News Forum - Tax to promote electric vehicles forecasted

[Thaiger]

Thailand is hopping on the electric vehicle bandwagon. An anonymous source within the Finance Ministry told the Bangkok Post that the Thai government is mulling over providing tax benefits aimed to encourage electric vehicles. This move is coming in the wake of recent promises by PM Prayut Chan-o-cha to increase Thailand’s focus on tackling climate change. The source told the Bangkok Post that the Thai government would try to support domestic companies that produce traditional combustion engine-powered vehicles while also promoting the production of electric vehicles. This would require a restructuring of the entire vehicle excise tax system that is […]

The story Tax to promote electric vehicles forecasted as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Dedinbed]

29 minutes ago, Thaiger said:

Thailand is hopping on the electric vehicle bandwagon.

Jesus they do rabbit on ..

 

30 minutes ago, Thaiger said:

the Thai government is mulling

wine .?

As far as a load of old tripe goes this is there with the best .. 

[Bob20]

I knew all those above ground power cables would come in handy

[gion]

 

Again an idea that can be good, but nobody talks about the consequences as always in Thailand. no taxes on electric cars and other electro mobiles, as a good will and promotion for the sale of free insurance for five years paid by the government. But that will not work as long as the infrastructure for the charging process is not available or only insufficiently available and charging the batteries has to be very cheap and comes with electricity from renewable sources. Who was there first, the hen or the egg? first expand the massiev infrastructure across the country and then promote sales. Take a look at Norway, they are top in electromobility.

 

 

[longwood50]

Does anyone need a subsidy to purchase an Iphone.  No, because it is recognized as a superior product.  Did the government have to put a tax on horses for farmers to recognize the benefits of a tractor over a team of horses - NO.  Did anyone have to put a tax on checkout registers when scanners for products became available - NO. 

 

If a product is truly superior the public will buy it and not have to be either enticed to purchase it with subsidies or coerced into it via taxing the alternatives. 

This is nothing more than a centralized command and control of a major piece of the economy by governments who somehow believe they know better than the marketplace what should be purchased. 

Anytime governments interfere with the marketplace they create distortion and there are always the unintended consequences.  Billions of people will select electric vehicles if and when they became economically affordable alternatives to gas powered cars and the infrastructure to support them is available in the locations where the people live.  This one size all guarantees that even if electric vehicles are a great alternative that areas with extensive infrastructure will do fine, while those living in more rural areas will find they have the same rules applied to them despite not having the requisite charging stations to support them. 

 

[Jason]

The headline is not well put..."Tax benefit to promote electric vehicles". 

[Stonker]

31 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Does anyone need a subsidy to purchase an Iphone.  No, because it is recognized as a superior product.  Did the government have to put a tax on horses for farmers to recognize the benefits of a tractor over a team of horses - NO.  Did anyone have to put a tax on checkout registers when scanners for products became available - NO. 

If a product is truly superior the public will buy it and not have to be either enticed to purchase it with subsidies or coerced into it via taxing the alternatives. 

This is nothing more than a centralized command and control of a major piece of the economy by governments who somehow believe they know better than the marketplace what should be purchased. 

Anytime governments interfere with the marketplace they create distortion and there are always the unintended consequences.  Billions of people will select electric vehicles if and when they became economically affordable alternatives to gas powered cars and the infrastructure to support them is available in the locations where the people live.  This one size all guarantees that even if electric vehicles are a great alternative that areas with extensive infrastructure will do fine, while those living in more rural areas will find they have the same rules applied to them despite not having the requisite charging stations to support them. 

 

You're overlooking two things:

1. That a buyer needs to spend more buying an electric vehicle than a conventional one, although there might be savings in the future.

2. Buying an iphone rather than an Oppo, or vice versa, may make economic or personal sense, but neither decision will make any difference to the planet or anyone else.

[gummy]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

Does anyone need a subsidy to purchase an Iphone.  No, because it is recognized as a superior product.  Did the government have to put a tax on horses for farmers to recognize the benefits of a tractor over a team of horses - NO.  Did anyone have to put a tax on checkout registers when scanners for products became available - NO. 

If a product is truly superior the public will buy it and not have to be either enticed to purchase it with subsidies or coerced into it via taxing the alternatives. 

This is nothing more than a centralized command and control of a major piece of the economy by governments who somehow believe they know better than the marketplace what should be purchased. 

Anytime governments interfere with the marketplace they create distortion and there are always the unintended consequences.  Billions of people will select electric vehicles if and when they became economically affordable alternatives to gas powered cars and the infrastructure to support them is available in the locations where the people live.  This one size all guarantees that even if electric vehicles are a great alternative that areas with extensive infrastructure will do fine, while those living in more rural areas will find they have the same rules applied to them despite not having the requisite charging stations to support them. 

 

That's true but if there was an incentive to scrap your old stinky inefficient old car, as there has been elsewhere, for a newer model choosing either one being gasoline or one being electric, what do you think the choice would be in the majority of cases  here in Thailand  right now ?

