The Thai government is considering setting a date of 2030 for a target of half of the vehicles produced being electric.   In your opinion, do you think electric vehicles are a viable alternative in Thailand or will this be a gigantic waste of money?

Please feel free to chose the option that best fits your opinion and leave a comment.  

 

 

There is little doubt that EV's are coming our way, most viable in the cities. The popular wisdom is that they are environmentally friendly. Yet, I still wonder about the rare earth materials in batteries, their sourcing and the recycling.  With the current political "go green" narrative in control, we'll probably just have to wait and see many years down the road exactly how wise moving to EV's was and/or viable they prove to be.

In all of the "green narrative", it is often forgotten that the power stations needed to generate the electricity for recharging EV batteries, use fossil fuels.

 

In order for EV's to be fully viable and integrated into green economies, fossil fuel generation will need to be phased out whilst increasing the abundance of renewable energy; e.g. nuclear, solar, wind, wave etc.

 

The idea of more nuclear power stations is anathema to many, yet they have proven their value over time will have a definite place in the future if the world is to go "green".

 

In this latter regard, uranium is a necessary, but frequently overlooked, commodity. 

 

For investors, uranium miners need a second look, as stockpiles are minimal and sudden, increased demand may spark (no pun intended) a rally in prices.

42 minutes ago, allanos said:

In all of the "green narrative", it is often forgotten that the power stations needed to generate the electricity for recharging EV batteries, use fossil fuels.

True, but the amount of pollution produced with EVs charged by fossil fuel power plants is actually less than that from and ICE.  EVs really are greener than ICE cars, and as renewable energy replaces fossil fuel power plants they will only get greener.

 

It is my conservative expectation that by 2030 the sales of ICE vehicles will be less than 25% of total sales, most of those ICE sales will be of work vehicles for remote locations, and by 2040 you will have a problem finding a petrol station to fill up your polluting ICE vehicle.  Why else do you think that the big oil companies are investing heavily in renewable energy?

 

I keep hearing, "Oh, but EVs are too expensive!".

 

Guess what, the biggest selling EV in China costs less than US $5000.  Okay, It is tiny but it will hold two adults, two children and a couple of bags of groceries.  It doesn't meet the US/EU car safety requirements and it only has a range of about 100 km (sufficient for use in a city), but it is cheap and it is selling as fast as it can be produced.

 

By 2030 EVs will be no more expensive than ICE vehicles, and when you take into account the cost of running them and that they are almost 100% recyclable they will be a lot less expensive over their lifetime than an ICE vehicle.

 

42 minutes ago, allanos said:

In order for EV's to be fully viable and integrated into green economies, fossil fuel generation will need to be phased out whilst increasing the abundance of renewable energy; e.g. nuclear, solar, wind, wave etc.

Exactly.  At since solar and wind power systems are already less expensive to build and operate than fossil fuel power systems that will happen a whole lot faster than most people expect.  The only thing holding these back is storage capacity.  My guess is that lithium Ion batteries will break the $100/KWH in 2022, and multiple other economical ways of storing electrical energy for the grid are coming rapidly.

 

42 minutes ago, allanos said:

 

The idea of more nuclear power stations is anathema to many, yet they have proven their value over time will have a definite place in the future if the world is to go "green".

 

In this latter regard, uranium is a necessary, but frequently overlooked, commodity. 

 

For investors, uranium miners need a second look, as stockpiles are minimal and sudden, increased demand may spark (no pun intended) a rally in prices.

It isn't economically viable to build nuclear power reactors of the current designs, the cost of disposing of the radioactive waste is astronomical, and current designs are unsafe as has been demonstrated multiple times. 

 

For nuclear power to become economically viable newer safer power reactor designs and lower cost ways of disposing of the waste are needed.  Small modular nuclear power reactors are one possible solution (at the end of life for it bury the whole thing in a deep tunnel in an old stable mountain) as are liquid salt reactors (they "burn" most of their own radioactive waste), but lots of expensive design and testing has to be done before these make it to the market.  I suspect nuclear is no longer viable for general power generation but will be limited to very specific needs.

and self driving would be nice too.. imagine a car that looks like a small living room..

All a pipe dream - and a massive Con Job.

Everybody says - "In the future batteries will be so much better"

Ever looked at the cost - to the people who mine it and the countries that produce it - of Li batteries ?

And what to do with them when they can no longer be recharged ?

No - all a Live in Cloud Cuckoo Land fantasy propagated by Big Oil, who of course is investing heavily. As P T Barnum said oh those many years ago

"There is a Sucker born every Minute"

EVs have been around for decades. Remember milk floats and trolley buses?. Some bus fleets are entirely electric, trains have been electric for years so cars will follow suit. Interchangeable batteries will eventually remove the need for back up petrol. I am constantly suprised by the number of hybrid vehicles in Thailand constantly not hearing them coming

Didn't vote.  No choice that I agree with.

