EV Drivers Brawl Over Charging Queue at Pattaya Station

19 minutes 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.

So..... In a 26-floor condo with a mix of 18 m², 36 m² and 100 m² units (plus 100 m² communal space per floor), an 18 m² bedsit only ends up with about 0.6 m² of usable roof solar after allowing for access space and losses (walk between / electrical resistance etc).

In a place like Thailand that gives roughly 0.47 kWh per day.

Have two cups of tea - 2 kettle boils (~0.30 kWh)

Heat up your 7-11 lunch and dinner - 2 quick microwave runs (~0.16 kWh)

... and thats pretty much your daily output consumed.

You'd have about 5–6 minutes of standard PC use.... enough to write a couple of lines of banal drivel, but I'm sure everyone would rather you go for a third cuppa instead !!!!

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

So..... In a 26-floor condo with a mix of 18 m², 36 m² and 100 m² units (plus 100 m² communal space per floor), an 18 m² bedsit only ends up with about 0.6 m² of usable roof solar after allowing for access space and losses (walk between / electrical resistance etc).

In a place like Thailand that gives roughly 0.47 kWh per day.

Have two cups of tea - 2 kettle boils (~0.30 kWh)

Heat up your 7-11 lunch and dinner - 2 quick microwave runs (~0.16 kWh)

... and thats pretty much your daily output consumed.

You'd have about 5–6 minutes of standard PC use.... enough to write a couple of lines of banal drivel, but I'm sure everyone would rather you go for a third cuppa instead !!!!

I predicted that you, or someone, might complain about this consideration.

However, for ultra-tall condo buildings, which are a small minority, then solar panels can be mounted on the sides of buildings, covering all outer wall area owned by each condo owner.

This is just a simple matter of avoiding negativism, and moving ahead.

Otherwise, no progress will be made.

19 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You'd have about 5–6 minutes of standard PC use.... enough to write a couple of lines of banal drivel, but I'm sure everyone would rather you go for a third cuppa instead !!!!

Actually, you would easily be able to generate a lot of energy from solar, with panels vertically placed on the sides of condo buildings.

I recall reading an article about this, probably before you were born.

Simplified, here are the particulars:

8 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I predicted that you, or someone, might complain about this consideration.

However, for ultra-tall condo buildings, which are a small minority, then solar panels can be mounted on the sides of buildings, covering all outer wall area owned by each condo owner.

This is just a simple matter of avoiding negativism, and moving ahead.

Otherwise, no progress will be made.

Fair point - if we clad every inch of the building in solar panels, we’d easily generate more power than the residents could ever need for lighting their windowless boxes..... No daylight, no balconies, no view - just a beautifully efficient concrete battery with people stored inside it....

And, of course, removing balconies does solve another problem: it eliminates the dramatic exit option of all those depressed soles lacking vitamin D and whose Circadian rhythms are thrown so far out of whack a jump seems a decent option... Though I suppose with all that extra electricity sloshing around, people could always get creative.

What’s really fascinating, though, is watching you repeatedly attempt to showcase your intelligence while continuing to prevent it from showing up....

That said - I think I get what you are trying to say: There could more solar panels - even on condo's and every little bit helps....

.... and on that subject - perhaps give Vitamin B12, B Vitamins (B6, B9/folate) and L-Tyrosine Supplements a go... !!!

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Fair point - if we clad every inch of the building in solar panels, we’d easily generate more power than the residents could ever need for lighting their windowless boxes..... No daylight, no balconies, no view - just a beautifully efficient concrete battery with people stored inside it....

And, of course, removing balconies does solve another problem: it eliminates the dramatic exit option f all those depressed soles lacking vitamin D and whose Circadian rhythms is thrown so far out of whack a jump seems a decent option... Though I suppose with all that extra electricity sloshing around, people could always get creative.

What’s really fascinating, though, is watching you repeatedly attempt to showcase your intelligence while continuing to prevent it from showing up....

