Electric Tuk-Tuks costing as little as 60,000 baht ready by October

[Thai Dan]

3 minutes ago, Meat Pie 47 said:

Where are the charging stations

Oh come now.  Really?  Everyone in Bangkok has a plug out by the curb, right by their reserved parking spot.  ???? 

[Thai Dan]

46 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Both true. 

 

But...

 

NG is probably worse environmentally than oil.

Not hardly. 

[Thai Dan]

48 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Both true. 

 

But...

 

NG is probably worse environmentally than oil.

And natural gas is literally flowing out of the earth all the time as it is.  In some/many parts of the world it is being burned off 24/7 and is a total waste, while polluting unfiltered.  We need to capture and use it, filtered of course to reduce its impact even more.

[Stocky]

Quote

Tuk-Tuks costing as little as 60,000 baht

Is that the fare from Phuket Airport to Patong?

[kingstonkid]

Interesting there is absolutely nothing on their website about the tuk tuk.  You would think that they would be advertising it and talking it up.  Oh yeah same day this gets out their stock drops in price.

 

I have the same concerns how fast does it go how far does it go and how long does it take to charge and where can i charge it besides at home.

 

I can see hotels using it but I do not see a viable use for tuk tuk drivers or for the average person.

[Old Croc]

A lot of the naysayers on this forum are showing their age and how out of touch they are with the real world.

News flash - internal combustion engines will be phased out (!) over the next couple of decades, even with the US Conservatives fighting to the very end.

 

Electric vehicles are available in Thailand right now and have been for years.

BTS (Thailand) Public Company Limited - evthai

 

There are a number of other companies in the same business. 

[xtrnuno41]

It is a pitty they didnt design a solarpanel roof on it. Then you have instantly charging.

If there will be a lot once, how the Thai electric grid will hold?

As Holland started all doing electric, the grid already get into problems and need to be changed.

Dont think electric cars will hold for long, it is just an instant wild plan to get CO2 down, as i understood we have to 

cut down immediately, instant nowadays the CO2 , Paris reports. However we still go on.

 

SHELL already developed a fuel out of CO2 and H2. Why would they do that? yup , money and all will go in normal way.

But also aware it has to change. They already made a report in the 80 ties, which was ignored.

 

They want or are already, putting CO2 in empty gasfields. Guess the other ones join like ESSO and so on.

There were some issues about green H2 to make climate neutral fuel, but they invested now in Norway for H2. But also put up a new plant to create H2 by electrolysis of water with windmills and solar panels. Infra structure for H2 is handled in our country by Gasunie.

Having H2 you can control more. Besides there are still developments in H2 cars.

Of course they are subsidized by government 5 billion euro for SHELL/ESSO and another 2 billion euro for TATA. 

There are problems with windmills straight on the grid and their power, not really controllable. As you have big gasturbines running, which you cant simply put them up or down in delivery. As you should then as windmills and solar panels fluctuate in power delivery.

At the end, we will have several ways of making energy and transportation. Back to fuel (climate neutral), H2 and electric and of course alcohol (climate neutral). The question is, do we have enough time?

 

We deal with an eco earth system, we also changed our oceans. At least 5 MILLION TONS/YEAR of plastic in the oceans. for many years and still continuing. W solve one and forget about the other part of eco-system ?

I know there are people working on it, but isnt it more easy not to dump that plastic anymore in te oceans?

[djayz]

51 minutes ago, Thai Dan said:

Here's one from the U.S.:

 

Put 4, ahem, "healthy" Americans (I'm American, so..) in there plus a driver and you're tipping the scales at a ton.  And that model is for sale in the U.S.  Here's a good link to that reality:

https://www.treehugger.com/wheeled-electric-tuk-tuks-offer-clean-silent-shuttle-delivery-option-4857674

 

Like I say, that's probably fine and Thailand may be able to handle it with some relatively affordable shifts to the grid.  If so, more power to them.  But in the meantime they can simply go with natural gas while moving in that direction.

