The Problem With EVs

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

 

That Toyota has just developed a Hydrogen powered car, and other manufacturers are doing the same, means to me that it has been 'resurrected' as such  - I certainly hope so anyway. 

 

'Renewable Energy' - that is a can of worms and a political minefield of vested interests.  The solution IMO is obvious - build nuclear power stations and where possible hydro power stations for the main grid, and use solar farms/panels for the Regions and Locals backed up by the main grid when needed.   I recently saw that the 'environmentalists' were taking the 'greenpeacers' to Court in Europe because the environmentalists think nuclear is the best immediate solution, and the greenpeacers hate nuclear and want them all shut down. 

I am predicting hydrogen will eventually win out, for several reasons.

 

1/ There simply is not enough lithium and other elements available to do a complete conversion of all the ICE's in the world to electric.

2/ Auto manufacturers have very little to do by way of conversion of a fossil fuel ICE to a hydrogen ICE. Storage onboard is their principal challenge.

3/ Right now, hydrogen is no more virtuous than fossil fuel, because most is produced by cracking methane.The situation will change when electrolysis of water, fueled by solar or wind energy, takes over.

4/ Bulk transport of hydrogen will become practical by conversion to ammonia, and reconstitution at the point of sale. The technology is there, it's just a matter of ramping up to production volumes.

[TroubleandGrumpy]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

There is one aspect of nuclear power which seems to be ignored by its proponents.

A fossil fuel plant can be decommissioned and demolished, the land may be put to other uses.

Nuclear power plants irradiate the steel and other materials of their construction. Consequently, the only thing that can be done with a nuclear facility which has reached the end of its service life is to seal it up in concrete, just as if it was a failed reactor. Then wait a few thousand years.

Yes and No. It takes 10-40 years to decommission and restore fully - then the land can be used for anything.

You are referring to Chernobyl which will be entombed for a long long time because of the human error caused catastrophe.

Another point - nuclear power plants take 1/400th of the land that an equivalent sized solar farm takes up.

[TroubleandGrumpy]

29 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I am predicting hydrogen will eventually win out, for several reasons.

 

1/ There simply is not enough lithium and other elements available to do a complete conversion of all the ICE's in the world to electric.

2/ Auto manufacturers have very little to do by way of conversion of a fossil fuel ICE to a hydrogen ICE. Storage onboard is their principal challenge.

3/ Right now, hydrogen is no more virtuous than fossil fuel, because most is produced by cracking methane.The situation will change when electrolysis of water, fueled by solar or wind energy, takes over.

4/ Bulk transport of hydrogen will become practical by conversion to ammonia, and reconstitution at the point of sale. The technology is there, it's just a matter of ramping up to production volumes.

Agree - and that all make sense.  But politics and common sense rarely cohabitate in the same space and time.

 

[Photoguy21]

On 12/10/2023 at 2:22 PM, josephbloggs said:

Range anxiety is real. I don't own an EV but I borrowed one for three days for a road trip. I was constantly wondering if the readout was accurate, but actually it was amazingly accurate. (You enter your destination and it tells you how much battery/range you will have when you arrive and also how much you would have left if you chose to drive straight back.). It was a Volvo, not a Tesla, I don't know anything about them exaggerating - what my car showed was accurate. However it all depends on driving style and other factors, just like you never seem to get the mpg advertised. It's on the buyer and how you drive.

If you are contantly doing long journeys, or can't charge at home, then an EV is probably not for you. If you read the article you will see the stats - in the UK 99% of car journeys are less than 100 miles.
 

 

No it isn't at all, that is just not true. Have you heard of BYD?  I will likely be switching to a BYD Seal on my next purchase - top of the range performance model - and it will be the cheapest car I have bought for myself for about 20 years.
 

 

Partly true. However when I drove an EV I used PlugShare and was surprised by the density of charging stations in Thailand. If you are not looking for them you don't notice them. Definitely not a concern in Thailand right now although it remains to be seen if the infrastructure keeps up with sales (which are going through the roof).

 

That remains to be seen. Imagine you keep a car for ten years and your battery has degraded by 20% - it still has value. And in ten years time batteries will likely be much much cheaper than they are now.

A question for you: did you read any of the articles before posting? They cover most of your "concerns" backed up by data.

I am sure some of the EV owners on here (as mentioned, I am not one of them) will chime in with real world experience.

