News Forum - Tax to promote electric vehicles forecasted

[mickkotlarski]

3 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

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 made 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. 


 

Brilliant!

[gummy]

5 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

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.

Excellent comment and the other issue will become, what the hell happens to all those batteries once they are replaced ? Maybe the interim solution will be to load up a few bulk carriers and beach them in India or Bangladesh for example so it becomes some one else's problem, isn't that the real outcome of COP26 ?

[mickkotlarski]

3 minutes ago, gummy said:

Excellent comment and the other issue will become, what the hell happens to all those batteries once they are replaced ? Maybe the interim solution will be to load up a few bulk carriers and beach them in India or Bangladesh for example so it becomes some one else's problem, isn't that the real outcome of COP26 ?

Lithium battery disposal is another aspect. If this post continues we'll have enough reasons to drag EV projects over hot coals. Your comment is both funny and sad in it's truth Gummy.

Oh and by the way this troll spray is really good stuff. Every time we even mention it the troll shows us a clean pair of heels.

[gummy]

2 minutes ago, mickkotlarski said:

Lithium battery disposal is another aspect. If this post continues we'll have enough reasons to drag EV projects over hot coals. Your comment is both funny and sad in it's truth Gummy.

Oh and by the way this troll spray is really good stuff. Every time we even mention it the troll shows us a clean pair of heels.

Thanks for the mention of the troll spray but I am mindful of the harmful side effects of the aerosol. I am currently working on an auto detect electronic trojan that once covertly activated induces a reflex action in the troll of putting his head between his bum cheeks and kissing the world good bye. Its is not quite ready for its trial stages yet but will keep you informed. 

[JohninDublin]

9 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

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 made 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. 


 

There is the real problem. 99% of Scientists working on CC, say's it's real. The other 1%, often employed by the Fossil Fuel sector, say it's not. I could give the FF trade a bit more credence if they were not so keen to make false allegations of fraud against the other side. 

Yes! Throughout the history of this planet there have been fluctuations in temps and weather conditions, but does that mean that the current cycle is what we should be expecting at this moment in history? Or that the current warming is not being exacerbated by man. 

It disturbs me, that those CC scientists who are arguing that this is purely cyclical cannot be more precise in giving data to support it, other than it has happened in the past. OTOH those who ae arguing that it is man-made having been plotting CO2 outputs for over a century showing a co-relation between temp rises, and increases in greenhouse gasses. 

[mickkotlarski]

3 minutes ago, gummy said:

Thanks for the mention of the troll spray but I am mindful of the harmful side effects of the aerosol. I am currently working on an auto detect electronic trojan that once covertly activated induces a reflex action in the troll of putting his head between his bum cheeks and kissing the world good bye. Its is not quite ready for its trial stages yet but will keep you informed. 

Dearest Gummy.  You truly do brighten up ones day!!! Once the marvel of modern day engineering is firing and you have witnessed a some troll corpses with their heads up their dingoles  I'll put my order in pronto. Would Paypal be OK?

[gummy]

2 minutes ago, mickkotlarski said:

Dearest Gummy.  You truly do brighten up ones day!!! Once the marvel of modern day engineering is firing and you have witnessed a some troll corpses with their heads up their dingoles  I'll put my order in pronto. Would Paypal be OK?

I am anticipating a potentially high demand but as I said it is not yet ready for the trial stages. However for some of my colleagues who have had perhaps suffered more acute cases of Troll damage I shall be releasing a beta version. This will have a two fold benefit. Firstly as a beta version it will be entirely complimentary and it will also allow any bugs to be fixed prior to worldwide release.

As you can imagine we have had to overcome many development issues so far and I am confident that the last remaining technical challenge of getting the Trolls ears beyond his sphincter will be satisfactorily resolved very soon.

[SLC2Thlnd]

7 hours ago, Thaiger said:

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

This is interesting - Thailand promoting electric vehicles, while the electrical infrastructure is in shambles.  No worries though, California (USA) has brownouts on a semi-regular basis and some of the costliest electric rates, yet is shoving electric vehicles down everybody's throat.  Well, at least Thailand won't be alone in putting the cart before the horse.