 

 

Really, a ton? I am impressed. 

[Thai Dan]

14 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

A lot of the naysayers on this forum are showing their age and how out of touch they are with the real world.

News flash - internal combustion engines will be phased out (!) over the next couple of decades, even with the US Conservatives fighting to the very end.

 

Electric vehicles are available in Thailand right now and have been for years.

BTS (Thailand) Public Company Limited - evthai

 

There are a number of other companies in the same business. 

Nobody has said ICE won't be phased out, or shouldn't be.  Liberals, since you brought it up, when offered a discussion of compromise, hear only "it can't be done". 

 

I am well aware of the incredible advances in renewable energy tech, and I am hopeful.  But I am also pragmatic.   Wind and solar can and should be used, and they are and will be, but we are not at the point where they can replace existing energy systems.  Not yet.  But we are in luck: we are moving in that direction, and we have time. 

 

Predictions of the last 50 years have not come to be, and it's a good thing too or New York would be under water, and I have my doubts that all these dire predictions of the next 50 years will either.   And finally, one ought to have a little more faith in mankind to solve problems as they arise, pragmatically.

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Dreams, dreams, dreams. They could have had electric Tuktuks for decades using lead acid batteries, but didn't. Easy enough to design them with slide out slide in option for fully charged batteries from a depot.

 

Does Bkk have the electricity infrastructure in place to charge all the envisaged electric vehicles?

 

When they come into use I hope they have a warning sound permanently on or people will get run over, IMO.

Any figures on how many kilometers a tuk-tuk can attain on a lead acid battery? And if a lead acid battery can be recharged with the current infrastructure, why can't a lithium ion battery also be recharged via that infrastructure? And by infrastructure I mean a plug in a home or a garage.

[Thai Dan]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Any figures on how many kilometers a tuk-tuk can attain on a lead acid battery? And if a lead acid battery can be recharged with the current infrastructure, why can't a lithium ion battery also be recharged via that infrastructure? And by infrastructure I mean a plug in a home or a garage.

We're way past lead acid for these applications.

[impulse]

1 hour ago, djayz said:

This I've got to see with my own eyes before I buy one. 

Hopefully, you won't be allowed to buy one.  The idea of the general public running around in top heavy 3 wheel vehicles loaded to one ton is scary.  They'll be limited to public conveyance.   I'm surprised they even allow them for the nostalgia.

 

There's a reason they don't build 3 wheel golf carts and ATV's any more.  Deadly rollovers.

 

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, Thai Dan said:

Nobody has said ICE won't be phased out, or shouldn't be.  Liberals, since you brought it up, when offered a discussion of compromise, hear only "it can't be done". 

 

I am well aware of the incredible advances in renewable energy tech, and I am hopeful.  But I am also pragmatic.   Wind and solar can and should be used, and they are and will be, but we are not at the point where they can replace existing energy systems.  Not yet.  But we are in luck: we are moving in that direction, and we have time. 

 

Predictions of the last 50 years have not come to be, and it's a good thing too or New York would be under water, and I have my doubts that all these dire predictions of the next 50 years will either.   And finally, one ought to have a little more faith in mankind to solve problems as they arise, pragmatically.

To take last things first, that prediction of NY being underwater was no such thing. James Hansen was asked given a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere, what would happen to NY. He never said that such a level would be attained.

And as for predictions not being attained...actually renewable development is way ahead of what predictions claimed would be the case. Way ahead.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/12/9510879/iea-underestimate-renewables

https://memoori.com/conservative-forecasting-is-hiding-the-speed-of-the-energy-storage-revolution/

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Thai Dan said:

We're way past lead acid for these applications.

Tell that to thaibeachlover. 

[Thai Dan]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

To take last things first, that prediction of NY being underwater was no such thing. James Hansen was asked given a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere, what would happen to NY. He never said that such a level would be attained.