Just look at Europe. Second hand car dealers are complaining that they have a load of second hand EV's that no one will buy. Additionally, if EV's are so good why did the CEO of Honda state they are stopping their production of them? Maybe Honda doesnt like making profit or maybe they know no one wants them.

[JBChiangRai]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I am predicting hydrogen will eventually win out, for several reasons.

 

1/ There simply is not enough lithium and other elements available to do a complete conversion of all the ICE's in the world to electric.

2/ Auto manufacturers have very little to do by way of conversion of a fossil fuel ICE to a hydrogen ICE. Storage onboard is their principal challenge.

3/ Right now, hydrogen is no more virtuous than fossil fuel, because most is produced by cracking methane.The situation will change when electrolysis of water, fueled by solar or wind energy, takes over.

4/ Bulk transport of hydrogen will become practical by conversion to ammonia, and reconstitution at the point of sale. The technology is there, it's just a matter of ramping up to production volumes.

 

3 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Agree - and that all make sense.  But politics and common sense rarely cohabitate in the same space and time.

 

 

I disagree totally.  There won't be a winner and a loser in so far as the loser will disappear.  We will see both, you will have a choice of an EV or a H2 car, the latter will cost you 5 times more per kilometer to run it.  Demand will be for the EV, however, if there's not enough Lithium then market dynamics will take care of the rest and the BEV will cost a lot more than the H2 car in initial outlay.

 

2 hours ago, Photoguy21 said:

Just look at Europe. Second hand car dealers are complaining that they have a load of second hand EV's that no one will buy. Additionally, if EV's are so good why did the CEO of Honda state they are stopping their production of them? Maybe Honda doesnt like making profit or maybe they know no one wants them.

 

You can't say demand for EV's is down, period. Demand is most definitely up.  The problem is companies like Honda and Toyota can't make them as cheap as the Chinese sell them, the result is people want Chinese EV's not expensive Japanese EV's that are inferior in every way to the Chinese offerings.

[Lacessit]

4 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

 

I disagree totally.  There won't be a winner and a loser in so far as the loser will disappear.  We will see both, you will have a choice of an EV or a H2 car, the latter will cost you 5 times more per kilometer to run it.  Demand will be for the EV, however, if there's not enough Lithium then market dynamics will take care of the rest and the BEV will cost a lot more than the H2 car in initial outlay.

 

 

You can't say demand for EV's is down, period. Demand is most definitely up.  The problem is companies like Honda and Toyota can't make them as cheap as the Chinese sell them, the result is people want Chinese EV's not expensive Japanese EV's that are inferior in every way to the Chinese offerings.

You may be right in saying both technologies can co-exist. Neither will be environmentally responsible until they are entirely refueled from renewable energy.

As it stands, about two-thirds of generated electricity worldwide still comes from fossil fuel power plants. Hydrogen is no better if it is derived from cracking methane.

It is estimated by your favorite YouTube poster if Australia was to convert every ICE to an EV overnight, we would only reduce CO2 emissions by 9%.

That's because we ship millions of tons of coal to China and India.

[JBChiangRai]

17 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You may be right in saying both technologies can co-exist. Neither will be environmentally responsible until they are entirely refueled from renewable energy.

As it stands, about two-thirds of generated electricity worldwide still comes from fossil fuel power plants. Hydrogen is no better if it is derived from cracking methane.

It is estimated by your favorite YouTube poster if Australia was to convert every ICE to an EV overnight, we would only reduce CO2 emissions by 9%.

That's because we ship millions of tons of coal to China and India.

 

H2 is much more suitable for large trucks, buses etc.  I think battery technology will develop to the point you can charge up in 10 minutes.  Most people are going to prefer BEV's because of the running costs, the heavy motorway milers maybe not, it's too early to tell.  If we have the charging infrastructure and ultra fast charge technology, it could rival H2 cars.

 

It's hard to get over the charging at home overnight, that is a massive benefit.

[Lacessit]

4 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Yes and No. It takes 10-40 years to decommission and restore fully - then the land can be used for anything.

You are referring to Chernobyl which will be entombed for a long long time because of the human error caused catastrophe.

Another point - nuclear power plants take 1/400th of the land that an equivalent sized solar farm takes up.

Cost analysis of SMR's ( Small Modular Reactors ) indicates they are uneconomic.