[Dedinbed]

9 hours ago, Thaiger said:

Thai government is mulling over providing tax benefits aimed to encourage electric vehicles.

Getting those that operate vans , truck's and buses is as much a part of the E V equation as private vehicles which will be even more of a challenge as electric commercial vehicles are painfully expensive next to the diesel equivalent and are hampered by range with even those fitted with 400 kWh batteries struggling to cover 300 km's .. the charging infrastructure and electricity generation capacity have to be massively improved with alternative ways found to generate the electric with fossil fuelled plants set to be phased out .. so blast away the usual waffle and platitudes about this and Thailand is the best part of a decade away from getting near where they need to be on it .. 

[JohninDublin]

2 hours ago, Tjampman said:

Too be fair to the science, though, global warming has pretty much been known for about 200 years, and nothing has refuted it. It is a matter of detail. If you double CO2 will the global temperature rise 1C or 4C? 120 years ago it was calculated to be 4C, and today the estimate is it will be around 3C.
The average global temperature during the last glaciation was 5C less than now.

Since 1750 half of our fossil CO2 emissions have been released in the past 20 years.

Perhaps, in the future we will have a big problem with batteries, but I feel that is a different problem to deal with.

Regarding batteries, isn't it a far greater problem that current estimates of Lithium reserves are projected to  meet only 50% of the Auto trade's requirements?

[Soidog]

5 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

There is the real problem. 99% of Scientists working on CC, say's it's real. The other 1%, often employed by the Fossil Fuel sector, say it's not. I could give the FF trade a bit more credence if they were not so keen to make false allegations of fraud against the other side. 

Yes! Throughout the history of this planet there have been fluctuations in temps and weather conditions, but does that mean that the current cycle is what we should be expecting at this moment in history? Or that the current warming is not being exacerbated by man. 

It disturbs me, that those CC scientists who are arguing that this is purely cyclical cannot be more precise in giving data to support it, other than it has happened in the past. OTOH those who ae arguing that it is man-made having been plotting CO2 outputs for over a century showing a co-relation between temp rises, and increases in greenhouse gasses. 

I 100% believe in Climate Change. No question in my mind that the earths climate is changing and warming the planet. I am about 50% convinced that mankind is contributing significantly to that warming, and I’m about 10% convinced that even if we reduced carbon emissions it will be material enough to bring increasing temperatures under control. I’m 0% convinced that if we must reduce carbon emissions it will be achieved by lifestyle change and things like reduced travel or eating meat. Only technology would save the day, not consumer behaviour. 

[Freeduhdumb]

 

I'm in... let's do this.

Edited November 8, 2021 by Freeduhdumb
additional

[JohninDublin]

2 hours ago, Soidog said:

I 100% believe in Climate Change. No question in my mind that the earths climate is changing and warming the planet. I am about 50% convinced that mankind is contributing significantly to that warming, and I’m about 10% convinced that even if we reduced carbon emissions it will be material enough to bring increasing temperatures under control. I’m 0% convinced that if we must reduce carbon emissions it will be achieved by lifestyle change and things like reduced travel or eating meat. Only technology would save the day, not consumer behaviour. 

I can agree with most of that with some minor modifications, but they are not that important. I've read that Richard Branson is spending upward of £1 BN researching alternatives to jet fuel. I am not sure he is going to find one. So maybe, his money might be better spent researching ways to reduce the cost of photo-voltaic cells so that those installing them would have a shorter pay-back. Last I read it took 20 years. The average Brit moves once every 7 years, so where is the incentive to invest in this if it will not be paid for during an owners tenure. If you are a landlord, why would you invest in reducing the fuel bill of your tenants? 

