Thailand's electric vehicle sector to see demand surge amid strong oil prices: DBS

[KhunLA]

10 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

GWh is a unit of energy......nothing to do with you.....but I find it surprising how often people presenting this kind of stuff get things mixed up.

This one kind of matches the same number ... ???? 

2014, can't imagine much has changed, more import maybe.

 

Why isn't coal called 'solar' ... ????

"Coal is called a fossil fuel because it was made from plants that were once alive! Since coal comes from plants, and plants get their energy from the sun, the energy in coal also came from the sun"

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by KhunLA

[Doctor Tom]

4 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

Just looking into buying a small generator....if we lose our aircon I'll have to sit in the car all night.

I have actually done that a few times myself,

[Will B Good]

Just now, Doctor Tom said:

I have actually done that a few times myself,

Got very close to it once or twice........been a real struggle on the odd occasion....555.

[placeholder]

51 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

GWh is a unit of energy......nothing to do with you.....but I find it surprising how often people presenting this kind of stuff get things mixed up.

So what are your criteria of comparing what percentage of electric power comes from each source?

Edited March 16, 2022 by placeholder

[motdaeng]

4 hours ago, bert bloggs said:

Best of luck finding a charger if you have one, never actually seen one  here in Thailand

charging your ev car is the same as charging your cellphone, normally you do it at home!

 

a list of ev charging station (sept. 21): http://www.evat.or.th/attachments/view/?attach_id=256246

this list does not include all the charging station from the dealers, like mg, benz, bmw, gwm etc

 

 some PTT station have new also ev charging stations (google: ev station ptt images)

 

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, HauptmannUK said:

In 2020 only 10% of Thailand's electricity was from renewable sources. 14% was imported and the remaining approx 75% from fossil fuels.  Factor in generation, energy conversion and transmission/charging losses and an EV in Thailand is probably burning more fossil fuel per km travelled than an equivalent ICE.  Until renewable energy generation is massively expanded its probably LPG and CNG that are cleanest means of propulsion.

Well, as the charts provided by Khunla show, over half of the power generated in Thailand comes from CNG. In addition, you seem to be assuming that because 10% of power now comes from renewable sources (actually the graph shows it's about 12.2 percent), that's how much it's going to be in the future. There's lots of room for growth there as a comparison of 2020 to 2010 shows.

What's more EV's over their lifetime create far less greenhouse gases and cause far less pollution than do ICE vehicles.

YSE Study Finds Electric Vehicles Provide Lower Carbon Emissions Through Additional Channels

https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/yse-study-finds-electric-vehicles-provide-lower-carbon-emissions-through-additional

[lesmac]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

You sure about that?

Tesla co-founder JB Straubel confirms Redwood’s battery recycling operations are already profitable

"We’re not profitable yet because we’re growing so quickly and we’re reinvesting and will be for quite a few years. But the actual operations of recycling these batteries, that is profitable today. There’s really a quite a hunger for these materials,” Straubel said. "

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-co-founder-jb-straubel-redwood-profitable/

very interesting thank you

[blazes]

Thing is, everyone on this thread would, ideally, prefer the whole world to be stuffed with EVs right now.  Forget "climate" cr@p, it's air pollution we care about.

 

BUT, think for one moment of all the ICE cars presently in this world.  How many millions does it come to?  And tell me, how are you going to persuade the person who has just bought a new ICE this year for one million baht to junk his vehicle just a few years down the road.?

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, blazes said:

Thing is, everyone on this thread would, ideally, prefer the whole world to be stuffed with EVs right now.  Forget "climate" cr@p, it's air pollution we care about.

 

BUT, think for one moment of all the ICE cars presently in this world.  How many millions does it come to?  And tell me, how are you going to persuade the person who has just bought a new ICE this year for one million baht to junk his vehicle just a few years down the road.?

So your point is because it may take 20 years to completely eliminate ICE vehicles it's not worth doing?

As for the "climate cr@p remark, just because your ignorance of the subject is willful, that doesn't make it any more meaningful.

Edited March 16, 2022 by placeholder

[jacko45k]

3 hours ago, Will B Good said:

If I lived in a house in BKK AND could charge the car overnight AND  didn't do any long journeys AND the price was 'right'......I might just consider it an option.

And I could get a mattress, sofa  or Thai family in the back!

[blazes]

15 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So your point is because it may take 20 years to completely eliminate ICE vehicles it's not worth doing?