 

https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/finance/2023/12/21/cost-small-nuclear-csiro

 

 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

H2 is much more suitable for large trucks, buses etc.  I think battery technology will develop to the point you can charge up in 10 minutes.  Most people are going to prefer BEV's because of the running costs, the heavy motorway milers maybe not, it's too early to tell.  If we have the charging infrastructure and ultra fast charge technology, it could rival H2 cars.

 

It's hard to get over the charging at home overnight, that is a massive benefit.

It's even more of a benefit if the vehicle has the fittings which enable it to act as a power bank in the event of a grid power failure, so house electrics such as refrigerators can be kept operating.

[JBChiangRai]

26 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It's even more of a benefit if the vehicle has the fittings which enable it to act as a power bank in the event of a grid power failure, so house electrics such as refrigerators can be kept operating.

 

Most new BEV's do have this power feature.

[Lee65]

On 12/21/2023 at 10:51 AM, Lacessit said:

Could someone please explain why a mobile phone signal is necessary to enable recharging of an EV, I don't understand. ...

Is there some reason why a debit/credit card cannot be used to pay for a recharge?

 

Pay by just swiping a card!  Or with, God forbid, cash?  You some kind of freedom/privacy nut?  Got something to hide?  Maybe you think you have better things to spend your time and focus on? 

 

Why just swipe a card when you can genuflect before these requirements:

 

- the aforementioned phone signal

 

- a data plan

 

- an up-to-date smart phone, charged, turned on

 

- the app that matches the charging station, linked to payment schemes

 

- and so on and so forth

 

It's all part of the EV dream!

 

Brother, you're displaying a dangerous level of common sense and that does not go down well with Believers.

 

 

 

 

 

- 

[Lee65]

On 12/21/2023 at 12:17 PM, KhunLA said:

Picked up the perfect EV for us, at just the right time.  Size, range, specs, price (govt incentive) all the stars line up perfectly, and already had solar to top it off.

 

...

 

Actually feel sorry for the ignorant people who can, but aren't taking advantage of EVs now. Whether 4 wheel cars, MB, or just a ebike.  We have all 3 and all serve their purpose.

 

Can have something that performs better, cost less to operate and maintain, but won't even consider due to pure ignorance, borderline stupidity.

 

You can't fix stupid

 

One thing I've found: EV drivers are the most charming people!

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Lee65 said:

 

Pay by just swiping a card!  Or with, God forbid, cash?  You some kind of freedom/privacy nut?  Got something to hide?  Maybe you think you have better things to spend your time and focus on? 

 

Why just swipe a card when you can genuflect before these requirements:

 

- the aforementioned phone signal

 

- a data plan

 

- an up-to-date smart phone, charged, turned on

 

- the app that matches the charging station, linked to payment schemes

 

- and so on and so forth

 

It's all part of the EV dream!

 

Brother, you're displaying a dangerous level of common sense and that does not go down well with Believers.

 

 

 

 

 

- 

I find it very ironic many democratic nations have furiously resisted any requirement to carry personal identification with them, that's what totalitarian states do to their citizens.

And then, we all rushed out to purchase the latest smartphone technology to show off to friends, neighbors and relatives.

[josephbloggs]

3 hours ago, Lee65 said:

 

Pay by just swiping a card!  Or with, God forbid, cash?  You some kind of freedom/privacy nut?  Got something to hide?  Maybe you think you have better things to spend your time and focus on? 

 

Why just swipe a card when you can genuflect before these requirements:

 

- the aforementioned phone signal

 

- a data plan

 

- an up-to-date smart phone, charged, turned on

 

- the app that matches the charging station, linked to payment schemes

 

- and so on and so forth

 

It's all part of the EV dream!

 

Brother, you're displaying a dangerous level of common sense and that does not go down well with Believers.

 

 

 

 

 

- 

More "what ifs"?

There are a couple of people in this thread that make valid arguments and can discuss them rationally - everyone is open to that, all the EV owners can engage in that happily as no-one is perfect and there are valid arguments on both sides. But you are just tiresome and childish using childish terms and arguments, calling people who own and have knowledge of EVs "believers". Extremely childish. Maybe you are just too infantile to understand the technology and that is fine.

BTW you can't just "swipe a card" if there is no mobile signal. 

