Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sigma ART lenses soon in Sony FE mount
#21
I remember that weird post about how Trump was the best of the choices.... So, just down the garbage chute with the silly Tesla remarks.

#22
Get a clue.

 

Quote:I have studied the Tesla case, and I repeat that there are arguments to say it's a fake. They can't even manufact the number of cars they promise; they are really expensive, in spite of the fact that they get tons of fiscal contributions. The space project of Musk is precisely the next step of the Ponzi scheme.

 

Just saying that we must resolve pollution doesn't mean that anything that proclaims to solve it works. Furthermore, electric cars doesn't reduce pollution. They just move pollution elsewhere, because you have to produce that electricity. That it can be produced with solar and eolic in sufficient quantities must be demonstrated. And Tesla didn't compute how many pollutants are required for the creation and disposal of batteries (which, BTW, have a life cycle of just a few years). BTW batteries are extremely pollutant when they catch fire, arguably more than gasoline or such, in fact fire brigates have been provided special instructions to deal with them (it's also much harder to extinguish their fire).

 

Buses aren't cars, as far as I know. Rolleyes
#23
Quote:Trump
 

Congrats for the dumbest argument on this discussion! :lol: Reductio ad Trumpum is the new Reductio at Hitlerum.

 

Quote:Buses vs cars.
 

Of course, the terminology thing is a nonsense argument. Cars are cars, buses are buses, trucks are trucks. In any case, I've clearly distinguished "general purpose cars". In the urban cycle performance requirements are more regular and limited (e.g. no high speed, no need for high autonomy, feasible recharge at fixed moments of the day, etc...) and this context can be more easily fit by electric cars.

 

Quote:So, if you say, Tesla didn't calculate this or that, I just ask, did Ford, Peugeot, Fiat, VW or BMW do better in the past?
 

They don't need to change so frequently a component so relevant and full of sensitive materials as the battery pack. In any case, I can also take your point, and conclude that nobody does a complete calculation on the true ecologic footprint, hence it's difficult to prove anything in this sector, both pro and against an electric car. Also because fake measurations such as the "dieselgate" suggest that we can't blindly trust anything we read.

 

In any case, we have some models, in the China case, somebody tried to do some math:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/article...ll-cleaner

 

Now, the good point is that if you have a polluting energy plant that distributes energy to car chargers, this is much better than having thousands of engines burning carbon fuel, because you can centralize and scale solutions for mitigating the pollution. I don't deny that. Still, you have coal to produce all that energy in some way, and doesn't solve the pollution problem (this paper is a year old, but the situation hasn't changed):

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...ily-clean/

 

If we drop the Tesla and think of hybrid, I am less pessimistic (the deal here is to reduce consumption by recovering energy e.g. during braking, etc...). Still, these cars are really expensive and they have to prove to be able to stay on the market. This field, in any case, is even more complex to predict: first because in the past decades we've seen - generally speaking - lost of wrong predictions about markets growing, usually too optimistic; and because this goes beyond the EV industry scope, I mean a new financial crisis (that could be still after the corner) could mean less money for a state budget for incentives, and less money in the family budgets for buying an expensive car.

stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
#24
Mobility IS expensive and currently at the cost of fossile resources, as long as we're not able to gain a lot of energy of the already available sources like sun, wind, and waves. We're just used to be mobile all the time. Heck, we even import lenses for far away Huh  (that would now be the more or less elegant loop back to topic).

 

I don't think we'll solve the traffic problems this night. A last word to the buses of Shenzhen: It was a sample of how quickly China is progressing one they put a goal on their agenda. While in our regions politicians are trying to keep their seats in parliament or "afterwards" a well paid job in industry, we have to admit this system comes with weaknesses based on human nature.

#25
Yeah, it is a problem that electric cars only run on electricity made from burning coal. Too bad no other electricity can be used, like solar/wind/renewable sources/nuclear.

 

Any more bogus arguments/propaganda points?

#26
It's not only about the energy required to run the car (where the owner has influence), but also the kind of energy used to built it. Especially the battery (where the owner or potential buyer has no influence on).

Stoppingdown has a point, and I think this is a valid discussion. The total ecological footprint of current (!) electric cars is something to question. I don't have enough expertise to prove either side right or wrong, but personally I am very sceptic the Tesla way (or generally the electric car way) is the solution of all problems, at least not with the current infrastructure.
Editor
photozone.de

#27
I also see this points, but we can remain to be skeptical or do something about it. Mobility and "needs" to be mobile is growing, traditional car's exhausts are polluting (and with the diesel-gate every "pro diesel or petrol" person was kicked against the head by a cynical car industry.