As for the "climate cr@p remark, just because your ignorance of the subject is willful, that doesn't make it any more meaningful.

Eliminating all ICE vehicles is indeed worth doing.  It just needs a very long time-lag  to do it, long enough to allow those who don't have the means  to be able to adjust their finances accordingly.

 

As a retired academic, I know all too intimately how easy it is for scientists to sing from the same hymn sheet when their very salaries depend on grants handed out by governments or private corporations.  As a scientist, you get  promoted or financially rewarded according to how many grants you can obtain in any one year.

In earlier centuries, it was poets who sang the hegemonic ideology of their time, praising their lords for their brilliant achievements in battle, which in turn helped to finance the position of bard in that society.  Today, it is men and women in lab coats who are allowed to dictate to the people how to live their lives.  Leading in turn to the absurd and ignorant appeal to something called "the Science."

 

So, please don't try to lay the charge of "ignorance", which only serves to demonstrate your own in thus resorting to ad hominem attacks as you did in your response.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, blazes said:

Eliminating all ICE vehicles is indeed worth doing.  It just needs a very long time-lag  to do it, long enough to allow those who don't have the means  to be able to adjust their finances accordingly.

 

As a retired academic, I know all too intimately how easy it is for scientists to sing from the same hymn sheet when their very salaries depend on grants handed out by governments or private corporations.  As a scientist, you get  promoted or financially rewarded according to how many grants you can obtain in any one year.

In earlier centuries, it was poets who sang the hegemonic ideology of their time, praising their lords for their brilliant achievements in battle, which in turn helped to finance the position of bard in that society.  Today, it is men and women in lab coats who are allowed to dictate to the people how to live their lives.  Leading in turn to the absurd and ignorant appeal to something called "the Science."

 

So, please don't try to lay the charge of "ignorance", which only serves to demonstrate your own in thus resorting to ad hominem attacks as you did in your response.

It's clear that you are ignorant of the subject. Anyone who dismisses anthropogenic climate change as cr@p has to be. To say someone is ignorant of a subject means that they know little or nothing about it. It is not the same as calling someone ignorant. At this point 99.9 percent of all climatological papers that cite anthropological global warming as evidence support it. And there have been plenty of cases where the worst possible outcomes have been debunked by climate researchers.  And the nonsense that somehow all these scientists are acting out of some sort of constraint or greed would be possible only if there were a massive conspiracy involving 10's of thousands of people. What's more,there have been plenty of cases where the worst possible outcomes have been debunked by climate researchers.

Of course you could demonstrate that you do know something about the subject, by citing research which supports your claim that it is cr@p. I've noticed an increasing reluctance on the part of people who share your unfounded opinion to do so.

[blazes]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's clear that you are ignorant of the subject. Anyone who dismisses anthropogenic climate change as cr@p has to be. To say someone is ignorant of a subject means that they know little or nothing about it. It is not the same as calling someone ignorant. At this point 99.9 percent of all climatological papers that cite anthropological global warming as evidence support it. And there have been plenty of cases where the worst possible outcomes have been debunked by climate researchers.  And the nonsense that somehow all these scientists are acting out of some sort of constraint or greed would be possible only if there were a massive conspiracy involving 10's of thousands of people. What's more,there have been plenty of cases where the worst possible outcomes have been debunked by climate researchers.

Of course you could demonstrate that you do know something about the subject, by citing research which supports your claim that it is cr@p. I've noticed an increasing reluctance on the part of people who share your unfounded opinion to do so.

All you have to do is go and look at how the "Climategate" fraudulent activities at the U of East Anglia were dismissed as an attack by "climate deniers". But you have to be able to read all that evidence with a clear and unbiased mind, which of course may be a bridge too far for you.

No one with a working brain could deny that climate changes!!!!!!! 

But how satisfying it is for virtue signallers to dismiss sceptics as "deniers", as if they were not believing in the hegemonic religion.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, blazes said:

All you have to do is go and look at how the "Climategate" fraudulent activities at the U of East Anglia were dismissed as an attack by "climate deniers". But you have to be able to read all that evidence with a clear and unbiased mind, which of course may be a bridge too far for you.

No one with a working brain could deny that climate changes!!!!!!! 

But how satisfying it is for virtue signallers to dismiss sceptics as "deniers", as if they were not believing in the hegemonic religion.

