Contax Dead! I told you so.

[MennoB]

As soon as dslr become mass market stuff (and this starts to happen right now) Sony WILL be interested. Specially when their prosumer digicam segment (828 etc.) starts losing too much sales to comparibly priced consumer class mirror flappers.

Digicams are a much larger market and Sony is obviously not
interested in the much smaller dslr market. If they were
interested, they'd already be in it.

 

[¥aküza273908]

The Contax 6x4.5 camera is the highest regarded in the industry. No frills, rock solid design. And the Zeiss lenses are superb.

The whole point of Zeiss is optics, and the whole point of buying Contax is gaining access to those. The recently released (new) Zeiss Ikon was supposed to be the body the Ikon digital would be fashioned from. Apparently Zeiss is going back to building bodies, and we may see the Zeiss Ikon Digital.

I don't see why Sony would buy Contax as some have suggested. Sony uses Zeiss lenses. Zeiss is not going anywhere.

It's sad to see the possible end of Contax. I have been attracted to Contax camera's for some time. I want an N1. I really like no BS lookking gear. Of course, I can't afford it, and certainly not any lenses for it. That's a problem with Leica too. The price makes it prohibitive, and that only drives up the price.

I'd like to see Contax in the hands of a Japanese company that will do it justice. Kyocera was not that company, apparently. There is no reason they should be going out of business. Mamiya seems gay to me, and Hasselblad even more so. As the brits say, Contax was "hard". Maybe Pentax should take on Contax.

-¥akuza

 

[pdw]

Hassy and Mamiya are "gay"? That's, well, stupid. They're cameras.

As for glass, Hasselblad (Fuji really) and Mamiya make great lenses. I have a Mamiya 7 and would put the lenses up against any Zeiss lens. I've used Fuji lenses before and they're great also. I've also used Pentax lenses and if you look back you'll see that Zeiss has actually marketed a few Pentax designs under their own name (15mm retrofocus for Contax was a Pentax).

The Contax 6x4.5 camera is the highest regarded in the industry. No
frills, rock solid design. And the Zeiss lenses are superb.

The whole point of Zeiss is optics, and the whole point of buying
Contax is gaining access to those. The recently released (new)
Zeiss Ikon was supposed to be the body the Ikon digital would be
fashioned from. Apparently Zeiss is going back to building bodies,
and we may see the Zeiss Ikon Digital.

I don't see why Sony would buy Contax as some have suggested. Sony
uses Zeiss lenses. Zeiss is not going anywhere.

It's sad to see the possible end of Contax. I have been attracted
to Contax camera's for some time. I want an N1. I really like no BS
lookking gear. Of course, I can't afford it, and certainly not any
lenses for it. That's a problem with Leica too. The price makes it
prohibitive, and that only drives up the price.

I'd like to see Contax in the hands of a Japanese company that will
do it justice. Kyocera was not that company, apparently. There is
no reason they should be going out of business. Mamiya seems gay to
me, and Hasselblad even more so. As the brits say, Contax was
"hard". Maybe Pentax should take on Contax.

-¥akuza

 

[¥aküza273908]

I've also used Pentax lenses and if you look back you'll see that
Zeiss has actually marketed a few Pentax designs under their own
name (15mm retrofocus for Contax was a Pentax).

Like I said, maybe Pentax should pick up the Contax brand.

Hassy and Mamiya are "gay"? That's, well, stupid. They're cameras.

I was just stating an opinion. Maybe "posh" or trendy would be a better word. I agree, the Mamiya 7 (and II) are sweet camera's. Wouldn't mind having one at all. I don't think Mamiya and Hasselblad lenses are as good as Zeiss glass (Hasselblad being better than Mamiya). But, they are all certainly good enough that it really doesn't matter. Those attracted to the straight-forward design of a Leica rangefinder are likely those who'd prefer a Contax medium format camera. Of course, even if Contax as a company went away, there camera's would remain for some years to come. Most major photo outlets have plenty of the gear, new, in stock. And the used market will keep them around even longer.

The main point of the post was to point out that Contax and Zeiss are separate companies.

-¥akuza

 

[Simon Joinson]

It's important to note that as far as i know Contax (the name) is still owned by Zeiss, and the brand's fate (including the 645 and 35mm ranges) is not sealed. Kyocera, which has the licence to produce cameras under the Contax name, is simply pulling out of the camera business. We await official word.
s

--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

 

[ivan petrovsky]

Sorry to disabuse you, but hydrogen is not a source of energy - it is merely a form of storing energy. It takes more energy to make hydrogen than hydrogen actually gives you when it is burned. Hydrogen is not out there waiting to be burned up. You can make hydrogen from the electrolysis of water, but you need energy to do this, and even elementary school kids are taught that, 'energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be turned into other forms of energy.' Usually this process involves a loss of energy into the conversion system.