Best stock up your shekels and put them under your pillow and leave the rest of us alone.

[Gweiloman]

This thread is about problems with EVs. The problem I have every morning is deciding which car to take out for the day, the BEV or the PHEV. Different pros, no cons.

[TroubleandGrumpy]

15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Cost analysis of SMR's ( Small Modular Reactors ) indicates they are uneconomic.

 

https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/finance/2023/12/21/cost-small-nuclear-csiro

 

Much of the 'analysis' done by the various bodies these days is very much 'clouded' by pre-conceived ideas and pre-determined outcomes.  One way to achieve such an outcome is to conduct analysis over a short time frame. Example - there is growing evidence to show that solar and wind renewables have a lot more maintenance costs than initially thought (and n bow is overlooked), and they will need much more replacement over shortere periods than claimed (which is again overlooked), and their damage to the environment is not calculated into the analysis. That report you mention has a significant statement that tells me it is pre-determined sheeite - "wind and solar, remained frontrunners as the cheapest and most effective options to deliver a reliable grid to industry and households"  That is patently a load of khrapp - the only real and reliable and proven alternative to fossil generated main grid power, is either nuclear or hydro.

 

To me it reminds me of the EV rhetoric - they are on one hand claimed to be the saviour of the world (by those vested interests selling them), but if every car was converted tomorrow it would 'save' less perhaps less than 10% of total CO2 outputs. Meanwhile all the 'bad' things coming out about EVs are just ignored - their thermal obverloadiong, the ever increasing insurance costs, the poor prices and lack of demand for used models, the limited ranges, the limited (or missing) charging infrastructure, etc etc etc. 

 

Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs - World Nuclear Association (world-nuclear.org)

The problem with reports like above, are that they are 'biased' - and it is symptomatic of what is wrong in society these days.  It seems that everyone is either pro this or anti that, and there is very little balanced argujments and reports being generated these days. That means people are being forced to 'choose a side' and then when they do there is ample self-fulfilling reports and claims and statements that say they are in the right. This means people become more and more polarised about any issue, and they just refuse to 'hear' any opposing argument or report. It is very much like politics these days - everything has been politicised to such an extent that pro-solar people and pro-nuclear people are forced to oppose each other, and the same goes for EVs and Climate Change and Covid and Masks and so many other things.

 

I like to think I am independent - but am I really. I believe the best solution to excessive CO2 and other emmissions is Nuclear power generation, but at the same time I do not believe that eEVs are viable in the long run.  But - I know that BETA was a technically better solution than VHS - but Sony managed the situation badly and BETA was 'destroyed'. That happens a lot - the thing that 'wins' is often not the best solution - what wins is what most people decide - and therefore competing sides in any situation spend far too much on PR and not much on 'proof'. 

[BritManToo]

17 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It's even more of a benefit if the vehicle has the fittings which enable it to act as a power bank in the event of a grid power failure, so house electrics such as refrigerators can be kept operating.

My 50,000bht battery pack does the same job as your 1,000,000bht ev so that's hardly cost effective.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Much of the 'analysis' done by the various bodies these days is very much 'clouded' by pre-conceived ideas and pre-determined outcomes.  One way to achieve such an outcome is to conduct analysis over a short time frame. Example - there is growing evidence to show that solar and wind renewables have a lot more maintenance costs than initially thought (and n bow is overlooked), and they will need much more replacement over shortere periods than claimed (which is again overlooked), and their damage to the environment is not calculated into the analysis. That report you mention has a significant statement that tells me it is pre-determined sheeite - "wind and solar, remained frontrunners as the cheapest and most effective options to deliver a reliable grid to industry and households"  That is patently a load of khrapp - the only real and reliable and proven alternative to fossil generated main grid power, is either nuclear or hydro.

 

To me it reminds me of the EV rhetoric - they are on one hand claimed to be the saviour of the world (by those vested interests selling them), but if every car was converted tomorrow it would 'save' less perhaps less than 10% of total CO2 outputs. Meanwhile all the 'bad' things coming out about EVs are just ignored - their thermal obverloadiong, the ever increasing insurance costs, the poor prices and lack of demand for used models, the limited ranges, the limited (or missing) charging infrastructure, etc etc etc. 