 

I don't say, electric cars are THE or the ONLY answer to growing mobility demand. Currently cars are cheap like mad because the market here is saturated (the first word was "stausurated", the German speakers know all about...) but I invested some money in a custom built bicycle - no electric one, no car. In fact I could have got a car or a Sony FF mirrorless with some lenses. (anyone noticed: again I tried to bring us back to Sony, lenses, maybe even Sigma? ^_^ ) I like being mobile. That's why I don't buy a car. Traffic is collapsing by too many of them. Do we find solutions? Well except for stopping the engines a couple of times - no. For immobile cars you can use any power source... And we even didn't start to talk about hydrogen engines (another ghost, like liquefied petroleum gas) 

#28
Quote:Congrats for the dumbest argument on this discussion! :lol: Reductio ad Trumpum is the new Reductio at Hitlerum.

 

 

Of course, the terminology thing is a nonsense argument. Cars are cars, buses are buses, trucks are trucks. In any case, I've clearly distinguished "general purpose cars". In the urban cycle performance requirements are more regular and limited (e.g. no high speed, no need for high autonomy, feasible recharge at fixed moments of the day, etc...) and this context can be more easily fit by electric cars.

 

 

They don't need to change so frequently a component so relevant and full of sensitive materials as the battery pack. In any case, I can also take your point, and conclude that nobody does a complete calculation on the true ecologic footprint, hence it's difficult to prove anything in this sector, both pro and against an electric car. Also because fake measurations such as the "dieselgate" suggest that we can't blindly trust anything we read.

 

In any case, we have some models, in the China case, somebody tried to do some math:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/article...ll-cleaner

 

Now, the good point is that if you have a polluting energy plant that distributes energy to car chargers, this is much better than having thousands of engines burning carbon fuel, because you can centralize and scale solutions for mitigating the pollution. I don't deny that. Still, you have coal to produce all that energy in some way, and doesn't solve the pollution problem (this paper is a year old, but the situation hasn't changed):

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...ily-clean/

 

If we drop the Tesla and think of hybrid, I am less pessimistic (the deal here is to reduce consumption by recovering energy e.g. during braking, etc...). Still, these cars are really expensive and they have to prove to be able to stay on the market. This field, in any case, is even more complex to predict: first because in the past decades we've seen - generally speaking - lost of wrong predictions about markets growing, usually too optimistic; and because this goes beyond the EV industry scope, I mean a new financial crisis (that could be still after the corner) could mean less money for a state budget for incentives, and less money in the family budgets for buying an expensive car.
 

   I'm sorry to say stopping down that your post reads like it was written five years ago!

 

    There is no longer the argument that the production of LI batteries is highly polluting, in fact the level of lithium is around two percent and they will be recycled strictly by law.

   

 Not once was solar, hydro-electric, wind, tidal, wave or other renewable energy mentioned.
Dave's clichés
#29
Quote:It's not only about the energy required to run the car (where the owner has influence), but also the kind of energy used to built it. Especially the battery (where the owner or potential buyer has no influence on).


Stoppingdown has a point, and I think this is a valid discussion. The total ecological footprint of current (!) electric cars is something to question. I don't have enough expertise to prove either side right or wrong, but personally I am very sceptic the Tesla way (or generally the electric car way) is the solution of all problems, at least not with the current infrastructure.
 

    With all the plastics, wiring gadgets and the like, the difference between electric and petrol vehicles in terms of pollution from production, can't be good from either.

  I'm sorry all arguments against electric vehicles are " now over".........it's just a question of being able to produce enough of them.....and that's happening slowly........simply Tesla showed the world that it could be done......so kudos to Elon.....if he achieved nothing further than just that...we owe him one!

 

   When an industry as huge as the car corporations decide to produce electric cars.......it isn't for nothing!

 

 

 

   BTW. France produces 83% of electricity from nuclear power, the rest is hydro-electric , solar and wind power, so the "coal" word here is non applicable!   France's electrical generating  emissions are as near as dammit   zero!    Any one remember acid rain and smog in England before the smokeless coal era...I do!   

 

 Coal has to go!

Dave's clichés
#30
         Here's my contribution to the reduction of CO2 and global warming, my recently acquired electric mountain bike!

  Bought S/H.

  With a 48V 10.4 Ah lithium battery and a motor of 250 watts it makes a speed of 28-30kph and gives a range of 50-70 kms when adding some pedal power.

  Charging is from my solar panels  (4 panels= 200 Watts)..through a sine-wave converter and is done in under four hours.  

 

   In the last few days I made a mould and laid up the box in polyester/fibre glass, it carries 20Kgs easily.

 

  The technical specs are:  the beers go at the bottom of each side, (keeping the bike stable with a low center of gravity)  then if there's any room for a bag of crisps.......so be it!  Tongue

 

   Almost silent ride, no smoke, no pollution.......and charging from the solar panel is free!

 

    I love my all electric shopping/BIF bike................... very deeply!  :wub:  :wub:  :wub:

Dave's clichés
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)