Even Cheney has admitted that peak oil is on the horizon in a speech to the London Institute of Petroleum in 1999. Energy Investment Banker Matthew Simmons of Simmons and Co. International, Republican advisor to the Bush-Cheney energy plan, believes that the world may already have peaked this year. People can call it gloom and doom, they can call it left wing rubbish, they can call it whatever makes them feel happy and safe, but hydrocarbons are finite resources and we're heading towards prices which will reverse global economy growth.

Iraq isn't known for its cranberry industry nor its chocolate industry nor for its caesar salad production - that's not why America and Britain are in there. Believe in nebulous international cave-based terrorism if it makes you feel good, but I think that deep down we all know this to be untrue. We're there for good old-fashioned imperial reasons.

So, I'd rather have a film based metal camera like the Leica MP - can guess the exposure if there are no cheap batteries around, and then I can capture all those interesting facial expressions and gestures at the British and American gas stations where they'll be lining up to pay $10 a gallon (pounds in the UK) of gas in the next few years. Shame there may well be no Contaxes as the RTS111 is a real joy.

The market adapts really well to changes like this. As oil prices
start climbing, suddenly "alternative energy sources" become
viable. We have the technology to produce all the energy we need;
the only catch is that for the time being oil and other fossil
fuels are cheaper.

Yeah, we will have some serious adjustment to do, and yeah, it will
hurt, but the end of the world it isn't.

Personally, I'm a big fan of subcritical nuclear power. The
principle is well known, it cannot get under control (since it can
be switched off simply by switching off the neutron source), it's
been tested, the fuel sources are for all practical purposes
unlimited, and it's the only way we know of to get rid of nuclear
waste. Again, the only catch is that it's more expensive than
regular nuclear power.

Of course, if fusion power is finally proven to be commercially
viable, so much the better.

And, of course, there are many other alternatives: string solar
power plants along the North African coast, and you can produce so
much power you'll be able to desalinize enough Mediterranean water
to turn the Sahara (back) into a garden, and export energy all
over the place.

In any case, we have the tech to make all the electricity we want;
if we have electricity, we get chemical fuels (e.g. just by
electrolysis of water). All we need is for oil to get expensive
enough, and it'll happen.

As a matter of fact, I believe the transition from oil to hydrogen
will be much less painful than many people make it out to be: it'll
require massive infrastructure investments, and historically such
investments have caused a huge economic boom in all other areas as
well. It could be the best thing that's happened to the world
economy ever.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

--
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing.

 

[¥aküza273908]

It has been confirmed the Contax 645 system will REMAIN IN PRODUCTION.

http://www.ephotozine.com/news/fullnews.cfm?NewsID=2008

That should be a sigh of relief for some.

-¥akuza

 

[David Kieltyka]

I've also used Pentax lenses and if you look back you'll see that
Zeiss has actually marketed a few Pentax designs under their own
name (15mm retrofocus for Contax was a Pentax).

The 15mm was designed jointly by Zeiss and Pentax. Same with the 28mm f/2. Exactly how much each company contributed is unknown...or at least uncommented upon by either. What I've heard unofficially is the lens designs were mostly Zeiss. In return Zeiss gained access to Pentax's coating technology, forming the basis of the T* coatings Zeiss still uses.

-Dave-

 

[TOF guy]

Nikon isa subsidiary of the Mitsubishi group, and therefore this scenario is unlikely.

Thierry

Juust nine days ago I talked about the faith of Contax and Leica on
this forum.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=12371435
I even talked about Sony possibly taking over the brand because of
Zeiss connection and here it is.
I don't want to say I told you so, but I didn't expect this so soon
eaither!

Who is next? my guess is Leica with possible take over by
Panasonic, I am sure they would love to have such Prestigious name
under their belt. Let's see when that's going to happen??
Add some of your best digital imagesat http://www.digitalpick.com

--
TOF Guy

 

[Weth]

Sorry to disagree, but it is clear that Petteri was not referring to Hydrogen as an energy source, but a storage source. He specficially stated the technologies to produce electricy from non-fossil fuels, and once you have electricity you can convert to whatever chemical storage source you want for transport and portable applications. I happen to believe that storage chemical source will be Hydrogen. The so called Hydrogen economy rather than oil economy.