I too don't see us giving up air travel. I have nephews/nieces etc in three different countries, and friends in several others. I have spent the past 25 years driving LPG fuelled cars. I just took a look at the difference in pollution between that and petrol: Hydrocarbons 40% lower. CO 60% lower. CO2 27% lower. Not only that, but my fuel bills have reduced by 50%. Cost of conversion: €1600. Payback time 18 months. Not only have I reduced my carbon footprint and other emissions significantly but my current car, a Kia Magentis I've had for 15 years from new, has saved me more than it's original purchase price in fuel costs alone. 

Looking at EV's, I can't see how I will ever be able to afford the Latest Kia (€47k). I think the same applies to most people. So what are my alternatives.  I can get a Prius (€37k) with a combined ave mileage of 49 mpg, or a Corolla for €28k and get 33 mpg on the same cycle. But if I spend another €1600 on an LPG conversion I get the € for €, the equivalent of double that mileage.

So as I said about Branson, maybe the answer is not new fuels to reduce CO2 consumption, but reducing the cost of technology that will allow us to employ devices already to hand once they become cheaper, such as PV cells. To give you some idea, there are two mill vehicles on the road in Ireland which emit 2.75 tonnes of CO2 on average. A 27% reduction (750kg) in CO2 is a reduction  of 1.5 mill tonnes just for S. Ireland. The latest power station to come online in Ireland is Poolbeg with an output of 600,000 tonnes. 

I think people will play their part if you can show them there are more tangible rewards in the short term, because saving the planet always look like "jam tomorrow".

Basically. I think that there is a lot of scope to reduce greenhouse gases by simply offsetting through technology. It's the cost that is currently that stumbling block.

 

[Soidog]

9 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

I can agree with most of that with some minor modifications, but they are not that important. I've read that Richard Branson is spending upward of £1 BN researching alternatives to jet fuel. I am not he is going to find one. So maybe, his money might be better spent researching ways to reduce the cost of photo-voltaic cells so that those installing them would have a shorter pay-back. Last I read it took 20 years. The average Brit moves once every 7 years, so where is the incentive to invest in this if it will not be paid for during an owners tenure. If you are a landlord, why would you invest in reducing the fuel bill of your tenants? 

I too don't see us giving up air travel. I have nephews/nieces etc in three different countries, and friends in several others. I have spent the past 25 years driving LPG fuelled cars. I just took a look at the difference in pollution between that and petrol: Hydrocarbons 40% lower. CO 60% lower. CO2 27% lower. Not only that, but my fuel bills have reduced by 50%. Cost of conversion: €1600. Payback time 18 months. Not only have I reduced my carbon footprint and other emissions significantly but my current car, a Kia Magentis I've had for 15 years from new, has saved me more than it's original purchase price in fuel costs alone. 

Looking at EV's, I can't see how I will ever be able to afford the Latest Kia (€47k). I think the same applies to most people. So what are my alternatives.  I can get a Prius (€37k) with a combined ave mileage of 49 mpg, or a Corolla for €28k and get 33 mpg on the same cycle. But if I spend another €1600 on an LPG conversion I get the € for €, the equivalent of double that mileage.

So as I said about Branson, maybe the answer is not new fuels to reduce CO2 consumption, but reducing the cost of technology that will allow us to employ devices already to hand once they become cheaper, such as PV cells. To give you some idea, there are two mill vehicles on the road in Ireland which emit 2.75 tonnes of CO2 on average. A 27% reduction (750kg) in CO2 is a reduction  of 1.5 mill tonnes just for S. Ireland. The latest power station to come online in Ireland is Poolbeg with an output of 600,000 tonnes. 

I think people will play their part if you can show them there are more tangible rewards in the short term, because saving the planet always look like "jam tomorrow".

I guess the main unanswered questions for me are these:

1) If we were to do nothing other than hold emissions at today’s levels, how much effect on the climate warming would it have? 

2) If we were to reduce emissions by say 80%, how much effect would it have in climate warming? 
 

There is clearly correlation between graphs over the last 200 years of global warming and the rise in man mad CO2. However is that sufficient evidence of causation given we have seen other periods of climate warming when man made CO2 was very low?
 

Just imagine for a minute if it turns out we are not the major reason for climate change and we spend the next 30 years wasting our time and trillions on trying to stop it. What then? Would it have been better to spend that time protecting ourselves and relocating many of our costal cities. 
 