 

Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs - World Nuclear Association (world-nuclear.org)

The problem with reports like above, are that they are 'biased' - and it is symptomatic of what is wrong in society these days.  It seems that everyone is either pro this or anti that, and there is very little balanced argujments and reports being generated these days. That means people are being forced to 'choose a side' and then when they do there is ample self-fulfilling reports and claims and statements that say they are in the right. This means people become more and more polarised about any issue, and they just refuse to 'hear' any opposing argument or report. It is very much like politics these days - everything has been politicised to such an extent that pro-solar people and pro-nuclear people are forced to oppose each other, and the same goes for EVs and Climate Change and Covid and Masks and so many other things.

 

I like to think I am independent - but am I really. I believe the best solution to excessive CO2 and other emmissions is Nuclear power generation, but at the same time I do not believe that eEVs are viable in the long run.  But - I know that BETA was a technically better solution than VHS - but Sony managed the situation badly and BETA was 'destroyed'. That happens a lot - the thing that 'wins' is often not the best solution - what wins is what most people decide - and therefore competing sides in any situation spend far too much on PR and not much on 'proof'. 

I am probably more optimistic about wind and solar, due to a couple of factors - the development of battery storage which is capable of grid supply all on its own, and households that are going completely off-grid. The latter is scaring the living daylights out of fossil-fueled power generators, because it shrinks their economies of scale. An example of the former is the Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia.

 

IMO the reason we have so much conflict is the rise of social media, where any fruitcake can spout absolute nonsense, and get millions of followers if they are savvy enough to package their pitch correctly. Climate change is a case in point. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are central to explaining the cause = effect relationship of global warming and climate change, yet less than 1% of the world's

population has any training in said laws, or understanding of their implications.

 

This thread is a good example of people who are taking sides on the question of EV's. It's my opinion I am taking a balanced view of their benefits and drawbacks, others claim I am anti-EV.

 

 

[josephbloggs]

Just now, BritManToo said:

My 50,000 battery pack does the same job as your 1,000,000bht ez so that's hardly cost effective.

Weird comment. Can your battery pack drive you 500kms in comfort and safety? Does it have a stereo, air conditioning?

No one is saying you should by an EV purely to use as a battery, don't make ridiculous statements. 

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

My 50,000bht battery pack does the same job as your 1,000,000bht ev so that's hardly cost effective.

My son in Australia has one of the battery packs you reference, to deal with power failures, which are common in his area. A Bluetti.

The cost effectiveness of an EV  comes from the relative cost of electricity vs gasoline per km, even more if the EV recharges from roof solar.

[Lacessit]

13 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

BTW you can't just "swipe a card" if there is no mobile signal. 

Best stock up your shekels and put them under your pillow and leave the rest of us alone.

There are still some organizations that use forms and a mechanical device to process payments with cards, although admittedly it is an antiquated system.

 

Given there are thousands of scammers in cyberspace trying to separate all of us from our money, and governments in a race to see who can debase their currency fastest, I would always place more trust in bullion tucked under my pillow.

[HighPriority]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I am probably more optimistic about wind and solar, due to a couple of factors - the development of battery storage which is capable of grid supply all on its own, and households that are going completely off-grid. The latter is scaring the living daylights out of fossil-fueled power generators, because it shrinks their economies of scale. An example of the former is the Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia.

 

IMO the reason we have so much conflict is the rise of social media, where any fruitcake can spout absolute nonsense, and get millions of followers if they are savvy enough to package their pitch correctly. Climate change is a case in point. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are central to explaining the cause = effect relationship of global warming and climate change, yet less than 1% of the world's

population has any training in said laws, or understanding of their implications.

 

This thread is a good example of people who are taking sides on the question of EV's. It's my opinion I am taking a balanced view of their benefits and drawbacks, others claim I am anti-EV.

 

 

I’m someone who feels you’re anti ev but then occasionally you make a post like this and I think there’s a balanced thinker in there somewhere…

 

If 10% of the ice disappeared tomorrow to be replaced by ev’s at the least the air in the city would be cleaner.

If they were all solar/renewable charged then greenhouse emissions would be reduced going forward.

The overall “green cost/emissions is a longer term equation but so is the ice vehicle with higher day to day emissions. 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, HighPriority said:

I’m someone who feels you’re anti ev but then occasionally you make a post like this and I think there’s a balanced thinker in there somewhere…

 

If 10% of the ice disappeared tomorrow to be replaced by ev’s at the least the air in the city would be cleaner.