I have no doubt with a market economy, and a couple of decades, the transformation from oil will occur in our lifetimes. The question is when and how painful. It is very possible to occur without significant financial ruin and downturn. However, I am fully aware it is also very possible to occur only with worldwide financial disaster. I am confident it can be done in the positive way, and not the doom and gloom without answers of others.

Once we make that transformation, in the end the world economy will be bigger and stronger than ever. It will be like the Internet, a great equalizer. Not just those that control the oil can be rich anymore but wherever the sun shines, wind blows, tides turn.

Not bad for a right wing nut job. I know it is not reported this way, but this is how most of my conservative leaning friends view things. Even the one that drives a Hummer (we give him a hard time too).

So I'd rather have my digital camera that protects the environment from all the chemicals of traditional film based photography and charge it with a small solar panel.

[[Ok ok, I don't charge my camera with a solar panel, I just plug it in but I do think digital is easier on the environment than film photography]]

Sorry to disabuse you, but hydrogen is not a source of energy - it
is merely a form of storing energy. It takes more energy to make
hydrogen than hydrogen actually gives you when it is burned.
Hydrogen is not out there waiting to be burned up. You can make
hydrogen from the electrolysis of water, but you need energy to do
this, and even elementary school kids are taught that, 'energy
cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be turned into other
forms of energy.' Usually this process involves a loss of energy
into the conversion system.

Even Cheney has admitted that peak oil is on the horizon in a
speech to the London Institute of Petroleum in 1999. Energy
Investment Banker Matthew Simmons of Simmons and Co. International,
Republican advisor to the Bush-Cheney energy plan, believes that
the world may already have peaked this year. People can call it
gloom and doom, they can call it left wing rubbish, they can call
it whatever makes them feel happy and safe, but hydrocarbons are
finite resources and we're heading towards prices which will
reverse global economy growth.

Iraq isn't known for its cranberry industry nor its chocolate
industry nor for its caesar salad production - that's not why
America and Britain are in there. Believe in nebulous
international cave-based terrorism if it makes you feel good, but I
think that deep down we all know this to be untrue. We're there
for good old-fashioned imperial reasons.

So, I'd rather have a film based metal camera like the Leica MP -
can guess the exposure if there are no cheap batteries around, and
then I can capture all those interesting facial expressions and
gestures at the British and American gas stations where they'll be
lining up to pay $10 a gallon (pounds in the UK) of gas in the next
few years. Shame there may well be no Contaxes as the RTS111 is a
real joy.

 

[ivan petrovsky]

With all due respect, the only clear thing about Petteri, apart from our shared desire to see Contax survive, is that he's a little dodgy on the finer details of energy supply, demand and creation, although I sincerely believe that he's very well meaning (unless of course he has a secret pink tutu and a magic wand, in which case I'll concede the argument early).

His statement that, "As oil prices start climbing, suddenly "alternative energy sources" become viable.," is a classic example of the kind of statement uttered by those whose faith in government, business and the economy flies in the face of the facts pouring in from the world's energy and geological journals. It is this kind of outlook which geologists and energy specialists find so perturbing and regularly comment on with shaking heads and rolling eyes. (No offense meant to Petteri - I'll lend you my Zeiss lenses any time you're in the Boston area).

Oil has been a readily available SOURCE of energy, and it is an extremely dense source of energy which is why it has fueled western economic growth for the past century or so. Hydrogen production is extremely inefficient even from Petteri's idea of stringing solar plants across north Africa. Firstly, hydrogen production from the electrolysis of water is only 70% efficient. Secondly, the finest solar cells currently available are only 10% efficient, and that's only on sunny days. There is absolutely no way that solar powered hydrogen production can come anywhere close to producing the energy volumes that we procure from fossil fuels today.

Similarly, when the wind is blowing, our finest wind turbines are only about 30%-40% efficient.

All these solar panels and turbines would need to be produced in factories running on what source of energy, assuming that we don't start immediately?

There are almost 500 million cars on the planet today. What source of energy is to be used to run the factories replacing these cars with new vehicles running on new sources of energy? Also, who is prepared to drive around with a compressed liquid hydrogen tank in their car, even if we succeeded against the conclusions of many of the energy specialists that the so-called hydrogen economy is a non-starter. Imagine a high speed collision on the highway between two hydrogen tanked cars.