I would suspect the former simply as an EV car is not practical giving sparcity of charging points country wide and no amount of tax incentives will change that. Once that is rectified and there is no problem getting charged up then the situation may well change.

[ThailandBob]

Whenever there's something new in the news, it seems like the govt wants to be seen as doing something.

 

[JohninDublin]

"The Thai government has announced the goal of having 30% of all cars in the country be electric by 2030."

I detect that the TAT have had some input into this.

[gummy]

20 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

"The Thai government has announced the goal of having 30% of all cars in the country be electric by 2030."

I detect that the TAT have had some input into this.

No doubt as the the other 10 million pick-ups alongside the trucks and buses will still be pumping out noxious fumes for decades after.

[ExpatPattaya]

3 hours ago, gion said:

Again an idea that can be good, but nobody talks about the consequences as always in Thailand. no taxes on electric cars and other electro mobiles, as a good will and promotion for the sale of free insurance for five years paid by the government. But that will not work as long as the infrastructure for the charging process is not available or only insufficiently available and charging the batteries has to be very cheap and comes with electricity from renewable sources. Who was there first, the hen or the egg? first expand the massiev infrastructure across the country and then promote sales. Take a look at Norway, they are top in electromobility.

 

Over 90 percent of people drive less than 100 km a day, charging at home is all that is needed. 

Yes, condos and businesses will have to get chargers, but how hard is it to put in a 220 volt charging outlet.

Compared to paying for foreign oil, drilling it, refining it, transporting it, and filling up the tanks at gas stations it is a huge money saver.  

Climate change is real people, quit your bellyaching because the world is changing for the better - better air quality and less noise from traffic is a good thing.

[mickkotlarski]

2 hours ago, ThailandBob said:

Whenever there's something new in the news, it seems like the govt wants to be seen as doing something.

For China.

[ExpatPattaya]

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

If a product is truly superior the public will buy it and not have to be either enticed to purchase it with subsidies or coerced into it via taxing the alternatives. 

This is nothing more than a centralized command and control of a major piece of the economy by governments who somehow believe they know better than the marketplace what should be purchased. 

Not about "superior products" it is about reducing carbon footprints, reducing greenhouse gasses, and slowing Climate change.   All just talked about again in Glasgow. 

Unfortunately most in government are in the pockets of Big Oil and Big Auto.   They all have you addicted to the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) since you were a child and most of the crybabies are old enough to know they should change, but like heroin, it is hard to kick.  

Again not about a free marketplace, about preventing the increasing risks of Climate change. 

Like the recent Covid vaccine, getting rid of ICE's is all about the common good of the planet and people. 

Watch some Greta Thunberg man  555

[JohninDublin]

13 minutes ago, ExpatPattaya said:

Over 90 percent of people drive less than 100 km a day, charging at home is all that is needed. 

Yes, condos and businesses will have to get chargers, but how hard is it to put in a 220 volt charging outlet.

Compared to paying for foreign oil, drilling it, refining it, transporting it, and filling up the tanks at gas stations it is a huge money saver.  

Climate change is real people, quit your bellyaching because the world is changing for the better - better air quality and less noise from traffic is a good thing.

As far as I can tell, there is not much bellyaching about this. The general consensus appears to me to be that the TH gov have launched yet another fantasy project that defies reality.

BTW, how many chargers will be needed for say a 30 storey condo with 300 apartments which in turn needs to hook up to probably a new underground power supply? It's all "doable", but the necessary infrastructure it needs will not be cheap but will be very disruptive, and until it is in place, there will be few takers for this.

[gummy]

1 minute ago, JohninDubin said:

As far as I can tell, there is not much bellyaching about this. The general consensus appears to me to be that the TH gov have launched yet another fantasy project that defies reality.

BTW, how many chargers will be needed for say a 30 storey condo with 300 apartments which in turn needs to hook up to probably a new underground power supply? It's all "doable", but the necessary infrastructure it needs will not be cheap but will be very disruptive, and until it is in place, there will be few takers for this.

Conservatively assume only 5 million EVs charging over night for 8 hours each pulling 80 amps at say 220 V equates to 14.54 gigawatts. The Total installed capacity in August this year was 49 Giga Watts. Demand maxed at 44 giga watt . So in 8 years Thailand will need to generate 25% more than it currently does just to charge the EV's irrespective of any additional industrial and normal domestic demand.  

[ThailandBob]

2 minutes ago, gummy said:

pulling 80 amps

Is that how much an EV draws during charging? That is a LOT of juice, man.

[gummy]

3 minutes ago, ThailandBob said:

Is that how much an EV draws during charging? That is a LOT of juice, man.

No, in actual fact a level 2 charger would be slightly less than half that but just added a bit for contingency 

[mickkotlarski]

8 minutes ago, gummy said:

Conservatively assume only 5 million EVs charging over night for 8 hours each pulling 80 amps at say 220 V equates to 14.54 gigawatts. The Total installed capacity in August this year was 49 Giga Watts. Demand maxed at 44 giga watt . So in 8 years Thailand will need to generate 25% more than it currently does just to charge the EV's irrespective of any additional industrial and normal domestic demand.  

