bother engaging in your posts - you posted textbook examples of Brandolini’s Law - it takes way more effort to clean up the nonsense you presented than it does to throw it out there in the first place.

1 minute ago, scottiejohn said:

What has that load of cr@p got to do with my question;

Please answer the question with a YES or a NO!

"Are you saying we should bring back all those cigarettes and allow smoking everywhere?"

No need for any more of your usual waffle as posted above.

I was not implying anything of the kind.

I was also not NOT implying anything of the kind.

What I WAS implying is that one should always be suspicious of articles published by industry, until they can be substantiated by independent sources of information and observation.

This seems the wisest path to understanding.

Or, do you disagree?

Anyway, even if you did disagree, then I would have to disagree with you.

You did not GET my original comment.

Now, I am explaining the simple meaning to you.

You are welcome.....

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I was not implying anything of the kind.

Then why post it and all the subsequent waffle?

All you had to do was answer NO!

Is that too difficult for you to do?

Oops; I should not have asked that as I do NOT want any answers from you on any topic!

Even better would be no posts from you on any topic!

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Try again... The methodology isn’t bad - but the inputs are fantasy.

You’ve assumed near-total facade coverage and ended up with 3–4x the real output.

To estimate the potential for electrical generation from a 26-storey building in Bangkok, we apply building geometry, local solar resource, vertical-PV penalties, and an urban shading adjustment.

Thailand has strong solar potential, but facade PV does not perform like roof PV, and real residential towers cannot devote anything like 75-80% of the façade to active panels - that 'potentail' number is closer to 30%.

Thailand’s reported PV yield is roughly 1,489-1,531 kWh per kWp per year.

Studies show facade PV potential averages about 68.2% of rooftop potential across cities - before adding the reality of neighbouring-building shading. 

Building Geometry & Solar Area

- Building height: approximately 91 metres
- (26 floors × 3.5 m average floor height)

- Footprint: assume a square residential point block of 30 m × 30 m

Total façade area:
- 91 m × 120 m perimeter = 10,920 m²

- Active solar area: a more realistic assumption is:

- 30% façade coverage = 3,276 m²

- 85% roof coverage = 765 m²

-  Total active PV area: 4,041 m²

That is still ambitious, but it is at least believable for a residential tower with windows, balconies, access, and usable roof space.2. Installed Capacity (STC)Assuming modern PV at about 200 W/m²:

-

Façade PV: 3,276 m² × 200 W/m² = 655 kWp

Roof PV: 765 m² × 200 W/m² = 153 kWp

Total nominal peak power: 808 kWp

Irradiance, Vertical Tilt, and Urban Shading

Bangkok has strong solar resource, but vertical PV suffers from orientation and tilt penalties. A reasonable planning assumption is that facade PV delivers about 55% of rooftop-equivalent yield in this kind of tropical high-rise use case. So, a realistic city-shadowing penalty of roughly 25-35% to reflect neighbouring towers and reduced low-angle sun access.

So, for a realistic Thai City case:

Estimated Electrical GenerationUsing Thailand’s PV benchmark and the reduced façade yield:

- Roof output: about 637 kWh/day

- Façade output before urban shading: about 1,503 kWh/day

- Total before urban shading: about 2,140 kWh/day

- Total after urban shading: about 1,390-1,605 kWh/day

- Annual total: about 0.51-0.59 GWh/year

That is a much more credible range than the earlier 4,200 kWh/day claim, which mainly came from assuming absurd facade coverage.

As a thought experiment (still)

- Energy density: about 53-62 kWh per floor per day

- EV charging potential: an 88 kWh EV charged from 30% to 90% needs 52.8 kWh

So best case scenario the building could theoretically charge about:

26-30 EVs per day from 30% to 90%, using stored solar energy and assuming realistic city shadowing

But you 'want to win' so I'll give you your 100% facade coverage - which makes the makes the maths simple, but this hypothetical building utterly absurd to live in.

Using the same Bangkok/Thailand yield assumptions as before:

- Roof output: about 642 kWh/day

- Façade output before urban shading: about 5,038 kWh/day

- Total before urban shading: about 5,676 kWh/day

Then apply the same urban shadowing penalty:

- After 25% shading: about 4,257 kWh/day

- After 35% shading: about 3,689 kWh/day

So the So the building could theoretically charge:

- about 107 EVs/day with no urban shading

- about 81 EVs/day with 25% urban shading

- about 70 EVs/day with 35% urban shading

There - I got you 'close to your win - in a building no one would want to live in covered 100% in solar cells...

... And this is why I don't normally bother engaging in your posts - you posted textbook examples of Brandolini’s Law - it takes way more effort to clean up the nonsense you presented than it does to throw it out there in the first place.

Well, I always appreciate your effort.

And, if you do not mind, concerning your logical skepticism, based on slow-adoption of new technologies, I would add the following:

So, am I winning your heart and mind, yet...Sir....???

YOU REALLY MUST VIEW THIS AS PROVIDING A DUAL ADVANTAGE....Electrical Generation and THERMAL SHIELDING...as I stated originally.