A nuclear power station takes about seven to ten years from blueprint to functioning completion. America would need about 4,000 nuclear reactors by 2025 to supply its energy needs in lieu of oil and natural gas.

Saudi Arabia has been pumping sea water into its wells for some time now to increase extraction. This means that when these wells peak, and according to people such as Simmons, this may well have already occurred, the subsequent fall off in supply will be precipitous, which in effect means that global fall off will be precipitous. There will be nowhere near enough time to completely re-organize the world's energy economy from an oil based one to one based on renewable energy sources or nuclear power.

Similarly, natural gas is heading for its world peak too. America has been busy building power stations for a fuel which will soon be in short supply. We've already seen the North East lose enough power to affect 50 million people in August 2003. Although blame was cast in all directions, including the innovative explanation of a tree branch on power lines, the truth is that the system was operating at almost maximum potential and basically crashed.

Finally, and perhaps more crucially, cheap oil and gas have been used to revolutionize the agriculture industry with pesticides and fertilizers, agricultural machinery and transportation. Much of the soil has been ruined to the degree that without these oil and gas based derivatives, the soil will produce only a fraction of that now afforded us. This issue is one that is really giving the energy buffs a hard time because even hydrogen and electricity from whatever source cannot replace oil and natural gas in this situation.

But, we're still no closer as to whether or not Contax will still be around for us to photograph whatever solutions or crises will appear before us in the future. Hopefully we've raised some issues that people will look into more closely so that we can help to make the future livable and possibly even better than it is today.

PS - Simmons is supposedly a 'right wing nut job' and he seems very affable.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing.

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

Sorry to disabuse you, but hydrogen is not a source of energy - it
is merely a form of storing energy. It takes more energy to make
hydrogen than hydrogen actually gives you when it is burned.
Hydrogen is not out there waiting to be burned up. You can make
hydrogen from the electrolysis of water, but you need energy to do
this, and even elementary school kids are taught that, 'energy
cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be turned into other
forms of energy.' Usually this process involves a loss of energy
into the conversion system.

Of course. Never said anything different.

[snip]

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

ivan petrovsky wrote:
[snip rhetoric with no factual content]

Hydrogen production is
extremely inefficient even from Petteri's idea of stringing solar
plants across north Africa.

It wasn't my idea, FWIW. It's just one of many that have been kicked around.

[snip]

There is absolutely no way that solar powered
hydrogen production can come anywhere close to producing the energy
volumes that we procure from fossil fuels today.

That's why I'm not peddling it as the one end-all be-all solution to our energy woes; simply as one alternative source among many.

Similarly, when the wind is blowing, our finest wind turbines are
only about 30%-40% efficient.

All these solar panels and turbines would need to be produced in
factories running on what source of energy, assuming that we don't
start immediately?

I suppose that would depend where they're being produced. If it was in a country relying primarily on fossil fuels, it would be fossil fuels. If in a country relying primarily on hydroelectric power, it would be that. If in a country relying primarily on nukes, then nukes.

There are almost 500 million cars on the planet today. What source
of energy is to be used to run the factories replacing these cars
with new vehicles running on new sources of energy?

A diesel engine will run on cooking oil just fine. A regular internal-combustion engine will easily run on a methanol-petrol mix. Modern designs will run on pure methanol or a mixture of alcohols.

[snip]

Imagine a high speed collision on the highway between
two hydrogen tanked cars.

Boom.

Now imagine a high-speed collision with two regular cars.

Boom.

Are you saying that compressed liquid hydrogen is the only viable way for storing it as a chemical fuel? What about methanol, other alcohols, other hydrocarbons? What about metal hydrides? What about materials based on buckyballs and other carbon structures?

Moreover, if you think that a compressed-hydrogen tank is necessarily more dangerous than a gas tank full of fumes, you're mistaken. Yep, the tanks would have to be made stronger than regular gas tanks, but that's an engineering problem that is soluble.

IOW, this is a red herring.

You're talking about a situation where oil production hits a wall now. Bang, no more energy. We're all going to die.

That's not how it happens. Production peaks, while demand grows. Prices shoot up. Suddenly people will find ways to reduce their fossil-fuel consumption (maybe take a bus or [ gasp ] walk instead of driving). An enormous amount of fossil fuels are used for energy production simply because of the peaks -- if it were possible to smooth out the peaks of energy consumption, nuclear, hydroelectric, and other sources could already satisfy a much bigger chunk of the demand. That sort of scheme is very easy to implement: simply make the "peak tariff" for electricity ten times higher than the "regular tariff," and provide houses, businesses, and factories with switches that automatically switch off power-hungry systems when the tariff switches to "peak." (This system is already in place in France, btw.)