I’m not saying or denying we are the cause, I’ve just not seen irrefutable evidence and we can’t afford to make the wrong judgement call on this.  

[HiuMak]

No mentioned of electric motorcycles and scooters for subsidy. Isn't that a big part of road users as well?

[Fanta]

Wouldn’t surprise me at all if this “drive towards electric” is a ruse to justify, to the people, an increase in taxes on the production of ICE vehicles hence Toyota’s involvement. I cannot recall the last time an international company made a big investment in Thailand. Fool me once, shame on you… 

I’m sure we’ll see more tax gathering Trojan horses rolled out in the near future while investment in infrastructure and education continue to remain far too low,directly relegating sustainable social and economic growth to pipe dream status. And all the time the pigs at the exclusive trough keep gorging themselves.
btw, yesterday I learned that pigs have an average IQ of 61, higher than monkeys, cats and dogs. 

 

[Cabra]

Do not sit in your electric car during a thunderstorm (and certainly not while using your mobile)... certain death for you and the surrounding buffalo 

[Tunafish]

If Thailand was producing most of its' electricity from clean sources, then 

importing and manufacturing EV's would be a big step to reducing air pollution. But that is not

the case: Most electric energy is produced from coal. The electricity network is stretched as it is, which means

that the extra demand from charging EV's will have to be met by burning more coal. The government could really help by promoting solar energy. As it is, most of the components for domestic solar power are imported with up to 50% import duty, and there is no "buy back" for excess production.

[longwood50]

12 hours ago, Tjampman said:

Too be fair to the science, though, global warming has pretty much been known for about 200 years, and nothing has refuted it. It is a matter of detail. I

Everyone talks about "the science" Although nothing has ever been presented that can isolate that mans contribution to global warming is the predominant reason.  Why? Because you can't separate the normal warming and cooling of the planet not over the relatively short period of time like 200 years when solar cycles that mark the change in earth temperature happen over a 100,000 year span. 

Perhaps, man contributes to global warming but to what degree.  Also if man contributes to global warming in a significant degree what can be done about it. 

Very little.  Also I am of the opinion that there is going to be a lot of unintended consequences from the conversion to electric.  First lithium is a rare earth metal necessary for batteries.  It is extremely dirty to mine and is limited in supply.  The car accidents now with spilled gasoline are a minor problem.  Spill the contents of two electric vehicles into the soil is a different matter.  The electric still comes from power plants.  Right now the vast majority of the energy in the world is either produced by coal fired, natural gas, or petroleum products of some sort.  Only a tiny fraction is produced by wind/solar/hydro electric and the latter have environmental consequences as well.  Finally you have the recycling of all of those car batteries.  That is hardly an environmentally friendly process either. 

I am reminded when man in other cases tried to "correct" problems .  Just one example is the mongoose in Hawaii. Mongoose are native to India and were introduced to sugar plantation owners along the Hamakua Coast in 1883. They were imported here by the sugar industry as an effort to control rats in the sugar cane fieldsOne forgotten fact about the mongoose (herpestes javanicus) people should know is that they are active during the day and sleep at night in burrows while rats are primarily the opposite and more active during the night. Thus, the theory of the mongoose controlling the rat population was an epic fail!

The mongoose killed the native bird population and is now considered an invasive species.  I won't be around for it, but I have a hunch that 100 years from now there will be all the side effects from electrification and everyone will be saying, how could we have been that stupid. 

[JohninDublin]

10 hours ago, Soidog said:

I guess the main unanswered questions for me are these:

1) If we were to do nothing other than hold emissions at today’s levels, how much effect on the climate warming would it have? 

2) If we were to reduce emissions by say 80%, how much effect would it have in climate warming? 
 

There is clearly correlation between graphs over the last 200 years of global warming and the rise in man mad CO2. However is that sufficient evidence of causation given we have seen other periods of climate warming when man made CO2 was very low?
 