And as for predictions not being attained...actually renewable development is way ahead of what predictions claimed would be the case. Way ahead.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/12/9510879/iea-underestimate-renewables

https://memoori.com/conservative-forecasting-is-hiding-the-speed-of-the-energy-storage-revolution/

See how you do that?  You either didn't read my words, or didn't comprehend them, or chose not to address them.  Did you seriously think I was talking about development predictions?

[Greenside]

Don't know why this is news.  There are some very nice looking electric Tuk Tuks here in Chiang Mai and a shop in Nong Hoi with the beginnings of an extended product range.

[vangrop]

60.000 baht seems to good to be true. What's the underlying threat?

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Thai Dan said:

See how you do that?  You either didn't read my words, or didn't comprehend them, or chose not to address them.  Did you seriously think I was talking about development predictions?

Yes, that was my mistake. But this one was yours...

"Predictions of the last 50 years have not come to be, and it's a good thing too or New York would be under water,"

And the IPCC clearly disagrees with your relative complacency about threats coming from anthropogenic climate change.

 

[Thai Dan]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Yes, that was my mistake. But this one was yours...

"Predictions of the last 50 years have not come to be, and it's a good thing too or New York would be under water,"

And the IPCC clearly disagrees with your relative complacency about threats coming from anthropogenic climate change.

 

You won't be surprised that I don't take panels formed by the United Nations too awfully seriously.  All the rest of the work by the U.N. being so stellar.....

[placeholder]

Just now, Thai Dan said:

You won't be surprised that I don't take panels formed by the United Nations too awfully seriously.  All the rest of the work by the U.N. being so stellar.....

Typical right wing nonsense. This was done by the world's leading climatologists and a huge amount of studies were synthesized. Where's you evidence that this report is substandard? 

In fact, your approach typifies how denialism has mutated into acknowledging the problem but downplaying its seriousness. Climatologists overwhelmingly have been warning about the grave dangers posed by climate change. The IPCC just has wrapped  up all that scientific endeavor into one big and extremely well researched package.

[Thai Dan]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Yes, that was my mistake. But this one was yours...

"Predictions of the last 50 years have not come to be, and it's a good thing too or New York would be under water,"

And the IPCC clearly disagrees with your relative complacency about threats coming from anthropogenic climate change.

 

And then there's this, since you brought up the original interview with Mr. Hansen:

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

 

(Excerpt)

Source: this update on Dr. Hansen’s personal web page at Columbia University.

In my story, below, I quoted from Reiss here in the Salon interview.

So I’m happy to make the correction for Dr. Hansen in my original article, since Mr. Reiss reports on his original error in conflating 40 years with 20 years. But let’s look at how this changes the situation with forty years versus twenty.

Per Dr. Hansen’s prediction in 1988, now in 2011, 23 years later, we’re a bit over halfway there … so the sea level rise should be about halfway up the side of Manhattan Island by now.

How’s that going? Are the predictions coming true? Let’s find out. Let’s look at the tide gauge in New York and see what it says.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Thai Dan said:

Here's one from the U.S.:

 

Put 4, ahem, "healthy" Americans (I'm American, so..) in there plus a driver and you're tipping the scales at a ton.  And that model is for sale in the U.S.  Here's a good link to that reality:

https://www.treehugger.com/wheeled-electric-tuk-tuks-offer-clean-silent-shuttle-delivery-option-4857674

 

Like I say, that's probably fine and Thailand may be able to handle it with some relatively affordable shifts to the grid.  If so, more power to them.  But in the meantime they can simply go with natural gas while moving in that direction.

Natural gas is often touted as a bridge solution. But the fact is that methane is over 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas. It just has a shorter half-life than does CO2. And as satellite reconnaissance has shown, natural gas wells are leaking huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere. This on top of the huge amounts of methane now being released in Siberia thanks to global warming.

In one fortunate sign, battery storage is beginning to outcompete natural gas in power generation.

[Thai Dan]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Typical right wing nonsense. This was done by the world's leading climatologists and a huge amount of studies were synthesized. Where's you evidence that this report is substandard? 