A nuclear power station takes about seven to ten years from
blueprint to functioning completion. America would need about
4,000 nuclear reactors by 2025 to supply its energy needs in lieu
of oil and natural gas.

That's why I'm not advocating nuclear power as "the" silver bullet either; simply as one piece in the puzzle. (In particular, I'm advocating subcritical nuclear power: we will have to go that route sooner or later anyway, to get rid of the huge piles of radioactive waste we've accumulated.)

How do you think America's energy consumption would evolve, if energy prices went up during that time at, say, 15% a year? I'm pretty sure that SUV's would go out of fashion pretty quick, and people will be finding ways to save energy left and right. I've no doubt that modern society could continue to function just fine at, say, 20% of the current energy consumption. The simple fact is that we're immensely promiscuous with energy use.

Hell, I use a horribly energy-inefficient CRT for my monitor and TV, a power-hungry AMD processor and Radeon graphics card (my computer has a frickin' 480W power suppply!), I think nothing of making coffee on the cooking hob, my windows leak, and so on. And I think I'm pretty typical. I waste enormous amounts of energy simply because it's so damn cheap.

If energy cost five times as much, I'd have the incentive to build myself a nice little Pentium-M system, get an OLED monitor and TV, get the house to repair the windows (again), and watch that coffee-making.

Saudi Arabia ...

[snip]

Saudi Arabia accounts for about 10% of the world's oil production. Not all oil wells will peak or fall off at the same time. There will be time.

[snip]

Finally, and perhaps more crucially, cheap oil and gas have been
used to revolutionize the agriculture industry ...

[snip]

... hydrogen and electricity from
whatever source cannot replace oil and natural gas in this
situation.

Why not? Agricultural machinery are already mostly diesel-powered. This means they'll run off biofuel just fine -- just fill up the tractor with canola oil, and you're ready to roll. (It'll smell like donuts, too.) Fertilizers and pesticides can both be manufactured from other than petrochemical sources. Of course, food prices will go up in the developed world, but it's not like we can't afford that.

[snip]

BTW, Ivan, just one question: exactly what do you suggest? It sounds to me that you feel that we're all doomed anyway and it's going to be the end of the world as we know it. So, any suggestions?

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

 

[David Martin]

Imagine a high speed collision on the highway between
two hydrogen tanked cars.

Boom.

Now imagine a high-speed collision with two regular cars.

Boom.

Are you saying that compressed liquid hydrogen is the only viable
way for storing it as a chemical fuel? What about methanol, other
alcohols, other hydrocarbons? What about metal hydrides? What about
materials based on buckyballs and other carbon structures?

Moreover, if you think that a compressed-hydrogen tank is
necessarily more dangerous than a gas tank full of fumes, you're
mistaken. Yep, the tanks would have to be made stronger than
regular gas tanks, but that's an engineering problem that is
soluble.
SNIP

Actually, with any resonable design, even a liquid or gaseous hydrogen storage system is likely to be less 'Boomy' than a petrol one, or at least less likely to have very damaging fires.

The reason for that is the very light weight of the hydrogen - as soon as the vessel is ruptured it rises rapidly as a gas and takes no further part in the conflagration very quickly, whereas the petrol hangs around as a liquid, nicely inflammed by the petrol fumes, and does a lot of damage.

This was extensively tested recently when they were looking at producing hydrogen powered aircraft.

The Hindenburg disaster seems to have been due more to the inflammable material the superstructure was made of than the inherent properties of the hydrogen, which was doing it's best to return to it's natural habitat in the stratosphere and didn't hang about long.

--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

(NT)

 

[hwyhobo]

The pro market is tiny compared to the amateur market.

Price dictates what is pro and what is consumer, not features. Before the advent of digital, there were plenty of SLRs that were considered consumer. It will be so again.

 

[Calico Cat]

I agree that Samsung makes a fine LCD monitor, better than Sony in my opinion.

But I find it unlikely that Contax will want to work with a Korean company, they are used to working with the Japanese.

Sony is a good fit for Contax, Sony already has a reputation for making quality products (although it seems very Sony thing I buy breaks). And Sony has a proven ability to make cameras.

 

[ivan petrovsky]

With reference to Petteri's recent thread:

Actually, I included adequate facts regarding the efficiency of the variety of alternative energy sources in my last thread, and indeed you even reproduced some of them when quoting me. However, I noted with interest that your first thread contained no facts at all but merely expressed a variety of opinions based on wishful thinking.