Just imagine for a minute if it turns out we are not the major reason for climate change and we spend the next 30 years wasting our time and trillions on trying to stop it. What then? Would it have been better to spend that time protecting ourselves and relocating many of our costal cities. 
 

I’m not saying or denying we are the cause, I’ve just not seen irrefutable evidence and we can’t afford to make the wrong judgement call on this.  

A bit like Vax hesitancy if I may say so.

[Soidog]

16 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

A bit like Vax hesitancy if I may say so.

Interesting take on it. However, if you applied my two question and related it to vaccination, I would give the following answers:

 

1.  If we did nothing and just. Series on as we did today, cases numbers would rise and so would hospitalisations and deaths. This is something we are seeing now in places like Germany and the U.K. where levels of protection are falling in the elderly. 
 

2. If we increased vaccinations by 80% then the numbers of hospitalisations and deaths would improve. 

[JohninDublin]

5 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Interesting take on it. However, if you applied my two question and related it to vaccination, I would give the following answers:

1.  If we did nothing and just. Series on as we did today, cases numbers would rise and so would hospitalisations and deaths. This is something we are seeing now in places like Germany and the U.K. where levels of protection are falling in the elderly. 
 

2. If we increased vaccinations by 80% then the numbers of hospitalisations and deaths would improve. 

That was more or less my point, that if you do nothing, by the time you realised the error of that, the damage will at least be so much worse, if not irreversible.

[Soidog]

5 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

That was more or less my point, that if you do nothing, by the time you realised the error of that, the damage will at least be so much worse, if not irreversible.

Yes I agree we need to do something on climate change. The question is what? I simply don’t know enough technical aspects of the problem and we all know what a complex thing the climate is. However, with the cataclysmic predictions being made, I would have hoped by now a much cleaner case for man made climate change would have been made. I watch one program or read a report and I walk away convinced. A few weeks later, I see another which  counters that and walk away feeling unsure again.

To me, the messaging is all wrong. The latest strategy by the media is to forget the debate and just focus on getting governments to step up and reduce emissions. That’s just pissing me off even more as I feel the debate (irrefutable facts) need to be presented. I have never seen anything that explains why the climate warmed to levels much higher than the +2 degrees forecast today long before man was around to affect it. I want to believe it as I trust science normally. But there are too many scientists who simply speak against it. 

[Bob20]

2 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Yes I agree we need to do something on climate change. The question is what? 

Don't tell anyone. I heard big pharma is working on a vaccine

[JohninDublin]

16 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Yes I agree we need to do something on climate change. The question is what? I simply don’t know enough technical aspects of the problem and we all know what a complex thing the climate is. However, with the cataclysmic predictions being made, I would have hoped by now a much cleaner case for man made climate change would have been made. I watch one program or read a report and I walk away convinced. A few weeks later, I see another which  counters that and walk away feeling unsure again.

To me, the messaging is all wrong. The latest strategy by the media is to forget the debate and just focus on getting governments to step up and reduce emissions. That’s just pissing me off even more as I feel the debate (irrefutable facts) need to be presented. I have never seen anything that explains why the climate warmed to levels much higher than the +2 degrees forecast today long before man was around to affect it. I want to believe it as I trust science normally. But there are too many scientists who simply speak against it. 

I can feel the frustration in your posts. But what you are complaining of is not new. Exactly the same happened when smoking was linked to cancer. 

If you see a man get shot and he dies, it's not to difficult to get someone to believe that he died from the gunshot wound. But when a man smokes and he dies 20 years later, certainty becomes much more difficult to convince others of. Step forward the vested interests and their PR men, whose sole job is to muddy the waters. Does that explain your tendency to flip-flop? 

For most of us, the science is far too complex. I tend to go with repeated studies that reach the same conclusion. Tomorrow, there may be a new study showing that Fossil Fuels are not the reason for CC and the FF industry will make sure it gets as much media coverage as possible. What you never see is that same study being duplicated elsewhere with the same conclusions. So when you see a contradictory programme giving an alternate explanation, ask yourself, "Have these results been duplicated elsewhere"/