What's new

4 electric vehicle firms to set up shop in Philippines

1703470275772.png


MANILA, Philippines — At least four foreign electric vehicle (EV) manufacturers are looking to set up manufacturing facilities in the country, according to the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA).

“As we speak, we’re in talks with several EV manufacturers. So the initial ones coming are into e-motorcycles because there’s lesser regulations for e-motorcycles,” PEZA director-general Tereso Panga said in a briefing.

“But once the supply chain is present, we will also see EV cars manufacturing to also locate,” he added.

Panga shared that they are in talks with one American firm, which will manufacture e-buses, e-heavy equipment and even cars.

“And they want to participate in the modernization of our transport (system),” he added.

In an interview with reporters, Panga said the American firm, namely EVT (Envirotech Vehicles) is still doing due diligence.

“But we already accompanied them in scouting for a location. I think their first order is for 200 buses to export to Singapore,” Panga said.

Apart from the American firm, Panga said two EV manufacturers from China and one from Indonesia are also eyeing to set up manufacturing facilities in the country.

He said the EV firms are looking at the CALABARZON and Central Luzon area, particularly Pampanga and Cavite as potential locations for their facilities.

The PEZA official said a Chinese firm is looking to apply for registration with the agency by January.

For 2024, the PEZA aims to approve P250 billion worth of investments as it hopes to return to its previous peak levels of investments.

“We really want to target P250 billion because this will bring us back to the peak levels of PEZA during the time of then director general Lilia de Lima when we were hitting P250 billion to P300 billion,” Panga said, referring to former PEZA chief Lilia de Lima who was at the helm of the agency from 1995 to 2016.

“If we will target another increase of 10 percent over our baseline for 2023, we’re looking at P202 billion in investments by 2024. And this, I would say, is still conservative,” he said.

For this year, investments approved by the PEZA went up by 25 percent to P175.71 billion from last year’s P140.7 billion.

The growth exceeded the conservative end of its investment approvals target for this year of P154.77 billion, a 10 percent increase from the previous year.

This covers a total of 233 projects, higher than the 194 approved in 2022.

Figures from the PEZA showed that these approved investments have a projected export valued at $4 billion and projected employment of 40,527.

The PEZA official said bigger projects would be registered with the PEZA by the first quarter of next year.

He added that there are two more big-ticket investments expected to be registered with the agency in January.
 

Attachments

maganda EV dito dahil all year round maganda sikat nang araw, mas pabor satin kasi 100% dependent tayo sa foreign gas fuel.

if yung fuel nang EV manggagaling lan naman sa fossil fuel e parang naging "luxury" nalang yang mga EV dito.
 
habang yung mga malalaking car manufacturer umatras na sa non profitable e-car, sila naman mag tatayo ng pagawaan dito sa pinas lols. tipid sa gasolina wasak ka naman pag palitan na ng battery. kaya madaming itinatapon na e-bike at car sa china dahil sa mahal ng battery. mas magastos pa maintenance nyan kesa sa fuel engines.
 
incorrect, China has a thriving EV market. meron mga affordable type of EV at meron luxury EV.

also incorrect din na pa-laos na yung EV sa western market, kaka start palang.

only Toyota has back off a little bit sa EV market, because they are still coping sa loss nila sa big investment nila sa "hybrid" cars. Also they are still in the forefront sa pag research nang "solid state batteries". Obvious naman na Toyota's CEO is into fast combustion engine cars, well isa na din reason yan.
 
incorrect, China has a thriving EV market. meron mga affordable type of EV at meron luxury EV.

also incorrect din na pa-laos na yung EV sa western market, kaka start palang.

only Toyota has back off a little bit sa EV market, because they are still coping sa loss nila sa big investment nila sa "hybrid" cars. Also they are still in the forefront sa pag research nang "solid state batteries". Obvious naman na Toyota's CEO is into fast combustion engine cars, well isa na din reason yan.