To my knowledge, there are no countries of significant economic output that rely primarily on anything other than fossil fuels (even France, perhaps the world leader in nuclear energy only gets 40% of its energy from this source) - which was the reason for the reference to peak oil in the first place. Once we peak, the era of cheap oil is over and as several government studies have warned, constant economic global decline is inevitable.

It's true that modern engine designs will run on biodiesel, and many countries are experimenting with this, however, according to numerous studies, there is not enough land available to produce both sufficient quantities of food and biodiesel for the current global market. Also, global energy demand and population size is increasing each year so this will become a less likely scenario.

Are you saying that compressed liquid hydrogen is the only viable
way for storing it as a chemical fuel? What about methanol, other
alcohols, other hydrocarbons? What about metal hydrides? What about
materials based on buckyballs and other carbon structures?

Again, we return to the question of time. In order to convert the entire global oil based energy system over to these alternative sources it will require time that we don't have, and energy that we won't have. If all these systems were already in place, then I might agree with you that the transition could be made without as much pain, but I'm not alone in my fears that this will not be the case.

David Martin's thread seems to corroborate your assertion that hydrogen tanks are safer than petrol ones (assuming that they are made strong enough). Further study into this area seems to indicate that long before we can convert cars to this kind of system, we will be suffering severe energy shortages sufficient to render this an uneconomical scenario. So far these cars have been developed with massive extraneous fiancial assistance and again, the transportation of the gas, the storage and the production and the building of new 'gas' stations will be far too costly to make this a viable option in the time that we have.

I do believe, having read commentary on several government reports, having watched documentaries and having extensively studied the subect at hand, that we will go into a terminal energy decline which will severely effect all but the very rich and the very, very poor. The very rich can afford $100 per gallon so they won't be too put out.

The entire way of life in Amercia would have to change. It is geared towards suburban living and car useage. I fear that there won't be enough time. Coupled with this, everything currently made from oil or hydrocarbons as an energy form, which is most of what we find in the western world, will go up markedly in price. This will lead to inflation and recession and hence large scale unemployment, etc etc.

It is interesting to note that you're advocating subcritical nuclear power since from my research, as of 2004 no example had been constructed to generate even a small amount of electric power by this means. Carlo Rubbia a former director of CERN (European Organisation for Nuclear Research) and nobel laureate has conducted experiments using an energy amplifier. This may evenually lead to something, but we will need it very very soon if it is to make a discernable difference during the forthcoming energy transition.

If energy cost five times as much, I'd have the incentive to build
myself a nice little Pentium-M system, get an OLED monitor and TV,
get the house to repair the windows (again), and watch that
coffee-making.

That's great. And it may well be of some help in the immediate short term, but the rest of the world has already begun making moves in this direction. I doubt it will significantly alleviate the global situation for very long though - that's just my opinion from what I've read.

Saudi Arabia accounts for about 10% of the world's oil production.
Not all oil wells will peak or fall off at the same time. There
will be time.

There won't be time, because it is global peak that is important and it is Saudi Arabia that is keeping us from that point right now. Saudi may well have peaked already. It's clear that oil prices are no longer being decided by OPEC, but are being decided by the market.

Fertilizers and pesticides can both be
manufactured from other than petrochemical sources. Of course, food
prices will go up in the developed world, but it's not like we
can't afford that.

You should head down to the southern states and mention this to the farmers there where they're already reporting a reduction in crop plantation due to increased prices in pesticides and fertilizers.

I do believe that we're going to get the shock of our lives in the west in the next decade and that our way of life will be changed dramatically. I worry about the draconian measures being introduced by some of the western governments regarding civil liberties. (to me this implies that they are expecting the worst). Couple this with monstrous deficits in the U.S.A. which myriad economists such as Soros and Buffet are warning about, and it's not too difficult to see disaster on the horizon. Perhaps it's better to know about these things in advance so that people can do whatever they can in their own environments to make the transition less painful.

Don't be surprised when Britain and the U.S. make moves on Iran - it has little to do with so-called terrorism.

 

[ECRAN]

the fate of Contax and Leica

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Hyundai is a pretty small company compared to DCX (Daimler-Chrysler), aka Mercedes Benze.

DCX used to own 10% of Hyundai,

--

Salvage troll posts! When you see a thread started by a troll, post something useful to it. It will drive the trolls up the wall.

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com