Ooops

Go figure out a better path of electrification of the large 737 airplanes.

Why would I when we were talkiong about cars? Sure, you will need some synthetic fuel for air travel. But if you want to pay the same sums to power your car, when you could do it for a fraction of that cost that's still stupid.

H2 and ICE are made of far simpler, and more efficient, materials.

No, you can actually build batteries from very simple materials that are far more efficient that fuel production and then burning it (both times with a huge loss). Just because the world focussed on lithium-ion batteries in the last decades (because of small portable devices where energy density was key) and thus used what was already widely available for cars in the beginning, rare materials for car batteries are not actually a requirement.

You’ll need substantial numbers of batteries to power the world at night as well (IE: an impossible number as no battery technology can handle daytime-charge vs nighttime usage of the USA).

That also a big nope. In reality solar and wind can power the world through the day, wind can power the world through the night. The only storage needed for a day/night cycle is a small fraction fo the prodcution. Just enough to shift parts of the production peaks at the afternoon and in the middle of the night ~5 hours forward to the consumption peaks in the evening and early morning.

And don't let me even start with how cheap you can produce massive batteries if you don't care for energy density at all because no one gives a fuck if the warehouse-sized installation for your town or city district is 20% bigger and a few tons heavier. Quite the opposite actually... Li-ion batteries nowadays are incredible bad for such a task. We accept their bad thermal properties in our smartphones and laptops, in cars it's already a drawback that prompted the development of other materials that are already serial produced. For fixed storage they would basically be a unneccessary fire hazard.

The real advantages to H2 are multiple fold

The real drawback of H2 availability. You lose energy to produce it. You lose more energy when you consume it. You will never see cheap H2 as the production is just too inefficient, so there will only be demand in sectors that simply cannot be electrified (air transport, some industries) as well as in chemical production as a raw material and for long-term seasonal storage.

Again... if you want to compete with high-energy demanding industries for the gas to power your car, that's your decision. Everyone else will use batteries for less than a ¼ of the cost. If your ICE is worth it for you, go for it. But don't pretend that the world will collectively decide to use a mode of transportation needing 4-5 times as much energy just for laughs and giggles.

Corn Ethanol is solar-powered, as all the CO2 was absorbed from the air as the corn grew thanks to photosynthesis

Nope, that's bullshit. Biomass is only co2-neutral if it grows on its own and is used up on the spot.

There’s also Hydrogen -> Syngas -> Kerosene, a process of electrification to Hydrogen + CO2 -> Fuel.

So while I pay an amount X for electricity to load a battery you are wiliing to pay 5 times as much for eFuels just to support your strange political views? That's in some way commendable...

So you gotta keep your mind open to all the possibilities that science can provide, including chemistry.

Even an open mind can't cheat thermodynamics

Actually yes... fascism is a natural consequence of late-stage capitalism as it's one way to keep the exploited masses under control by focussing their anger away from the wealthy leaders.

What kinda oil shill would be promoting fuckn nuclear

Nuclear is incredibly expensive, uneconomic and for all countries starting only now would delay phasing out fossil fuels by decades of planning and construction. When they could start reducing fossil fuels and emmissions right now by building renewables and adding storage successively over years.

So the actual answer is: all of them. They know fossil fuels don't have a future, so they have long changed to delay tactics.

Why would he be? He's happy to be deployed to a position that is all show with no chance of actual fighting.

That's because those drones aren't actual weapons. They become ones when merged with existing stocks of old ammunition you already have stocked.

They are (relatively) cheap conversion kits for obsolete shells they have lying around in the 100 thousands and more.

"Putin said that Moscow is ready to negotiate only 'based on the reality on the ground.'"

They forgot to mention the little detail here that Putin is not talking about actual reality but his alternative reality. One that starts with fiction like "Ukraine doesn't exist as a country and is a part of Russia".

Why is basic context so hard for media nowadays?

Nobody ever said that.

But there will be no NATO troops in the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. And this is a NATO stance from the beginning. Because -surprise- NATO is a defence alliance and Ukraine is not in NATO. Because NATO will -surprise again- not participate in an active war without being attacked. And a lot of their members -you might have gussed it: surprise- wouldn't even be allowed to declare war on Russia without a proper reason by law and/or constitution. If Macron wants to do that, fine. You can do it all on your own, and of course you can't invoke article 5 later then as joining a war is definitely not "being attacked"...

Oh, wait. None of those surprises are actual ones. This is all well known but happily ignored by morons and propagandists.

But they are really ready to fight for global warming!

And the moment you give us your time machine that will be relevant in a discussion about 2024's production capacities.

This is exactly how they won the eastern front against Germany in ww2

Actually no. Without massive help from allies neither would they have been able to sustain their losses in material nor would they have kept there logistical chain running without half a million lend-lease trucks and jeeps.

Without both they would have moved mostly by foot. Spamming artillery, move a few hundred meters at best, rinse and repeat. And they would have moved at simliar speeds as in Ukraine now... never actually coming close to Germany before the war ended or starving on the way.

They can produce and use 5 times as many shells. It's still not sustainable. Quite the contrary actually as that use of mass artillery worsens the actual bottle neck. Artillery barrels are wear parts... and they can't even come close to the prodcution numbers needed. Or are we anticipating meat waves with 152mm shells in their hands now?

Oh, no! Their debt rose by 1,x percent... to a total of ~64%. That's nearly 20% under EU average. And while countries with rates of 100-160% (let's not even talk about Japan or US as they are playing in another league entirely) take on more debt to push the economy in times of crisis Germany is not spending anything as no new debts (beyond 0,35%) are allowed constitutionally.

Sure... Germany totally has a debt problem. One of retarded politicians stuck in economic ideas of the 1970s that still don't understand the difference between a country's economy and business economy. So they refuse to take on any debt when everyone else does to make their location more attractive for companies via investments.

And still the German economy is only shrinking if you round rediculous low numbers up to 0,1%. Guess the country will deindustrialise and collaps any day now. I hope someone tells the companies building massive new production sites in Germany that they are wasting their money on lost case they will lose all its industry... somehow..