Reality bites the green energy agenda​

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
November 28, 2023
750

First word
WHILE UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and other promoters of the climate emergency are preparing to convene the 28th conference of the parties (COP28) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in the United Arab Emirates, starting on November 30 and stretching to December 12, the negative news about the climate program and the longed-for green energy transition continue to pile up and haunt the forthcoming climate powwow.
Fox News network has dealt a devastating blow with a report by policy analyst Kristen Walker on November 21 entitled, "The slow demise of green energy; the wheels are starting to fall off the green energy bandwagon."
The Issues & Insights website, in turn, has published an editorial entitled, "The latest on global warming ... there is no global warming."
Ms. Walker reported:
"The wheels are starting to fall off the green energy bandwagon. The rose-colored glasses are clearing up, and reality is sinking in.
The giant push toward a net zero utopia is not practical and has been a complete disservice to the American consumer. Components of the green movement are experiencing major setbacks, namely offshore wind, electric vehicles (EVs) and investments.
Offshore wind projects are struggling to secure financing and stay on track. The biggest blow came last month when the world's largest offshore wind developer Ørsted canceled two major projects off the New Jersey coastline, taking the wind right out of Gov. Phil Murphy's green energy sails. Ørsted is also suspending work on offshore projects in Maryland and Delaware.
Among the wave of cancellations are projects in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York and Connecticut. Several other projects are on the ropes, and a host of companies are paying millions to break their contracts.
The industry hit another snag recently when Germany-based Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy pulled the plug on its wind turbine blade facility in Portsmouth, ******ia. Siemens Gamesa, one of the world's leading suppliers, says, 'development milestones to establish the facility could not be met.'
According to Bloomberg NEF, at least half of US wind contracts are at risk of being terminated. The causes are typically due to skyrocketing inflation, high-interest rates, choked supply chains and financial troubles.
EV losing steam
The EV market is also losing steam. Sales are slumping and manufacturers are scaling back on production.
Ford Motor Company stands to lose $4.5 billion on its EV business for 2023 and will be delaying many of its EV investments.
General Motors said it was restructuring EV goals, Honda shelved plans to develop affordable EVs with GM, and Hertz said it would slow their rate of purchasing them due to high repair costs. Elon Musk is even considering putting off plans for a $1 billion plant in Mexico.
Most, if not all, manufacturers are reporting major losses per EV sold. Ford lost $62,000 per vehicle in the third quarter; one luxury electric vehicle company lost an astounding $430,000. Countless others are losing tens of thousands of dollars per vehicle, quarter after quarter.
Car dealers are slashing EV prices. EVs sit on lots nearly twice as long as internal combustion engines. Even industry leader Tesla has been shaving thousands off their retail prices due to unmet sales expectations.
This kind of loss is not sustainable for any company.
The Economist says the EV market could become the next big flop.
The EV market is niche. Those who want one have one. But the rest of America is not convinced they would be better off with an EV on account of a multitude of reliability factors. Nor can they afford the steep price tag.
Consequently, the last few months have seen stock prices drastically dropping in companies across the green spectrum. From wind to solar to EVs to fuel cells, investors are abandoning the 'green' energy ship in droves. It might be sinking.
Siemens Energy stock is down 45 percent; Ørsted, 67 percent; Power Inc., a hydrogen fuel cell producer, 71 percent; Charge Point Holdings Inc., an EV charging company, 70 percent; Blink Charging Co., another EV charging company, 72 percent; and Nikola Corp., maker of heavy-duty EVs, has gone from $65 a share in mid-2020 to the current price of less than $1 per share.
We need to read between the lines here. The green energy revolution is not working, nor is central planning. You cannot force Americans to buy cars they don't want any more than you can force energy transitions that aren't viable.
Green energy is wholly inadequate to meet the needs of all Americans and, turns out, is insanely expensive.
The World Economic Forum says that getting to net zero by 2050 will cost an extra $3.5 trillion a year. The US has already poured hundreds of billions into the effort and continues to keep shoveling. All on the backs of the American taxpayer, to save a mere fraction of temperature. Maybe.
Heritage Foundation's chief statistician estimates that even if all fossil fuels were eliminated from the United States, not even 0.2 degrees Celsius would be salvaged.
It's time to quit throwing other people's money into these projects and let the market dictate the solutions."
No global warming?
An Oct. 25, 2023 editorial from the Issues & Insights editorial board boldly states, "There is no global warming." It wrote:
"A new study out of Norway is exactly what was needed to shut down the climate alarmists. Its findings show that man has not set fire to his home planet.
Right from the top, in the abstract not 10 lines into the study, the authors get to the point.
'Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests,' the researchers say, 'we find that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.'
In other words, our words, the greenhouse effect is so weak that it should be sidelined as an argument.
From there, the bad news only gets worse for priests of the climate religion.
'Even if recent recorded temperature variations should turn out to deviate from previous variation patterns in a systematic way, it is still a difficult challenge to establish how much of this change is due to increasing man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.'
The researchers from Statistics Norway, the government's official data agency, also address the apparent 'high degree of consensus among many climate researchers that the temperature increase of the last decades is systematic (and partly man-made)' while noting that 'is certainly the impression conveyed by the mass media.'
Of course, the climate zealots won't like the study. Well, they also won't like another new paper, this one from the University of Alabama in Hunstville climate scientists Roy Spencer and John Christy, who have submitted 'Urban Heat Island Effects in US Summer Surface Temperature Data, 1880-2015' to a science journal.
They believe they have demonstrated that 'not only do the homogenized ('adjusted') dataset not correct for the effect of the urban heat island (UHI) on temperature trends, the adjusted data appear to have even stronger UHI signatures than in the raw (unadjusted) data.'
According to Spencer, 'the bottom line is that an estimated 22 percent of the US warming trend, 1895 to 2023, is due to localized UHI effects,' and that 'the effect is much larger in urban locations.'
In other words, our words, the temperature record we're expected to accept without question is a sham — an argument we've been making for more than 20 years.
After so many decades, we finally realize that nothing will make these people — that's right, these people — shut up. They will continue swearing that every weather anomaly is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and go on recalculating their end-of-the-world schedules — in the same way that doomsday cults swear that they just got the day of doom wrong and then double down on the loco. For this, we will be all the poorer, financially and even intellectually."
 