That said - I think I get what you are trying to say: There could more solar panels - even on condo's and every little bit helps....

.... and on that subject - perhaps give Vitamin B12, B Vitamins (B6, B9/folate) and L-Tyrosine Supplements a go... !!!

I am sure that you already know that I have boarded up all of my windows.

Windows are of no value when the AQI reaches over 500.

Builders tend to use glass or curtain wall due to its much lower cost.

Instead, a better solution is to cover most of the building, even the balcony walls, with solar panels.

The building would remain cooler.

And, it would look better, as well.

We can reduce the amount of glass by 80 percent, and live more comfortably.

ALSO, maybe you do not know this...but Thai people DO NOT LIKE very large windows.

When they are forced to live in condos with huge windows and a constantly glaring Sun, then...

They are compelled to go out an buy heavy drapes or black-out curtains.

This really makes no sense.

2 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I am sure that you already know that I have boarded up all of my windows.

Windows are of no value when the AQI reaches over 500.

c'mon - we all know dingy basement bedsits don't have windows...

2 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Builders tend to use glass or curtain wall due to its much lower cost.

And design aesthetics.

2 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Instead, a better solution is to cover most of the building, even the balcony walls, with solar panels.

A viable option - but one that would prove more costly for installation and upkeep.

2 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

The building would remain cooler.

And, it would look better, as well.

No - it wouldn't - a reflective surface rather than an absorbent one keep keeps the buildings cooler - though the refection of glass from certain angles can have a magnification impact on other external areas on the ground,

2 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

We can reduce the amount of glass by 80 percent, and live more comfortably.

Interesting study - 80% you say - I loved floor to ceiling windows in all the hotels and condo's I stayed in.

2 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

ALSO, maybe you do not know this...but Thai people DO NOT LIKE very large windows.

Correct - I dont know this because its utter bo!!ox that you just made up on the spot.

2 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

When they are forced to live in condos with huge windows and a constantly glaring Sun, then...

They are compelled to go out an buy heavy drapes or black-out curtains.

Very odd comment - you think people live in a world without drapes over their windows ?

Blackout drapes are awesome - the sun isn't always directly shining in from every angle, condo's have great views which is very healthy for the mind. Sunward faces can have darker film installed - its very simple, been there done that.

2 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

This really makes no sense.

Agreed - you rarely do.... I get the logic of wanting to turn a city into a solar cell... but you are trying to think outside the box when its clear you couldn't get inside the box in the first place !!!

Far better far more applicable would little nuclear reactors on every street corner.

Or - better still.... Rely in the exiting energy resources that each nation is 'mostly' capable of developing themselves - then relying on battery tech, carbon recapture (where required), hydrogen fuel cells.

Solar is not a strong solution - its just a part of the mix, and the rapid adoption is driven as much by policy as by economics.

Solar is often presented as clean and simple, but that ignores real downsides. Solar panels have a limited lifespan and will create tens of millions of tonnes of waste globally - which will be a significant issue.

While many components can be recycled, recycling systems aren’t yet fully in place or widely used and will prove costly.

Some panels also contain hazardous materials, meaning poor disposal could cause environmental harm if not properly managed.

Solar has clear benefits, but its not impact-free, and the long-term waste and infrastructure challenges shouldn’t be ignored.

12 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Hope that was a joke ... 😄

Haha, yes it was a joke, it's good that you recognised it.

Funny thing is my jokes don't usually go down well, too many grumpies here. 😂

11 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

I appreciate how you constantly stay loyal to your deluded imagination and then play Schrödinger's douche with retroactive wit when your sarcasm flops.....

Too many big words mate, have you been reading the dictionary again. 😂

Keep it SIMPLE..... KISS

10 hours ago, Isan Farang said:

I am interested to know what Thai SUV can get 1000km on 1 tank of diesel ?

The wife's Fortuner does 950 till the low level light comes on... Not sure if it would get to 1000 as light on = time to fill, never let them run the dregs outta the bottom of the tank.

