• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Panasonic camera business restructuring ...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
37 replies to this topic

#21 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,090 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 29 March 2017 - 09:36 AM

The Digital Imaging business will move under the Panasonic Appliances Company.

 

Right, digital cameras are sort of related to rice cookers ... ;-)


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#22 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,025 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 29 March 2017 - 09:55 AM

As both should not make too much noise.



#23 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,419 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 29 March 2017 - 09:58 AM

Right, digital cameras are sort of related to rice cookers ... ;-)

It is what Pamasonic has said.
http://www.sansmirro...at-changes.html

#24 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 954 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 29 March 2017 - 10:59 AM

Panasonic has cleared everything and they are staying in camera buisiness

http://i.imgur.com/gjdGb2u.jpg



#25 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,090 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 30 March 2017 - 05:56 AM

Panasonic has cleared everything and they are staying in camera buisiness

http://i.imgur.com/gjdGb2u.jpg

 

I didn't know that Panasonic was into electricity generation (your link) ... ;-)

 

On the funny side ... there are Panasonic houses:

https://www.panasoni...m/my/homes.html


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#26 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,383 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 06:52 AM

   Interestingly appropriate marketing philosophy that will keep them in business for the "half life of plutonium" doing what has become essential in Japan in recent times.

 

 

Quote from their housing site:

 

   "Keeping pollution out and bringing clean air in"

 

 

 Now that's what I call an excellent business plan!  I wonder where they get the clean air...must be piped in from the Arctic I guess. :rolleyes:

 

 

    Hope you liked that one Klaus!  :P



#27 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,383 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 07:42 AM

Panasonic has cleared everything and they are staying in camera buisiness

http://i.imgur.com/gjdGb2u.jpg

 

  Certainly coal mining is one of the saddest industries in the history of employment.  Although I was flabbergasted by the closing of the mining industry in Britain some twenty five to thirty years ago,  there are still remain many many who woe it's passing!

 In reality everybody is better off without it, renewable energy is where it's at, with both solar, wind power and tidal production coming on line.

  Interestingly, the Nation Grid in Britain announced that for 4 or 5 hours in April of last year, no coal was burned in the production of electricity.......the first time for some 135 years...........it's a start!


  • JoJu likes this

#28 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,090 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 30 March 2017 - 09:10 AM

   Interestingly appropriate marketing philosophy that will keep them in business for the "half life of plutonium" doing what has become essential in Japan in recent times.

 

 

Quote from their housing site:

 

   "Keeping pollution out and bringing clean air in"

 

 

 Now that's what I call an excellent business plan!  I wonder where they get the clean air...must be piped in from the Arctic I guess. :rolleyes:

 

 

    Hope you liked that one Klaus!  :P

 

Yes, it's always a good idea to leave fly ash from coal out of your house ...

https://www.scientif...-nuclear-waste/

 

:P


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#29 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,025 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 30 March 2017 - 09:25 AM

Tell that the people suffering from leukemia because of nuclear powerstations or "recycling plants", rotten like Sellafield, closeby.

 

It's always easy to vote for nuclear energy if there are no own kids involved and your no neighbour to it. I don't wnat to convince you against whatever. You just should bear in mind that your time horizon is quite limited and if it were only you to decide, you would fuck up with the future of a lot of generations. Actually I don't want this to happen to me, so I cannot dare to do that for coming generations. Stopping a coal powerstation: few decades afterwards the ebvironment is green again. Stopping a nuclear powerstation: Centuries of radiation, hektatons of radiating waste.

 

Do you know more than this one planet to live on? Not guessing, knowing and be able to travel to.  ;)


  • dave's clichés likes this

#30 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,383 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 09:35 AM

Tell that the people suffering from leukemia because of nuclear powerstations or "recycling plants", rotten like Sellafield, closeby.

 

It's always easy to vote for nuclear energy if there are no own kids involved and your no neighbour to it. I don't wnat to convince you against whatever. You just should bear in mind that your time horizon is quite limited and if it were only you to decide, you would fuck up with the future of a lot of generations. Actually I don't want this to happen to me, so I cannot dare to do that for coming generations. Stopping a coal powerstation: few decades afterwards the ebvironment is green again. Stopping a nuclear powerstation: Centuries of radiation, hektatons of radiating waste.

 

Do you know more than this one planet to live on? Not guessing, knowing and be able to travel to.  ;)

  Right on JoJu!!!

 

  I was not against nuclear before, but the problem is when things don't go right....centuries will be needed to evaluate the risks!