In fact, your approach typifies how denialism has mutated into acknowledging the problem but downplaying its seriousness. Climatologists overwhelmingly have been warning about the grave dangers posed by climate change. The IPCC just has wrapped  up all that scientific endeavor into one big and extremely well researched package.

Yes they have been warning about the "grave dangers" posed by climate change, and yet their track record of predicting climate change has not been too good so far.

 

But you and I both know we won't come to any agreement on these predictions, right?  No discussion or skepticism allowed, right?

 

I'll leave it with you.  Good luck saving humanity!

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, Thai Dan said:

And then there's this, since you brought up the original interview with Mr. Hansen:

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

 

(Excerpt)

Source: this update on Dr. Hansen’s personal web page at Columbia University.

In my story, below, I quoted from Reiss here in the Salon interview.

So I’m happy to make the correction for Dr. Hansen in my original article, since Mr. Reiss reports on his original error in conflating 40 years with 20 years. But let’s look at how this changes the situation with forty years versus twenty.

Per Dr. Hansen’s prediction in 1988, now in 2011, 23 years later, we’re a bit over halfway there … so the sea level rise should be about halfway up the side of Manhattan Island by now.

How’s that going? Are the predictions coming true? Let’s find out. Let’s look at the tide gauge in New York and see what it says.

That you can cite wattsupwiththat as a reliable source shows where your true sentiments lie. And it's ridiculous to project a linear one for one relationship between temperature rise and sea level. If this is the standard of scholarship you find acceptable, no wonder your attitude toward climate change is so blasé

[Thai Dan]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

That you can cite wattsupwiththat as a reliable source shows where your true sentiments lie. And it's ridiculous to project a linear one for one relationship between temperature rise and sea level. If this is the standard of scholarship you find acceptable, no wonder your attitude toward climate change is so blasé

Touche'!  You win!

[placeholder]

Just now, Thai Dan said:

Yes they have been warning about the "grave dangers" posed by climate change, and yet their track record of predicting climate change has not been too good so far.

 

But you and I both know we won't come to any agreement on these predictions, right?  No discussion or skepticism allowed, right?

 

I'll leave it with you.  Good luck saving humanity!

Not surprised that more you still subscribe to false memes.

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming

Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn’t accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models—some half a century old—shows most of them were indeed accurate.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

[placeholder]

Just now, Thai Dan said:

Touche'!  You win!

My search for a more formidable opponent continues.

[Thai Dan]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Not surprised that more you still subscribe to false memes.

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming

Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn’t accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models—some half a century old—shows most of them were indeed accurate.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

Nice article.  Cleared everything up.  Do continue your search, and good luck.

[placeholder]

Just now, Thai Dan said:

Nice article.  Cleared everything up.  Do continue your search, and good luck.

You're welcome. Go and sin no more.

 Yes, it was an excellent article. All the author had to do was plug in actual emissions to date into those algorithms to establish their predictive power.!

[Nojohndoe]

1 hour ago, Thai Dan said:

Sorry you can't understand.

Demons?  Proliferation?  Forced?  Humanity reducing itself to a primitive state of simple survival in much smaller numbers?!!?!!  Wow!

 

Take it easy, big fella.  We'll get there eventually and harness all that mother nature has to offer.  Just try not to bankrupt and starve those that you presume to be helping.  Then we can all get along.  Unless the temperature goes up another 1.5 degrees, of course.  Then we're screwed, right?

I am neither a denialist or pessimist. I am a realist. Nature  gives no room to compensation measures in favour of a species. A species must adapt and compensate to what nature presents. If a species demonstrates the capacity to effect  nature to the  degree of disturbance then nature  delivers the result regardless . As a self declared  species of supreme superior  intelligence that continues  to deny the equivalent degree of self imposed capacity for self destruction in the pursuit of indulgence to that declaration of superior intelligence while dogmatically refusing to acknowledge the folly of it ......?

Experiment  soon over !