10 hours ago, Isan Farang said:

I am interested to know what Thai SUV can get 1000km on 1 tank of diesel ?

Seems to be more than enough, though I certainly wouldn't pay the extra for something I'll never need.

... "While 1,000 km range cars are arriving, industry experts often suggest that 500–600 km of real-world range, combined with ultra-fast charging (10–80% in <15 mins), is more optimal for consumer needs than carrying the weight of a massive 1,000 km battery." ...

Long drive, no air con what you expect

54 minutes ago, baansgr said:

Long drive, no air con what you expect

huh ... ???

Hope you're not implying EV owners don't use AC, as it uses up to much battery. Extremely false narrative, as AC uses very little. Maybe 1 kWh per hour, 2 at the most.

14 hours ago, dddave said:

Not an option for residents of condos and apartments.

This has been discussed many times. Obviously people who don't own an EV are not going to aware of new developments.

Here is a post from 2024 that is worth reading

6 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

huh ... ???

Hope you're not implying EV owners don't use AC, as it uses up to much battery. Extremely false narrative, as AC uses very little. Maybe 1 kWh per hour, 2 at the most.

All the EV taxis I been in are like ovens...so yes, they don't use it

11 hours ago, Kinnock said:

Nissan Terra. When filled up the range shows just over 1000 km, and in practice I think that's about right. I've done 800 km and it was not showing the yellow fuel warning light, which is supposed to be 150 km left in the tank.

Don't think you are getting 1,000km on a 1,000 Baht of fuel.

8 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

huh ... ???

Hope you're not implying EV owners don't use AC, as it uses up to much battery. Extremely false narrative, as AC uses very little. Maybe 1 kWh per hour, 2 at the most.

Same as the saving the planet narrative 😊 😊 😊...where do you think the batteries will be disposed of, who mines the components and even worse, fossil fuel power stations supplying the power to charge your noddy car 👍..drill baby drill

1 minute ago, baansgr said:

All the EV taxis I been in are like ovens...so yes, they don't use it

That's the taxi driver's decision, and agree, as we've asked for the AC to be cooler ourselves, while in ICE taxis. They aren't saving much either, as same as BEV, and use very little petrol.

We leave the dog in the car quite often, 30 minutes to near 2 hrs, with car on full power, with AC on. Full on means, if you hopped in, you could drive away, and uses very little, and not worth a concern.

3 minutes ago, baansgr said:

All the EV taxis I been in are like ovens...so yes, they don't use it

I've owned 3 EVs here in Thailand and like to pre-chill the car from the app before I get in, which doesn't use much power, because unlike an ICE vehicle you don't need to start the engine.

My EVs have air conditioned cooling for the seats and silver coating for the glass roof.

Here is a video I made about this topic.

2 minutes ago, baansgr said:

Same as the saving the planet narrative 😊 😊 😊...where do you think the batteries will be disposed of, who mines the components and even worse, fossil fuel power stations supplying the power to charge your noddy car 👍..drill baby drill

Another false narrative, as none of us, on AN, vocal BEV owners are trying to save the planet, and have stated that many times. We are saving a lot of baht, by not buying petrol. Even more, if like us, and charge with excess solar.

It is a nice thought that we're not contributing to the low level pollution. When I'm using the E-MC or ebike, in traffic, yes, I wish everyone was driving BEV, so I wouldn't breathe in and or smell like exhaust. Rather disgusting.

If up to most BEV owners, I'm sure we'd love to see, as most would, alternatives to fossil fuel being used to produce electric, especially in sun baked TH, but those decisions are made by politicians & oil lobbyist. More than a few of us charge with excess solar.

We don't wait for others to control our lives, so no real reason or excuse for any homeowner not to produce their own electric in TH. Whether have EV or petrol vehicles.