Reality bites the green energy agenda​

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
November 28, 2023
750

First word
WHILE UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and other promoters of the climate emergency are preparing to convene the 28th conference of the parties (COP28) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in the United Arab Emirates, starting on November 30 and stretching to December 12, the negative news about the climate program and the longed-for green energy transition continue to pile up and haunt the forthcoming climate powwow.
Fox News network has dealt a devastating blow with a report by policy analyst Kristen Walker on November 21 entitled, "The slow demise of green energy; the wheels are starting to fall off the green energy bandwagon."
The Issues & Insights website, in turn, has published an editorial entitled, "The latest on global warming ... there is no global warming."
Ms. Walker reported:
"The wheels are starting to fall off the green energy bandwagon. The rose-colored glasses are clearing up, and reality is sinking in.
The giant push toward a net zero utopia is not practical and has been a complete disservice to the American consumer. Components of the green movement are experiencing major setbacks, namely offshore wind, electric vehicles (EVs) and investments.
Offshore wind projects are struggling to secure financing and stay on track. The biggest blow came last month when the world's largest offshore wind developer Ørsted canceled two major projects off the New Jersey coastline, taking the wind right out of Gov. Phil Murphy's green energy sails. Ørsted is also suspending work on offshore projects in Maryland and Delaware.
Among the wave of cancellations are projects in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York and Connecticut. Several other projects are on the ropes, and a host of companies are paying millions to break their contracts.
The industry hit another snag recently when Germany-based Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy pulled the plug on its wind turbine blade facility in Portsmouth, ******ia. Siemens Gamesa, one of the world's leading suppliers, says, 'development milestones to establish the facility could not be met.'
According to Bloomberg NEF, at least half of US wind contracts are at risk of being terminated. The causes are typically due to skyrocketing inflation, high-interest rates, choked supply chains and financial troubles.
EV losing steam
The EV market is also losing steam. Sales are slumping and manufacturers are scaling back on production.
Ford Motor Company stands to lose $4.5 billion on its EV business for 2023 and will be delaying many of its EV investments.
General Motors said it was restructuring EV goals, Honda shelved plans to develop affordable EVs with GM, and Hertz said it would slow their rate of purchasing them due to high repair costs. Elon Musk is even considering putting off plans for a $1 billion plant in Mexico.
Most, if not all, manufacturers are reporting major losses per EV sold. Ford lost $62,000 per vehicle in the third quarter; one luxury electric vehicle company lost an astounding $430,000. Countless others are losing tens of thousands of dollars per vehicle, quarter after quarter.
Car dealers are slashing EV prices. EVs sit on lots nearly twice as long as internal combustion engines. Even industry leader Tesla has been shaving thousands off their retail prices due to unmet sales expectations.
This kind of loss is not sustainable for any company.
The Economist says the EV market could become the next big flop.
The EV market is niche. Those who want one have one. But the rest of America is not convinced they would be better off with an EV on account of a multitude of reliability factors. Nor can they afford the steep price tag.
Consequently, the last few months have seen stock prices drastically dropping in companies across the green spectrum. From wind to solar to EVs to fuel cells, investors are abandoning the 'green' energy ship in droves. It might be sinking.