EVs are going to be the wave of the future.  I don't particularly think that's a wise decision.  The EVs will be embraced as "Green" but where does the energy come from to power them?  What about the chemicals and minerals needed to build them.  EVs are not "Green."  The technology to manufacturer them causes massive pollution and ecological destruction.  But out of sight, out of mind. And - they need electricity.  Until fusion technology develops to the point that commercial fusion reactors generate the lions share of energy, EVs will be dependent on whatever electricity sources are available and most of that will be hydrocarbon-based power sources.  So call "green energy" will never power the grid.  It will be hydrocarbons/fossil fuel until fusion energy comes online.

 

1 hour ago, canthai55 said:

Ever looked at the cost - to the people who mine it and the countries that produce it - of Li batteries ?

All the people who gush about EVs never stop to consider the pollution and ecological damage done in the process of mining minerals needed to build EVs such as Lithium.

   My partner and I will likely buy a hybrid as our next auto.  Total electric really isn't practical yet for us.

4 hours ago, expat_4_life said:

There is little doubt that EV's are coming our way, most viable in the cities. The popular wisdom is that they are environmentally friendly. Yet, I still wonder about the rare earth materials in batteries, their sourcing and the recycling.  With the current political "go green" narrative in control, we'll probably just have to wait and see many years down the road exactly how wise moving to EV's was and/or viable they prove to be.

The real problem is the grid.

In no country is the grid ready or will be ready in time to be sufficient for all the "clean" electric solutions.

And as you say, is an electric car, during it's whole life cycle,indeed as "clean" as we are led to believe?

5 hours ago, expat_4_life said:

There is little doubt that EV's are coming our way, most viable in the cities. The popular wisdom is that they are environmentally friendly. Yet, I still wonder about the rare earth materials in batteries, their sourcing and the recycling.  With the current political "go green" narrative in control, we'll probably just have to wait and see many years down the road exactly how wise moving to EV's was and/or viable they prove to be.

Well said. The dangerous mining of finite supplies of cobalt and lithium, under atrocious conditions, is deeply worrying. Further, the disposal of used batteries will become a massive environmental issue. Hydrogen is surely the way to go, with steam worth further research. 

 

4 hours ago, allanos said:

In all of the "green narrative", it is often forgotten that the power stations needed to generate the electricity for recharging EV batteries, use fossil fuels.

 

In order for EV's to be fully viable and integrated into green economies, fossil fuel generation will need to be phased out whilst increasing the abundance of renewable energy; e.g. nuclear, solar, wind, wave etc.

 

The idea of more nuclear power stations is anathema to many, yet they have proven their value over time will have a definite place in the future if the world is to go "green".

 

 

 

     Fossil fuel , will soon be History . 

     Nuclear fuel . 

     Until another alternative energy source is discovered .

I will be surprised if I buy one in my lifetime (next 30 years).

 

Cheaper to buy a used ICE car.

 

EVs depreciate rapidly, except for Tesla's, which is a cult, similar to Jeep. ????

Personally I think Hydrogen fuel cells are the future. They are already present in Japan; unlimited source and the end product from the exhaust is water.

On 3/21/2021 at 6:59 AM, Scott said:

The Thai government is considering setting a date of 2030 for a target of half of the vehicles produced being electric.   In your opinion, do you think electric vehicles are a viable alternative in Thailand or will this be a gigantic waste of money?

Thailand can set all the dates it wants about production of EV vehicles, what about the plans for the infrastructure of recharging stations?

10 minutes ago, Wiggy said:

Personally I think Hydrogen fuel cells are the future. They are already present in Japan; unlimited source and the end product from the exhaust is water.

I think so too, the price of the initial batteries/replacement is costly, using huge amounts of rare earth minerals to produce them, and disposing of them outweigh the "environmental friendly aspect".

Life expectancy is yet to be proved.

Hydrogen is the way to go.

 

16 hours ago, chilly07 said:

EVs have been around for decades. Remember milk floats and trolley buses?. Some bus fleets are entirely electric, trains have been electric for years so cars will follow suit. Interchangeable batteries will eventually remove the need for back up petrol. I am constantly suprised by the number of hybrid vehicles in Thailand constantly not hearing them coming

Electric vehicles pre-date ICE cars by about 15 years.     

https://www.energy.gov/timeline/timeline-history-electric-car

 

On 3/22/2021 at 6:26 PM, hotchilli said:

On 3/22/2021 at 6:12 PM, Wiggy said:

Personally I think Hydrogen fuel cells are the future. They are already present in Japan; unlimited source and the end product from the exhaust is water.

I think so too, the price of the initial batteries/replacement is costly, using huge amounts of rare earth minerals to produce them, and disposing of them outweigh the "environmental friendly aspect".

Life expectancy is yet to be proved.

Actually Toyota has been making EV vehicles for decades.  Battery life is well known.  75K -200K before any charging problems.

 

Hydrogen will NEVER be more popular than battery EVs.

 

Why?

 

Cost.  Hydrogen fuel cells are crazy expensive.  Have you priced hydrogen fuel cell cars? OMG.

 

You can't afford one.

 

Also, hydrogen fuel cell requires double the amount of energy. To quote BMW: ‘The overall efficiency in the power-to-vehicle-drive energy chain is therefore only half the level of [an electric vehicle].’

 

Your opinion doesn't reflect reality.