Hypocrisy of petrol & grid users implying EV owners being evil for using LFP batteries (no cobalt) and grid, but OK for everyone else to use cobalt batteries in all their devices, and the grid to power their homes.

I'm the one using LFP technology, solar (also LFP ESS), and not stinking up the air.

SHAME ON ME

It’s wonderful to see these days: in the Netherlands, there are charging stations with as many as 30 bays, yet there’s a shortage of electricity, and you hardly see anyone at the charging stations.

Here, it seems to be the opposite.

I’m glad I now have a hybrid car and can get by at home with my solar panels.

13 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

No - it wouldn't - a reflective surface rather than an absorbent one keep keeps the buildings cooler - though the refection of glass from certain angles can have a magnification impact on other external areas on the ground,

NO!

This is a false statemet.

Please research your answer, and re-post your comment.

Thank you.

Please keep in mind that we are comparing the replacement of glass with solar panels on sides of buildings.

If you wish, you can also investigate the differences in thermal energy transfer when comparing adding solar panels to the outer walls of either brick buildings, or other types of materials which are used in modern buildings.

As I stated: Adding solar panels to the existing outer wall would reduce thermal energy transfer to the inside of buildings.

And, replacing glass with thermal panels, if done properly would also reduce thermal energy transfer.

Or, adding panels to cover existing glass would significantly lower thermal energy transmission to the inside of buildings.

To me a SCIENTIST, this dynamics is OBVIOUS.

However, for others, I guess i can understand that this might be non-intuitive.

Oh Well, as they say, the brain is the most important organ in the body.

Some have one, and others can only hope for one, next life.

2 hours ago, baansgr said:

All the EV taxis I been in are like ovens...so yes, they don't use it

Their drivers do not understand the physics of it.

I would say that to cool an SUV, if insulated properly, then yes maybe about 2500 watts, if turned up full blast, and if the AC in the car can provide a maximum capacity of about 30,000 BTU

I came up with this accurate answer even before asking my good friend Gemini 3.0:

Just simple logic, really.

And, if one does not understand Physics, as most EV taxi drivers do not, then one cannot be logical about ALMOST ANYTHING (and EVERYTHING)...in this modern life of ours.....

15 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Actually, you would easily be able to generate a lot of energy from solar, with panels vertically placed on the sides of condo buildings.

It's apparent you have absolutely no idea how solar works.

21 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Physical fight, yea, that's a bit much. Sh!t happens when 2 Alphas collide.

I don't get the waiting thing, as I won't, and just hit the next CS down the road. Why you don't take it down below 20%, Really is no need to, as even with our small battery and that's 3+ hours on the road.

Alphas don't drive EVs

4 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Another false narrative, as none of us, on AN, vocal BEV owners are trying to save the planet, and have stated that many times. We are saving a lot of baht, by not buying petrol. Even more, if like us, and charge with excess solar.

It is a nice thought that we're not contributing to the low level pollution. When I'm using the E-MC or ebike, in traffic, yes, I wish everyone was driving BEV, so I wouldn't breathe in and or smell like exhaust. Rather disgusting.

If up to most BEV owners, I'm sure we'd love to see, as most would, alternatives to fossil fuel being used to produce electric, especially in sun baked TH, but those decisions are made by politicians & oil lobbyist. More than a few of us charge with excess solar.

We don't wait for others to control our lives, so no real reason or excuse for any homeowner not to produce their own electric in TH. Whether have EV or petrol vehicles.

Hypocrisy of petrol & grid users implying EV owners being evil for using LFP batteries (no cobalt) and grid, but OK for everyone else to use cobalt batteries in all their devices, and the grid to power their homes.

I'm the one using LFP technology, solar (also LFP ESS), and not stinking up the air.

SHAME ON ME

The only difference in pollution between ICE and EV vehicles is where the pollution is produced. ICE mostly during use, EV at the pre production point and upon disposal. There ain't no free lunch.

3 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

NO!

This is a false statemet.