Siemens Energy stock is down 45 percent; Ørsted, 67 percent; Power Inc., a hydrogen fuel cell producer, 71 percent; Charge Point Holdings Inc., an EV charging company, 70 percent; Blink Charging Co., another EV charging company, 72 percent; and Nikola Corp., maker of heavy-duty EVs, has gone from $65 a share in mid-2020 to the current price of less than $1 per share.
We need to read between the lines here. The green energy revolution is not working, nor is central planning. You cannot force Americans to buy cars they don't want any more than you can force energy transitions that aren't viable.
Green energy is wholly inadequate to meet the needs of all Americans and, turns out, is insanely expensive.
The World Economic Forum says that getting to net zero by 2050 will cost an extra $3.5 trillion a year. The US has already poured hundreds of billions into the effort and continues to keep shoveling. All on the backs of the American taxpayer, to save a mere fraction of temperature. Maybe.
Heritage Foundation's chief statistician estimates that even if all fossil fuels were eliminated from the United States, not even 0.2 degrees Celsius would be salvaged.
It's time to quit throwing other people's money into these projects and let the market dictate the solutions."
No global warming?
An Oct. 25, 2023 editorial from the Issues & Insights editorial board boldly states, "There is no global warming." It wrote:
"A new study out of Norway is exactly what was needed to shut down the climate alarmists. Its findings show that man has not set fire to his home planet.
Right from the top, in the abstract not 10 lines into the study, the authors get to the point.
'Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests,' the researchers say, 'we find that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.'
In other words, our words, the greenhouse effect is so weak that it should be sidelined as an argument.
From there, the bad news only gets worse for priests of the climate religion.
'Even if recent recorded temperature variations should turn out to deviate from previous variation patterns in a systematic way, it is still a difficult challenge to establish how much of this change is due to increasing man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.'
The researchers from Statistics Norway, the government's official data agency, also address the apparent 'high degree of consensus among many climate researchers that the temperature increase of the last decades is systematic (and partly man-made)' while noting that 'is certainly the impression conveyed by the mass media.'
Of course, the climate zealots won't like the study. Well, they also won't like another new paper, this one from the University of Alabama in Hunstville climate scientists Roy Spencer and John Christy, who have submitted 'Urban Heat Island Effects in US Summer Surface Temperature Data, 1880-2015' to a science journal.
They believe they have demonstrated that 'not only do the homogenized ('adjusted') dataset not correct for the effect of the urban heat island (UHI) on temperature trends, the adjusted data appear to have even stronger UHI signatures than in the raw (unadjusted) data.'
According to Spencer, 'the bottom line is that an estimated 22 percent of the US warming trend, 1895 to 2023, is due to localized UHI effects,' and that 'the effect is much larger in urban locations.'
In other words, our words, the temperature record we're expected to accept without question is a sham — an argument we've been making for more than 20 years.
After so many decades, we finally realize that nothing will make these people — that's right, these people — shut up. They will continue swearing that every weather anomaly is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and go on recalculating their end-of-the-world schedules — in the same way that doomsday cults swear that they just got the day of doom wrong and then double down on the loco. For this, we will be all the poorer, financially and even intellectually."

well it's Fox News no wonder, its a republican news outlet who favors big oil companies. DW docu mas centrist sa pag report, they even scrutinize Tesla and Volkswagen and reports that Tsina has a thriving EV market.