So much for global warming drill ahead.

[Poolie]

I'm all for EVs but please dont ask me to watch/listen to Greta.

[mickkotlarski]

24 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

As far as I can tell, there is not much bellyaching about this. The general consensus appears to me to be that the TH gov have launched yet another fantasy project that defies reality.

BTW, how many chargers will be needed for say a 30 storey condo with 300 apartments which in turn needs to hook up to probably a new underground power supply? It's all "doable", but the necessary infrastructure it needs will not be cheap but will be very disruptive, and until it is in place, there will be few takers for this.

It certainly would not be the first time. If hydrocarbons are out of the equation then geothermal, air power and wind need to be drastically expanded asap. But this takes a grand investment in infrastructure and planning John and most Thai leadership has difficulties planning chook raffles.

I dare not think of the immediate consequences apart from putting a smile on faces of the Chinese EV industry and Elon Musk. As always the parliamentary squabbles will be heard for many kms. 

[longwood50]

53 minutes ago, ExpatPattaya said:

Not about "superior products" it is about reducing carbon footprints, reducing greenhouse gasses, and slowing Climate change.   All just talked about again in Glasgow. 

You say "superior" I say it is government control of the marketplace.  And no, I don't believe in the idea that somehow electrifying the world will result in a reduction in global warming.  

The earth has been naturally warming and cooling for millions of years.  And man made carbon emissions are relatively new in the scheme of things.  Even if I bought into the premise that electrification was great, it does not take into account a number of things.  Electricity comes from someplace.  Right now 40% of the electricity in the USA comes from coal, 20% natural gas, 20% nuclear and only 10% from wind/solar, hyrdo electric.  So the carbon emissions at the tail pipe now occur at the electric plant. 

There is nothing environmentally clean about mining lithium for batteries which is far less plentiful than oil.  There is nothing environmentally friendly about battery spills when cars get into accidents or the batteries need to be recycled.  

The two largest countries in the world in terms of population are China and India.  To produce electricity 57% of China's energy comes from coal, a total of 86% from fossil fuels.   One chart shows India with only 2% coming from renewable sources with coal, natural gas being the dominant sources of electric generation. 

Those two countries comprise 36% of the worlds population and unless you can get them to cut back on coal and gas powered electric plants you are accomplishing precious little in terms of reducing the carbon footprint. 

The attached shows the earth has risen and fallen about 5 degrees centigrade over various solar cycles.  This idea that somehow suddenly whatever warming is taking place in the earth and attributing it to man made activities versus natural warming and cooling periods is seeing a correlation but not really being able to establish the causation. 


 

Edited November 8, 2021 by longwood50

[gummy]

10 minutes ago, mickkotlarski said:

It certainly would not be the first time. If hydrocarbons are out of the equation then geothermal, air power and wind need to be drastically expanded asap. But this takes a grand investment in infrastructure and planning John and most Thai leadership has difficulties planning chook raffles.

I dare not think of the immediate consequences apart from putting a smile on faces of the Chinese EV industry and Elon Musk. As always the parliamentary squabbles will be heard for many kms. 

Well you discuss parliamentary squabbles which is certainly true for many developed nations and as always this leads to delay to major decisions.  However in Thailand the major squabbles will be amongst the minsters and others as to how they can personally financially benefit. Any concern as how they can address the upcoming power demand shortfall will be secondary.

[JohninDublin]

10 minutes ago, gummy said:

Conservatively assume only 5 million EVs charging over night for 8 hours each pulling 80 amps at say 220 V equates to 14.54 gigawatts. The Total installed capacity in August this year was 49 Giga Watts. Demand maxed at 44 giga watt . So in 8 years Thailand will need to generate 25% more than it currently does just to charge the EV's irrespective of any additional industrial and normal domestic demand.  

Not to dispute your figures, but I was looking at a Kia EV specs, and it can charge from 10-80% in 18 mins. I would imagine that charging these cars is like trying to force the last bit of petrol into a fuel tank. When the batteries are nearly drained, they will take a charge willingly until they get near full capacity, just like a petrol tank. The problem may well be those who will insist on fully charging, when the first 20 minutes provides most of the power.

One other thing to factor in is battery efficiency decay. In due course, the 8 hr charge may become 9.10, 11 etc hours. I think these problems will go un-noticed as long as the infrastructure stays ahead of the demands, but gov's are not always that diligent.

[mickkotlarski]

Just now, gummy said:

Well you discuss parliamentary squabbles which is certainly true for many developed nations and as always this leads to delay to major decisions.  However in Thailand the major squabbles will be amongst the minsters and others as to how they can personally financially benefit. Any concern as how they can address the the upcoming power demand shortfall will be secondary.

Agreed. A very critical item missed namely how much wealthier the ministers can become.