Please research your answer, and re-post your comment.

Thank you.

Please keep in mind that we are comparing the replacement of glass with solar panels on sides of buildings.

If you wish, you can also investigate the differences in thermal energy transfer when comparing adding solar panels to the outer walls of either brick buildings, or other types of materials which are used in modern buildings.

As I stated: Adding solar panels to the existing outer wall would reduce thermal energy transfer to the inside of buildings.

And, replacing glass with thermal panels, if done properly would also reduce thermal energy transfer.

Or, adding panels to cover existing glass would significantly lower thermal energy transmission to the inside of buildings.

To me a SCIENTIST, this dynamics is OBVIOUS.

However, for others, I guess i can understand that this might be non-intuitive.

Oh Well, as they say, the brain is the most important organ in the body.

Some have one, and others can only hope for one, next life.

In hot and sunnuy climates like Thailand, your argument has 'some' merit - external solar panels can reduce solar heat gain, but only if they are properly installed with a ventilated air gap so heat doesn’t build up and transfer inward.

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. On top of that, façade-mounted panels introduce maintenance demands - dust, pollution, and biological buildup in tropical climates can quickly reduce efficiency, meaning regular cleaning is essential. If neglected, performance drops and the supposed benefit diminishes or disappears.

In cooler climates like the UK, double glazing with solar-control tint is often the more balanced solution. It limits excess summer gain while still allowing useful solar heat in winter, reducing heating demand. Covering or replacing glazing with opaque solar panels removes that seasonal benefit and increases reliance on artificial lighting.

Add to that the ongoing maintenance burden - access, cleaning, and long-term degradation on vertical façades - and the case becomes even less clear-cut.

So compared to modern glazing systems, solar panels are not automatically superior - they’re just one option with a lot of trade-offs.

If you were a real scientist, you’d recognise that this isn’t a simple comparison - it involves installation quality, climate, material performance, and lifecycle maintenance, and you’d avoid making such a blunt generalisation - sadly yet again you make attempts to bring an intelligent point, it just fails to show up where it matters.

1 hour ago, emptypockets said:

The only difference in pollution between ICE and EV vehicles is where the pollution is produced. ICE mostly during use, EV at the pre production point and upon disposal. There ain't no free lunch.

From the perspective of marinating air-quality in areas of high population the EV's have a strong advantage for a population in general.

Moving energy sources away from cities - offers greater options for cleaner energy - nature to disperse pollutants, more area for carbon recapture methods, or better still, nuclear energy.

More concerning than any of the above remains the battery components / materials - sourcing / mining and recycling.

I do believe electric cars are better - they are an improvement, particularly to the city environment - IMO there is no doubt about that. I also believe (for the moment at least) ICE's are better for the countryside and those who drive long distances regularly (i.e. 500 kms ++)... but that will also change.

But - I don't believe any of the BS behind the politics and marketing to drive this.

16 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I am sure that you already know that I have boarded up all of my windows.

Windows are of no value when the AQI reaches over 500.

How are you going to clean all these solar panels that this dirty 500 AQI air sticks too ?

2 hours ago, PJ71 said:

It's apparent you have absolutely no idea how solar works.

When I was very young, and at school, I spent much time doing work involving the photoelectric effect.

When I was young, the idea of the photoelectric effect was a ....VERY BIG THING.....

48 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

How are you going to clean all these solar panels that this dirty 500 AQI air sticks too ?

We can use snails to clean them.

Snails are good for cleaning swimming pools, and fish aquaria.

But actually, you are probably overestimating the need to clean solar panels.

Based on real-world use, rain is enough to keep most panels clean enough for use.

In Thailand though, I can recall seeing NITWITS climb up to clean panels using just regular well water.

What jerkoffs....!!!!

They don't realize that the high mineral content will do the opposite of what they are attempting to achieve.

The mineral deposits leave a white film on the panels, radically decreasing efficiency.

What TOTAL dim-wits....!!!!