Its pretty common sa car industries having huge losses, you are just finding faults. Capitalism at its finest, profit first before innovation.
 
well it's Fox News no wonder, its a republican news outlet who favors big oil companies. DW docu mas centrist sa pag report, they even scrutinize Tesla and Volkswagen and reports that Tsina has a thriving EV market.

Its pretty common sa car industries having huge losses, you are just finding faults. Capitalism at its finest, profit first before innovation.
sure... you're free to believe what you want to believe.
 
for me may issue pa dyan mas malala pa sa gas engine kase battery e waste at mining issue dyan

at may na nood ako sa YøùTùbé na kaunti lang nag ev dun sa new york dahil di practical mag ev dun
 
for me may issue pa dyan mas malala pa sa gas engine kase battery e waste at mining issue dyan

at may na nood ako sa YøùTùbé na kaunti lang nag ev dun sa new york dahil di practical mag ev dun
true tol. mas malala pa ang toxic waste ng battery kesa sa fuel. kumpara sa fuel engine, minuto lang makaka full tank ka na at magagamit mo na ulit ang vehicle mo. sa ev, ilang oras ang hihintayin mo para makapag charge ng battery. napaka impractical at inconvenient kaya kaunti lng ang bumibili ng ev.
 
true tol. mas malala pa ang toxic waste ng battery kesa sa fuel. kumpara sa fuel engine, minuto lang makaka full tank ka na at magagamit mo na ulit ang vehicle mo. sa ev, ilang oras ang hihintayin mo para makapag charge ng battery. napaka impractical at inconvenient kaya kaunti lng ang bumibili ng ev.
tama mas malala ang toxic waste dyan sa battery kaya backout si toyota dyan
 
My issue sa EV eh yung stable na electric distribution. Nagkukulang na nga tayo sa supply ng kuryente, may El Nino pa.. Maramihin muna yung mga electric generation and electric storage facilities saka natin i-entertain ang paglipat ng EV's
 
tama mas malala ang toxic waste dyan sa battery kaya backout si toyota dyan

ibang battery ata tinutukoy mo brader. research muna bago comment. lithium battery na gamit ngayun, hindi na lead acid or yung mga alkaline batteries. lol

My issue sa EV eh yung stable na electric distribution. Nagkukulang na nga tayo sa supply ng kuryente, may El Nino pa.. Maramihin muna yung mga electric generation and electric storage facilities saka natin i-entertain ang paglipat ng EV's

kung meron man issue, greed yung salarin.
 
ibang battery ata tinutukoy mo brader. research muna bago comment. lithium battery na gamit ngayun, hindi na lead acid or yung mga alkaline batteries. lol



kung meron man issue, greed yung salarin.
di naman lead acid or ganun ibang minerals na galing sa mina lalo sa africa at asia
 
ibang battery ata tinutukoy mo brader. research muna bago comment. lithium battery na gamit ngayun, hindi na lead acid or yung mga alkaline batteries. lol
alam mo naman sigurong hindi lng lithium ang gamit sa pag gawa ng lithium and lithium-ion battery no? kung hindi mo alam ang cobalt and nickel kung gaano ka toxic sa pag extract pa lang nyan sa mga mining, simulan mo na munang mag basa basa at mag research bago mo sabihin sa iba na mag research sila kasi nakakatawa basahin yung sinasabi mo eh
 
alam mo naman sigurong hindi lng lithium ang gamit sa pag gawa ng lithium and lithium-ion battery no? kung hindi mo alam ang cobalt and nickel kung gaano ka toxic sa pag extract pa lang nyan sa mga mining, simulan mo na munang mag basa basa at mag research bago mo sabihin sa iba na mag research sila kasi nakakatawa basahin yung sinasabi mo eh
yes naka tawa talaga di naman nya alam na ibang minerals ang ibig ko sabihin
 