2 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Well, I always appreciate your effort.

And, if you do not mind, concerning your logical skepticism, based on slow-adoption of new technologies, I would add the following:

So, am I winning your heart and mind, yet...Sir....???

No... but it momentarily piqued my interest.

I can see potential for partial PV cladding of large residential complexes in cities - but not in any meaningful manner which could support the significant energy demand.

On the roofs of individual houses in residential areas and supported by batteries - now that is a completely different beast.

Lets have a mini-nuclear reactor in the basement of every condo - idea for your next thread.

13 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Then why post it and all the subsequent waffle?

All you had to do was answer NO!

Is that too difficult for you to do?

Oops; I should not have asked that as I do NOT want any answers from you on any topic!

Even better would be no posts from you on any topic!

In fact, your comment was completely unrelated to mine, and so I as unable to provide you with a YES or NO answer.

Still, being the polite and respectful person I am, I did my best to provide you with "AN" answer.

I know you appreciated my effort to do this.

No worries, Sir.

9 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

In fact, your comment was completely unrelated to mine, and so I as unable to provide you with a YES or NO answer.

Still, being the polite and respectful person I am, I did my best to provide you with "AN" answer.

I know you appreciated my effort to do this.

No worries, Sir.

Yet more B.S.

Read your original post on this "smoking" aspect in this part of the topic which you started.

You stated; "Cancer is NOT directly caused by smoking....same same...."

I asked;

"Are you saying we should bring back all those cigarettes and allow smoking everywher?"

Please just answer yes or no or just say you made a mistake!

All I ask is for either a simple YES/NO answer or an apology which says you made a mistake!

Please answer directly in very simple words without the waffle!

Is that clear?

9 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

"Cancer is NOT directly caused by smoking....same same...."

This and similar statements were made by industry-supported research reports and articles.

YES.

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

This and similar statements were made by industry-supported research reports and articles.

YES.

Yet again a meaningless response where you are avoiding the direct question by adding a pointless caveat!

I will ask again;

"Are you saying we should bring back all those cigarettes and allow smoking everywhere?"

Please just answer yes or no or just say you made a mistake!

No caveats and no deviations please!

9 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Yet again a meaningless response where you are avoiding the direct question by adding a pointless caveat!

I will ask again;

"Are you saying we should bring back all those cigarettes and allow smoking everywhere?"

Please just answer yes or no or just say you made a mistake!

No caveats and no deviations please!

IMHO, this is not a cigarette Topic.

And so I am unable to answer you with a YES or a NO, since using only a one-word reply would not reflect the meaning in my original comment.

Maybe I could start a new Topic to debate this with you..

However, to reiterate:

a. Somebody here coughed up an article which was published by the insurance industry purporting to single out EVs as causing fires in Condo Parking Lots.....

b. I believe that this article is garbage.

c. I likened this article to reports from the Tobacco industry making false statements and engaging is propaganda which warped reality.

d. I do not trust articles published by industry until they can be independently verified.

e. I do not believe that EVs are overly represented as causes of fires in Condo buildings. Maybe they are, and maybe they are not, but I do not believe they are, and I will not believe they are until I read unbiased data showing that they are.

f. What do YOU believe, anyway....????:

55 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

No... but it momentarily piqued my interest.

I can see potential for partial PV cladding of large residential complexes in cities - but not in any meaningful manner which could support the significant energy demand.

On the roofs of individual houses in residential areas and supported by batteries - now that is a completely different beast.

Lets have a mini-nuclear reactor in the basement of every condo - idea for your next thread.

What you must understand is that the limiting challenge for adoption, in my view, is much improved and lower cost battery technology.

For example:

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

IMHO, this is not a cigarette Topic.

You made it one!

Since you are so incapable of admitting you made the comment;

"Cancer is NOT directly caused by smoking....same same...."

I will just have to treat all your future postings with the contempt, that you have proven in this exchange, that they deserve!

Good night!

18 hours ago, emptypockets said:

Alphas don't drive EVs

They're not too bright then

11 hours ago, Bandersnatch said:

On 4/14/2026 at 8:00 AM, emptypockets said:

Alphas don't drive EVs

They're not too bright then

Added to which - a 'true' Alpha wouldn't care whether anyone else is alpha or not, what anyone else is doing or not, they simply take the path they believe to be correct - it has nothing to do with what type of car is being driven.

ergo - the comment itself is so assumptive, isolated from reality and flawed - only one conclusion could ever be drawn - emptypockets may well clutching his pearls in 'omega' territory !!!

Haha beta simps fighting over a charging station is hilarious

On 4/14/2026 at 6:28 AM, scottiejohn said:

Yet again a meaningless response where you are avoiding the direct question by adding a pointless caveat!

I will ask again;

"Are you saying we should bring back all those cigarettes and allow smoking everywhere?"

Please just answer yes or no or just say you made a mistake!

No caveats and no deviations please!

Why not ? I vape while i pump gas at costco.