Thanks but you guys are so obsessed with "civil discourse" and allowing "both sides" this place is becoming overrun with Russian trolls who simply recycle accounts. Sorry I can't help not replying to them, especially when they're far less civil.
> This is a standard component of LCA databases and puts the ESOI in the 50-100 range for the first generation of batteries. Subsequent generations are higher.
Yes that's the number I found WITHOUT accounting for mining the materials... Just manufacturing the battery.
> Electrolysers also require mining, as do fuel cells, as does any source of heat for reverse gas shift or similar.
Yes but there's far less of those materials required than the sheer amount of battery cells being produced for automobiles.
> Hydrogen (or rather hydrogen derived molecules) are a viable method of seasonal storage, but that doesn't mean most of the hype doesn't exist to greenwash gas or that your talking points aren't propaganda.
Greenwash gas? The whole point of hydrogen is to create it using renewable sources of energy... The whole problem with renewables is storing the energy since they don't produce reliable baseline energy. Hydrogen accomplishes that.
Even if solar panels are used only for domestic energy consumption (ie. Electric appliances) it's worth it. Entirely different subject than BEV vs HEVs...
Hmmm, 500,000 litres of water per ton of lithium. Electrolysis required to create lithium metal. Plus the required dirt being moved, water being moved, energy for electrolysis, etc...
Yes but batteries contain toxic materials and rare earth minerals, require lots of energy to make, lots of energy to recycle, etc...
So energy to mine the materials, energy to assemble the battery, energy to recycle the battery after it's useful lifespan (5-10 years)... None of these are ever counted in people's calculations. I tried to find data on energy required to produce the batteries and they still didn't count the mining cost.
I'd wager that hydrogen is more energy efficient over the entire lifespan of a vehicle.
When I say commentary I mean ancient commentary, or you could call it supplemental texts, ancient homilies, whatever. I mean writings closer to the actual time of Jesus. People like Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, Gregory Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, Irenaeus of Lyon, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, even Origin or Tertullian, and so on...
Protestants basically ignore that there's a TON of writings from the early church.
Even slightly later writings like John Climacus are still much, much closer to the time of Jesus and the early church than the reformation is, nevermind modern times.
> See this massively undermine your own argument. I.e. that Ukrainians are eager to align with the west to protect their supposed distinct nationality vs. they are greedy to get a piece of Western economic prosperity (the true reason).
Why not both? Let's face it, the Russian world is shit. Both in terms of freedom and prosperity. Everyone wants freedom and prosperity, calling Ukrainians "greedy" for it is simply insulting.
> There is no evidence that Russia wants to reassert itself over eastern Europe
Just listen to what the Russians actually say... That's the evidence, they say it themselves that they want to reassert their rule over everything that was previously "Russian".
Americans have a weird fixation on translating the Bible. No religion apart from Protestants attempt to interpret holy texts without supporting ancient commentsry.
Jews have the Talmud and other commentaries, Muslims have hadiths, Orthodox and Catholic Christians have centuries of commentaries by saints, similarly Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and others all have many supporting texts, not just a single canonical one.
Yet Protestant Americans are looking for a "perfect" translation so that they can magically understand a text that was never meant to be a single text nevermind interpreted on its own. It's also strange that Protestants trust the Orthodox/Catholic church to decide what is scripture but throw away commentary by saints, including those who lived through the councils that decided what is considered scripture.