And all you have to do is follow the actual news, not only climate change denying websites

 

Debunked Conspiracy Climategate Five Years Later

https://www.desmog.com/2014/11/19/climategate-five-years-later/

 

Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done

https://www.newsweek.com/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-damage-still-done-214472

 

And even if the climategate charges were true, which they were not, how does that affect the massive amount of science that supports the claims?

 

 

[blazes]

27 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And all you have to do is follow the actual news, not only climate change denying websites

 

Debunked Conspiracy Climategate Five Years Later

https://www.desmog.com/2014/11/19/climategate-five-years-later/

 

Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done

https://www.newsweek.com/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-damage-still-done-214472

 

And even if the climategate charges were true, which they were not, how does that affect the massive amount of science that supports the claims?

 

 

You are tiresome.  These links demonstrate precisely why you are guilty of what you condemn me for: ignorance.  If you had a clear mind, you would know how much these "reports" are guilty of "singing from the same hymn sheet."

 

 

[placeholder]

Just now, blazes said:

You are tiresome.  These links demonstrate precisely why you are guilty of what you condemn me for: ignorance.  If you had a clear mind, you would know how much these "reports" are guilty of "singing from the same hymn sheet."

 

 

Sure, reports published in the world's most distinguished scientific journal are all part of some huge conspiracy involving not only the scientist who do the studies but the reviewers as well. "Clear" is not precisely the correct adjective for a mind that would subscribe to such paranoid lunacy.

In place of hard evidence all you offer are unproven allegations and bizarre generalizations.

[Doctor Tom]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

It's clear that you are ignorant of the subject. Anyone who dismisses anthropogenic climate change as cr@p has to be. To say someone is ignorant of a subject means that they know little or nothing about it. It is not the same as calling someone ignorant. At this point 99.9 percent of all climatological papers that cite anthropological global warming as evidence support it. And there have been plenty of cases where the worst possible outcomes have been debunked by climate researchers.  And the nonsense that somehow all these scientists are acting out of some sort of constraint or greed would be possible only if there were a massive conspiracy involving 10's of thousands of people. What's more,there have been plenty of cases where the worst possible outcomes have been debunked by climate researchers.

Of course you could demonstrate that you do know something about the subject, by citing research which supports your claim that it is cr@p. I've noticed an increasing reluctance on the part of people who share your unfounded opinion to do so.

For what this opinion is worth, there are many more serious issues and intractable  problems in this totally screwed up world than climate change, we are seeing just one of those in Ukraine as I write this.   We are far more likely to end up with a major world war, or die from the next pandemic,  than that climate change will get us all. I am not a denier, just a none interested member of society.  There is so much nonsense, hot air, dissembling and outright hypocrisy surrounding the subject that I lost interest years ago. Frankly, to me, the climate change debate is of as much interest to me and my future life, and that of my children, as the UK football scores, and I hate football.  What eventually happens to humankind in the next 100 years is also of no interest to me.  

[PETERTHEEATER]

8 hours ago, tonray said:

I'm buying stock in extension cord manufacturers to play the trend

My money is in Chinese made AA batteries for EVs.....????

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Doctor Tom said:

For what this opinion is worth, there are many more serious issues and intractable  problems in this totally screwed up world than climate change, we are seeing just one of those in Ukraine as I write this.   We are far more likely to end up with a major world war, or die from the next pandemic,  than that climate change will get us all. I am not a denier, just a none interested member of society.  There is so much nonsense, hot air, dissembling and outright hypocrisy surrounding the subject that I lost interest years ago. Frankly, to me, the climate change debate is of as much interest to me and my future life, and that of my children, as the UK football scores, and I hate football.  What eventually happens to humankind in the next 100 years is also of no interest to me.  

Thank you for sharing your lack of interest. It shows.

[Doctor Tom]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Thank you for sharing your lack of interest. It shows.

Good, then I got the message across. 

Edited March 16, 2022 by Doctor Tom

[metisdead]

An off topic trolling post has been removed.

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

Good, then I got the message across. 

The message being to disregard your opinion on the subject.

[Doctor Tom]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The message being to disregard your opinion on the subject.

I think you will find that many more people have my view than you may at first think. There is a large element of climate change fatigue within a lot of people that I talk to.  It's often a matter of, 'yea yea, we know, let's  move on',  

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Doctor Tom said:

I think you will find that many more people have my view than you may at first think. There is a large element of climate change fatigue within a lot of people that I talk to.  It's often a matter of, 'yea yea, we know, let's  move on',  

:Why should anyone care about the view of those who aren't interested and reveal little to no knowledge of the subject? And you must be spending a lot of time talking to people about a subject you have no interest in. It must be excruciatingly dull for you.