On 3/22/2021 at 2:30 PM, allanos said:

In all of the "green narrative", it is often forgotten that the power stations needed to generate the electricity for recharging EV batteries, use fossil fuels.

 

In order for EV's to be fully viable and integrated into green economies, fossil fuel generation will need to be phased out whilst increasing the abundance of renewable energy; e.g. nuclear, solar, wind, wave etc.

 

The idea of more nuclear power stations is anathema to many, yet they have proven their value over time will have a definite place in the future if the world is to go "green".

 

In this latter regard, uranium is a necessary, but frequently overlooked, commodity. 

 

For investors, uranium miners need a second look, as stockpiles are minimal and sudden, increased demand may spark (no pun intended) a rally in prices.

Not only do they need to phase out fossil fueled power stations, but the MEA and PEA need to upgrade all the thousands of kms of mains single and 3 phase systems but also all the mains transformers as well. Any house will need upgraded supplies and chargers and on the thousands of kms of main highways and rural roads will need charging stations.

 

Following that, what will happen to all the fuel stations on the highways and back ways. You can always buy a bottle of gasoline for your motorbike from the friendly local gas station, right up until you need to charge your electric bike up perhaps a km down the road.

 

We live in a house in rural Thailand so siting a charger is easy. However what will happen to people living on high floors of condos. What about hotels etc where people keep their rental vehicles while on holiday?

 

Having bought your electric vehicle, how much will you have to pay when the battery finally dies and needs replacing? Where will you go to get a new battery even?

 

In theory it is a great scheme, but in practice there needs to be good solid planning long before some stupid no-nothing minister gets up on his hind legs and makes a "grand proclamation" that this is the way to go.

8 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Your opinion doesn't reflect reality.

But it is my opinion which I'm entitled to share in this forum.

10 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Actually Toyota has been making EV vehicles for decades.  Battery life is well known.  75K -200K before any charging problems.

 

Hydrogen will NEVER be more popular than battery EVs.

 

Why?

 

Cost.  Hydrogen fuel cells are crazy expensive.  Have you priced hydrogen fuel cell cars? OMG.

 

You can't afford one.

 

Also, hydrogen fuel cell requires double the amount of energy. To quote BMW: ‘The overall efficiency in the power-to-vehicle-drive energy chain is therefore only half the level of [an electric vehicle].’

 

Your opinion doesn't reflect reality.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-9000645/Toyota-steps-gas-new-hydrogen-fuel-cell-Mirai-cuts-price.html
 

Third paragraph:

 

“many experts believe hydrogen fuel cells producing electricity – like a mini power station on wheels – are a better longer term option for electric vehicles that batteries charged and re-charged from the mains.”

 

 

 

+

On 3/27/2021 at 9:20 AM, billd766 said:

Having bought your electric vehicle, how much will you have to pay when the battery finally dies and needs replacing?

I just checked on that for the EV battery in my hybrid Prius C...

 

$1600 for replacement, including labor of reconditioned battery, with lifetime warranty.

 

Pretty reasonable considering just saw a video of an VW Passat (made in USA) that needed new windshield wiper motors after just 45K miles (disgusting!) for $1200 at VW dealer.

 

C'mon.  Anyone with a VW/Audi/Porsche/Mercedes/BMW shouldn't complain about the cost of replacing a EV battery for at least the next one million years. ????

EV owners report spending 60% less on maintenance than combustion car owners. And over 360,000km driven, power costs compared to buying fuel is about 50% less.

https://thedriven.io/2020/10/12/tesla-model-3-costs-24000-less-to-own-than-bmw-330i/

On 3/29/2021 at 8:02 AM, ozimoron said:

EV owners report spending 60% less on maintenance than combustion car owners. And over 360,000km driven, power costs compared to buying fuel is about 50% less.

https://thedriven.io/2020/10/12/tesla-model-3-costs-24000-less-to-own-than-bmw-330i/

The fact that EV owners are spending that much on maintenance, even though EV cars haven't been out that long raises serious questions about the reliability of EV components.

 

Even though there's less components in an EV, if they're complicated and unreliable, it's going to cost you lots of money ????.

 

For example, did you know that the motors in EV cars are very complex?

 

Because they incorporate both DC motors (low speeds) and AC motors (high speeds) and associated hardware and software to control them.

 

Plus, EVs will have many of the same components as ICE, such as windshield wiper motors, AC, Heater, window controllers, lights, audio, etc etc.

 

The reliability of those components matter.  Put unreliable components in an EV car and you get higher maintenance costs than say, a Toyota or Honda.

At the moment the biggest problems for EV's are that there is not enough recharge possibility and if there are, they are at the wrong places!
Secondly if you have a Plugin Hybrid, then it's often the case, that the electric charge is more expensive compared to drive by gasoline! "EA Anywhere one of the bigger Electric charging stations asking for hourly rates which cost too much. And in Bangkok find an recharge station next to a place where you really want go. If you go to rural areas if you can find a station at all, there is nothing to wait while recharge. So as long there are not more recharge station and the recharge will be faster (for all cars and types) I know some models can be charged quite fast... but there are still many cars which not have this features yet... so many things have to change before it's really worth to drive electric...