alam mo naman sigurong hindi lng lithium ang gamit sa pag gawa ng lithium and lithium-ion battery no? kung hindi mo alam ang cobalt and nickel kung gaano ka toxic sa pag extract pa lang nyan sa mga mining, simulan mo na munang mag basa basa at mag research bago mo sabihin sa iba na mag research sila kasi nakakatawa basahin yung sinasabi mo eh

lahat nang form of mining ay toxic, problema ay "kapitalismo". kasi lahat nang mga industries lahat hinahabol ay "profit", to the point na bumibili sila nang mga minerals na galing sa slave labor. Yan dapat gusto ko mabasa sayo.
 
lahat nang form of mining ay toxic, problema ay "kapitalismo". kasi lahat nang mga industries lahat hinahabol ay "profit", to the point na bumibili sila nang mga minerals na galing sa slave labor. Yan dapat gusto ko mabasa sayo.
tama mas malala ang toxic waste dyan sa battery kaya backout si toyota dyan

ibang battery ata tinutukoy mo brader. research muna bago comment. lithium battery na gamit ngayun, hindi na lead acid or yung mga alkaline batteries. lol
nabanggit mong lithium battery na ang gamit ngayun kaya kinontra mo yung sinabi ni PHC_LaCe12 na malala ang toxic waste sa battery at sinabi mo pang baka ibang battery ang tinutukoy nya. ang ibig mong sabihin, ang lithium battery is no way na toxic sa environment? how? paki explain nga sa amin papanong hindi naging toxic yan samantalang ang gamit na mga mineral dyan is super toxic simula pa lang sa pag mina nyan? gusto mo bang palabasing walang kinalaman o labas sa usapan ang pag mina nyan para gamitin sa napaka safe mong battery na lithium? parang out of touch ka ata sa reality brader.
 
lahat nang form of mining ay toxic, problema ay "kapitalismo". kasi lahat nang mga industries lahat hinahabol ay "profit", to the point na bumibili sila nang mga minerals na galing sa slave labor. Yan dapat gusto ko mabasa sayo.
mali naman punto mo

lahat nang form of mining ay toxic, problema ay "kapitalismo". kasi lahat nang mga industries lahat hinahabol ay "profit", to the point na bumibili sila nang mga minerals na galing sa slave labor. Yan dapat gusto ko mabasa sayo.
lahat nang form of mining ay toxic, problema ay "kapitalismo". kasi lahat nang mga industries lahat hinahabol ay "profit", to the point na bumibili sila nang mga minerals na galing sa slave labor. Yan dapat gusto ko mabasa sayo.
oh eto basahin mo

kahit saan napunta ang sinabi ko

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. Thesis to
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
 
nabanggit mong lithium battery na ang gamit ngayun kaya kinontra mo yung sinabi ni PHC_LaCe12 na malala ang toxic waste sa battery at sinabi mo pang baka ibang battery ang tinutukoy nya. ang ibig mong sabihin, ang lithium battery is no way na toxic sa environment? how? paki explain nga sa amin papanong hindi naging toxic yan samantalang ang gamit na mga mineral dyan is super toxic simula pa lang sa pag mina nyan? gusto mo bang palabasing walang kinalaman o labas sa usapan ang pag mina nyan para gamitin sa napaka safe mong battery na lithium? parang out of touch ka ata sa reality brader.

mas madali recycle or dispose ang mga batteries compared sa fossil fuel, infact walang "carbon capture" halos ang mga sasakyan.

"super toxic" sinabi mo ako ay natawa, ano yan parang report sa The buzz? kaloka.

mali talaga tingin nyu sa mga sagot ko kasi mababaw lang yung knowledge nyu, specially sa knowledge nyu sa car industry at yung mga evil practices nila.

check nyu yung "volkswagen emission *******".

natawa naman ako kay picachu, halata walang alam sa electric car... akala nya lead acid battery gamit nang mga electric vehicle. lol
 
Back
Top