As for the general public...

Climate change: UK public concern over environment double that of the economy, poll finds

Concern over the climate, environment and pollution was equally high for Labour and Conservative voters and similar for different social grades.

https://news.sky.com/story/climate-change-uk-public-concern-over-environment-double-that-of-the-economy-poll-finds-12477188

 

Majority in US concerned about climate: AP-NORC/EPIC poll

President Joe Biden heads to a vital U.N. climate summit at a time when a majority of Americans regard the deteriorating climate as a problem of high importance to them, an increase from just a few years ago.

About 6 out of 10 Americans also believe that the pace of global warming is speeding up, according to a new survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago.

As Biden struggles to pass significant climate legislation at home ahead of next week’s U.N. climate summit, the new AP-NORC/EPIC poll also shows that 55% of Americans want Congress to pass a bill to ensure that more of the nation’s electricity comes from clean energy and less from climate-damaging coal and natural gas.

https://apnews.com/article/climate-joe-biden-science-environment-and-nature-only-on-ap-1e48e3315d2e0b618ccaa4a8d466e057

[realfunster]

8 hours ago, ballpoint said:

Many have a range of over 450km these days, with the Mercedes EQS having an independently tested range of 780km, and fast charging times to go with it - from 10% to 80% capacity in around 30 minutes. 

I get your point and I accept that the future for electric cars is promising.

However, the thread seems to have conflated a general discussion on high petrol prices pushing people to EVs and the wider overall EV outlook.

 

If high gasoline prices are a major concern for you, I doubt that rushing out to purchase an EV is going to be top of your list, as the OP suggests.

 

One final bit of information for readers regarding your example regarding Mercedes EQS :

 

"2021 Mercedes-Benz EQS hits UK dealerships at £99,995." 

[ballpoint]

14 hours ago, realfunster said:

I get your point and I accept that the future for electric cars is promising.

However, the thread seems to have conflated a general discussion on high petrol prices pushing people to EVs and the wider overall EV outlook.

 

If high gasoline prices are a major concern for you, I doubt that rushing out to purchase an EV is going to be top of your list, as the OP suggests.

 

One final bit of information for readers regarding your example regarding Mercedes EQS :

 

"2021 Mercedes-Benz EQS hits UK dealerships at £99,995." 

My post was addressed to those who claimed they had seen no charging stations in Thailand, and the technology isn't good enough right now, in terms of range and charging time.  I pointed out that there are many charging stations throughout the country, including rural areas - in fact, Thailand has one of the biggest charging networks in the region, and the technology is improving to the point where it's now possible to get a 700+km range.  Yes, at present that happens to be in an expensive model - though I would seriously consider buying one should I be in the market to replace my current Merc right now, but, the fact that they can squeeze that amount of range from a battery shows that it is possible for other manufacturers to also do so.  Indeed, it is often said in the motoring industry that the technology introduced in Mercedes S Class saloons points to what mainstream vehicles will be like in the near future - "The launch of a new-generation Mercedes-Benz S-Class has always been regarded as an insight into the future of the automotive world – and a sneak peek into what will eventually become standard equipment on everyday cars of nearly all manufacturers". Mercedes-Benz S-Class: technology breakdown - Drive  Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised to see a cheap Chinese EV with similar range in the next few years.

 

Both points are entirely valid given the OP.  The current high petrol prices will only push people to EVs if they meet their needs and don't cost them too much time and effort in charging.  As I said in my post, I'm not going to run out and buy one just because the price of petrol is high, but when the time does come to replace one of our cars - which won't be for another three or four years, there is a good probability that it will be for an EV.  

[VincentRJ]

6 hours ago, ballpoint said:

and the technology is improving to the point where it's now possible to get a 700+km range. 

This is very impressive. The limited range of EVs has been a major obstacle, especially considering the lack of recharging stations and the relatively long time it takes to recharge.

 

However, I have great faith in the ability of technology to progress, but it can often take many decades to reach a specified goal, which in the case of the EV, is a lighter, more durable, safer, and quicker-charging battery with greater capacity, all at an affordable price.