  

  Still for this poor fellow even super green power didn't do him any favours.

 

 

  

 

   Ouch!

 

 

BTW Haven't you got Elon Musks telephone number JoJu, I hear he's soon to be accepting bookings to Mars! :unsure:


  • JoJu likes this

#31 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,025 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 30 March 2017 - 09:55 AM

Yeah, but on Mars you can experience other surprises... 

 

Buy a Tesla, the number is underneath the battery storage  :D with a voucher for a free spinach smoothie for your flight to Mars. Tempted?


  • dave's clichés likes this

#32 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,090 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 30 March 2017 - 09:56 AM

Tell that the people suffering from leukemia because of nuclear powerstations or "recycling plants", rotten like Sellafield, closeby.

 

It's always easy to vote for nuclear energy if there are no own kids involved and your no neighbour to it. I don't wnat to convince you against whatever. You just should bear in mind that your time horizon is quite limited and if it were only you to decide, you would fuck up with the future of a lot of generations. Actually I don't want this to happen to me, so I cannot dare to do that for coming generations. Stopping a coal powerstation: few decades afterwards the ebvironment is green again. Stopping a nuclear powerstation: Centuries of radiation, hektatons of radiating waste.

 

Do you know more than this one planet to live on? Not guessing, knowing and be able to travel to.  ;)

 

If the climate change scenarios get real - and this is likely - nuclear waste is the very least of our problems.

 

But yeah, we'll not agree here.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#33 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,419 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 30 March 2017 - 10:08 AM

Nuclear power plants with uranium always were a very stupid idea. The things you need to do to keep it under control, and all the things that can (and will eventually) go wrong is mind boggling.

The silliest thing is that safe nuclear power is easily possible (using thorium power plants instead of uranium), but has not been realized due to corporate games and lobbies.

And the sun and wind are always there. So yes, current nuclear energy is a stupid idea, and we indeed need to get off fossil fuels.
  • dave's clichés likes this

#34 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,090 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 30 March 2017 - 10:15 AM

Agreed.  Nuclear has to evolve. China (and this is where it counts the most) is planning to have its first Thorium reactors ready in the 30s.

The problem with wind/solar can be seen below (Germany - requires 60GW at the moment). Hydro backup is available for approx. 4h. The rest has to come from natural gas (without nuclear) which is not a solution IMHO.

17239793_1259566230786621_30850049947524


  • dave's clichés likes this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#35 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,419 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 30 March 2017 - 10:22 AM

What has to also be done is to store wind/solar/hydro energy. Not in batteries but in hydrogen. You use the surplus of wind/solar/hydro electricity during their "peak hours" to make hydrogen and oxygen from water, to use as fuel when needed. Not that hard.
  • dave9t5 and dave's clichés like this

#36 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,090 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 30 March 2017 - 10:27 AM

Yes, but hydrogen conversion is still subject to research - especially at industrial scale. And you will need A LOT of overcapacity for that. No impossible though.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#37 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,025 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 30 March 2017 - 10:28 AM

Well, that calculation you can make every day. The risk of getting killed in a car accident is also higher than to get polluted by radiation or suffer of extinction. Or dying by a heart attack.

 

But why have radiation to be added to the risk list? Playing the cool one and listing all the things you gonna be killed before something else in theory could happen - doesn't matter if against all odds something else DOES happen.

 

I recall very well the argumentation of the "pro nuclear energy" people. Coming up with statistics how likely an accident will happen in a nuclear power plant, haha, once in a century. This rate already is filled for a millenium after not even 50 years of active power generation... dozens of serious accidents, hundreds or other critical incidents like Sellafield, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, even in Switzerland the very first test-reactor was close to core melt down which is not very present in  minds. Sorry, but I'm gettin g a bit aggresive if people start to play with others health in big scale. Fessenheim in Alsace is already off thr grid because of too high risks - it didn't last 50 years!

 

Nuclear, as we know it, can't evolve. The risk remains and you're simply not capable to take responsibility. Nobody is! Stop bullshitting around. Not my problem that your health risk increased by dying of skin cancer because the missing ozone layer in Australia. This planet is too crowded to play with potential nuclear threats, possibilities of terrorism increased 


  • dave's clichés likes this

#38 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,090 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 30 March 2017 - 10:33 AM

https://encrypted-tb...22VryuwzDHnIexA

Anyway, let's close this thread now. We'll not agree on this nor decide all that anyway.


Chief Editor
photozone.de




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de