If they were all solar/renewable charged then greenhouse emissions would be reduced going forward.

The overall “green cost/emissions is a longer term equation but so is the ice vehicle with higher day to day emissions. 

You'll get no argument from me as to which is the more desirable/practical vehicle for city environments. I get off the bus when it comes to heavy haulage, where EV's are far less practical, and more of a feel-good statement.

You won't get any argument about recharging EV's from renewables from me either. It's when the recharge comes from Mae Moh power station, possibly the dirtiest CO2 emitter on the planet, that IMO people are kidding themselves.

Much of Thailand's air quality problems are self-inflicted. If the police at every checkpoint in Thailand were to put any smoke-emitting vehicle off the road, the AQI would improve very quickly.

You don't see any vehicles emitting smoke in Malaysia. THe AQI of Kuala Lumpur is about half that of Bangkok, although Bangkok does have a 20% higher population.

[Lee65]

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It's my opinion I am taking a balanced view of their benefits and drawbacks, others claim I am anti-EV.

 

Maybe you're an "EV skeptic".

 

Be careful though: slippery slope to "anti-EV", "EV-hater", "idiot", "stupid", and "infantile".  And next thing you know you're on these genii' coveted ignore lists, banished from the cozy circle jerk company of the rational adults.  

 

[Lee65]

17 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

More "what ifs"?

 

Those were not "what ifs".

 

17 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

BTW you can't just "swipe a card" if there is no mobile signal. 

 

Different systems.

[Lee65]

Insight: Scratched EV battery? Your insurer may have to junk the whole car

 

LONDON/DETROIT, March 20 (Reuters) - For many electric vehicles, there is no way to repair or assess even slightly damaged battery packs after accidents, forcing insurance companies to write off cars with few miles - leading to higher premiums and undercutting gains from going electric ...

 

$60,000 to replace battery. The battery costs more than a brand new car!

 

This is a Motormouth couple car video discussing the cost to replace the battery in 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5. After finding out that his battery protection cover was scratched ...

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Lee65 said:

Insight: Scratched EV battery? Your insurer may have to junk the whole car

 

LONDON/DETROIT, March 20 (Reuters) - For many electric vehicles, there is no way to repair or assess even slightly damaged battery packs after accidents, forcing insurance companies to write off cars with few miles - leading to higher premiums and undercutting gains from going electric ...

 

$60,000 to replace battery. The battery costs more than a brand new car!

 

This is a Motormouth couple car video discussing the cost to replace the battery in 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5. After finding out that his battery protection cover was scratched ...

Your post raises an interesting question for EV owners in Thailand - are your insurance premiums higher than a ICE in the same price range?

[JBChiangRai]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Your post raises an interesting question for EV owners in Thailand - are your insurance premiums higher than a ICE in the same price range?

 MG EP+ was about 8,500 if so remember right.

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, JBChiangRai said:

 MG EP+ was about 8,500 if so remember right.

IMO you should enjoy the party, while it lasts.

Take the hypothetical situation of an EV fire causing millions of baht worth of consequential damage in a confined space, such as a road tunnel or underground car park.

Then take the very probable situation where an EV has to be scrapped after an accident for full market value, whereas an ICE could be repaired at much lower cost.

Risk assessment is the life blood of insurance companies, they have entire departments dedicated to it. How long will it take them to realize EV's are getting a free ride on their profit and loss statement?

[vinny41]

54 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IMO you should enjoy the party, while it lasts.

Take the hypothetical situation of an EV fire causing millions of baht worth of consequential damage in a confined space, such as a road tunnel or underground car park.

Then take the very probable situation where an EV has to be scrapped after an accident for full market value, whereas an ICE could be repaired at much lower cost.

Risk assessment is the life blood of insurance companies, they have entire departments dedicated to it. How long will it take them to realize EV's are getting a free ride on their profit and loss statement?

This guy has already stated

He expressed his concern that many insurance companies in Thailand were currently competing to offer the most affordable rates in order to attract the majority of EV car owners.

The move, he believes, is lacking in prudence and overlooks the EV's loss ratio.

https://www.nationthailand.com/business/corporate/40033774

I think he his indicating a potential  rerun of the Covid insurance fiasco but next time it will be EV insurance fiasco