 

Another major issue with EVs is the production of a reliable electricity supply without the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power. Can we build an Electric Vehicle using only renewable energy sources to mine the minerals and rare earth metals and process them, and recycle them? Can we use only renewables to produce the electricity to recharge hundreds of millions of EVs?

[rickudon]

I believe in Anthropomorphic climate change and would love to see most transport use electricity in future. However, i am realistic enough to know that that it needs an economic incentive too.

 

Currently, i spend about 25,000 baht a year on Petrol. But an equivalent electric car will cost around 500,000 baht more than the ICE version. So it would take me 20 years to recoup the extra cost of the EV by not buying petrol, even if the electricity was free. And would the batteries last 20 years? Currently it doesn't even make financial sense to buy a new electric car when my current ICE car dies of old age. The economics needs to change.

 

EV's need to be cheaper than ICE cars, and replacing batteries should not involve re-mortgaging your home. I will go electric when i can afford to do so.

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

This is very impressive. The limited range of EVs has been a major obstacle, especially considering the lack of recharging stations and the relatively long time it takes to recharge.

 

However, I have great faith in the ability of technology to progress, but it can often take many decades to reach a specified goal, which in the case of the EV, is a lighter, more durable, safer, and quicker-charging battery with greater capacity, all at an affordable price.

 

Another major issue with EVs is the production of a reliable electricity supply without the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power. Can we build an Electric Vehicle using only renewable energy sources to mine the minerals and rare earth metals and process them, and recycle them? Can we use only renewables to produce the electricity to recharge hundreds of millions of EVs?

Already, solid-state batteries are beginning to be commercially produced. Just beginning, but companies such as Samsung claim they'll have industrial production in place sometime in 2023. Whether that happens or not, your suggestion that it may take many decades is extremely unlikely to be correct. It's dubious that major companies would currently be investing billions of dollars for a technology that is decades away.

 

As for a reliable source of supply there has been huge progress.  The cost per kwh via solar and wind has declined by . So much so, that they are far cheaper than coal plants. In fact the cost of building wind or solar plants is now cheaper than the cost of just running a coal plant. In addition wind and solar are already imperiling gas peaker plants via battery storage. What's more new forms of batteries such as those based on iron oxide promise storage build costs of US$20 per kwh with long term storage capability of up to 100 hours. If, as is likely the case, this proves itself in demonstration plants now being built, then it should be possible to do away entirely with fossil fuels.

Green hydrogen looks like it's also on the near horizon. In a major breakthrough an Australian team claims to haves come up with an electrolyzer that's 98% efficent

"In a peer-reviewed paper published in Nature Communications, the Hysata team claims its capillary-action electrolyzer cell has been demonstrated at a record-breaking efficiency of 98 percent, vastly better than a "state-of-the-art [presumably asymmetric polymer electrolyte membrane] commercial water electrolyzer" which displayed a cell efficiency of 83 percent."

https://newatlas.com/energy/hysata-efficient-hydrogen-electrolysis/

In Sweden, hydrogen has been used to create steel from iron ore.

 

 

 

 

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, placeholder said:

Whether that happens or not, your suggestion that it may take many decades is extremely unlikely to be correct. It's dubious that major companies would currently be investing billions of dollars for a technology that is decades away.

 

It's difficult to predict how long the development of a new technology will take before the goals are successfully achieved. An example would be the development of Nuclear Fusion to supply energy (as opposed to the conventional Nuclear Fission which has many 'potential' problems).

 

Research into Nuclear Fusion has been going on for many decades with many predictions along the way that success will be achieved within a few years. Here's an article that mentions the latest investments in this research.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-01/commonwealth-fusion-attracts-1-8-billion-in-top-funding-deal

 

"Commonwealth Fusion Systems said it raised $1.8 billion from investors including billionaire Bill Gates and venture capitalist John Doerr in the fusion industry’s largest financing deal."

 

"As for a reliable source of supply there has been huge progress.  The cost per kwh via solar and wind has declined by . So much so, that they are far cheaper than coal plants. In fact the cost of building wind or solar plants is now cheaper than the cost of just running a coal plant."

 

That would only be true if the sun were to shine continuously and the wind were to blow continuously. The intermittency of renewables seems to get ignored when doing cost comparisons.

 

It's going to be horrible to see large tracts of land covered in black solar panels, and scores of noisy Windmills killing lots of birds. How can these 'Green Environmentalists' promote such a concept. There must be something wrong with them. They are ruining nature. ????