Many EVs link their motor and battery coolant loops.

You can actually get the battery warmed up fairly quickly when your stator is regularly getting over 100-200 degrees C and you're feeding that heat into the battery.

If we didn't know, how did the page I linked to, published before your paper, talk about a hot spot in Greenland?

We've known that there was a hot spot under Greenland for a very long time. We didn't know that it was still active, which is what the research you're citing confirms.

That plume has existed for millions of years. It's cooling.

In fact, that very research you cited even states that the heat from the plume is feeding the Iceland plume, which is why Iceland has over 100 volcanoes, and over a third of them are active volcanoes (have erupted in the part 50,000 years). Greenland has no active volcanoes at all.

Volcanic activity and heat plumes function over geological time scales. That plume under Greenland was hotter when the ice formed than it is today.

Volcanic activity is not a significant cause of glacial loss in the Antarctic, there are no active volcanoes at all in Greenland.

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2982/fire-and-ice-why-volcanic-activity-is-not-melting-the-polar-ice-sheets/

You're probably thinking of Antarctica, but even there volcanic activity is having very little impact.

There are no active volcanoes in Greenland, and no underwater volcanoes for at least the past few million years.

There was a hot spot under Greenland, but that was millions of years ago (EDIT: there may in fact still be a hot spot that is cooling, regardless, a hot spot that's existed for millions of years can't explain why ice is melting now) and it has since moved to Iceland:

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2982/fire-and-ice-why-volcanic-activity-is-not-melting-the-polar-ice-sheets/

You said "that's not true" but then discussed a bunch of stuff I never mentioned. I never mentioned whether or not hydrogen bonding only applies to dissolving substances. I never mentioned water being a liquid at room temperature.

But I will address this:

>they are just two ends of a spectrum representing how little/how much energy you need to break an attraction.

At a physical level I agree with you. But not at a categorical level. These things are categorically distinct when we talk about them because of the size of disparity in energy required.

Let a cup of salt water sit and salt will spontaneously crystallize out of the water within hours. Just through Brownian motion.

Stable molecules could take billions of years to change their structure, or longer. This is why we categorize "water" as it's own molecule, and "salt" as it's own molecule, but we don't categorize "salt water" as a molecule - we categorize it as a solution of 2 molecules.

I appreciate that wikipedia may describe it like this, but that doesn't make it an accurate description used in chemistry.

This paper, for example, specifically looks at the differences between chemical and hydrogen bonding (specifically by look at bond strength).

>But I get some feeling that even ionic bonds are not "bonds" in your mind, only covalent ones?

I'd argue that the distinction is more categorical than physical.

All chemical bonds are covalent bonds, there's just a disparity in how much the electrons are actually shared.

>Yes, they left out some detail and might( have wrongly implied that the total is always negative, i.e. dissolution is endothermic, but this was not what you called out and this is ELI5, not a journal paper.

Sure, you could argue that his statement was specifically saying that hydrogen bonding - or any other force being used to maintain the solvation of the solute - is exothermic.

But my point remains that this isn't a bond between molecules, and that is an ELI5 level topic.

There is no point in chemistry where anyone would ever suggest that solvation involves molecules bonding. No chemistry teacher would ever say that hydrogen bonds, Van Der Waals forces, or any other intermolecular force is "bonding with the liquid molecules" or that "this creates new bonds."

>you clearly can only do insults

Says person who referred to my posts as "pedantic" because they corrected incorrect statements.

The only difference is - all of my posts have contained content that directly supports my position by describing how chemistry actually works. This post of yours doesn't, it JUST serves to insult me.

>and down-votes

Yes, because you haven't down voted any of my posts, right? *Eye roll*

If you want to have a "healthy adult scientific discussion" I'm happy to do that.

But saying "hydrogen bonding is a form of bonding with molecules" isn't an adult scientific discussion. It's a blatant misrepresentation of actual chemistry. A hydrogen bond - as I stated in my very first post - is a dipole-dipole interaction. It's an inter-molecular force (a force between two separate molecules, not a bond) similar to Van Der Waals forces but many magnitudes greater in strength.

Further, hydrogen bonding doesn't even apply to the way many things dissolve. So even if we could ignore chemistry and say that hydrogen bonding is a form of bonding to a molecule - which it's decidedly not - that STILL wouldn't make the post I replied to correct, because it only applies to a subset of things that dissolve.

Organic molecules, for example, can dissolve through Van Der Waals forces or/specifically London dispersion forces.

Something being dissolved can be endo or exothermic, there's no hard and fast rule about whether dissolving something will heat or cool a liquid. Saying it's one way or another just isn't accurate, it depends entirely on what you're dissolving.

I'm saying it's not "bonding to a molecule" if you disagree you need to take introductory chemistry.

Further, I just want to point out, hydrogen bonding only applies to ionic substances being dissolved in specific solvents. So many things dissolve without hydrogen bonding at all.

You clearly don't understand the basics of chemistry.

>They didn't say "chemical bond"

Yes they did:

...it becomes part of the liquid by bonding with the liquid molecules.

Nothing is "bonding with the liquid molecules" - that's not happening at all.

>even you used "hydrogen bonding"

Which is decidedly NOT "bonding with the liquid molecules" exactly like I stated.

>It doesn't matter if hydrogen bonds, ionic bonds, chemical bonds, or magical bonds.

Yes it does, these are all WILDELY different things.

If you don't understand chemistry don't pretend to.

>They didn't claim it does.

Did you not read their post?

making these new bonds releases energy as heat

When you can actually read what they posted and my reply, get back to me.

No no, we call it flat - but flat doesn't mean 2D.

We call paper flat, but paper isn't 2D, it's 3D.

>However, there is a big difference between melting and dissolving. When a solid dissolves in a liquid, it becomes part of the liquid by bonding with the liquid molecules. This creates new bonds and making these new bonds releases energy as heat. This refunds some of the heat used to break up the solid in the first place.

This is just not correct at all.

Let's take a simple example of salt being dissolved in water.

It's kind of true that the bonds that make up the crystal lattice for salt are broken as part of the dissolving process. This occurs mostly because the sodium and chlorine are already highly ionized (the electron being shared between them is spending most of it's time around chlorine, and we tend to short hand this by calling it an Na+ and Cl- ionic bond), so separating them is relatively easy if you have something with sufficient ionic attraction (like the partial charge that water carries due to the strong electron attraction of the oxygen atom in H2O).

But new bonds are NOT created. There is hydrogen bonding, but there's no chemist in the world who would say that hydrogen bonds are a form of chemical bonding. It's a dipole-dipole attraction, similar to a Van Der Waals force but much much stronger.

Secondly, this process doesn't release energy. The process of dissolving salt in water is endothermic - that is, energy is absorbed in the process of dissolving salt into water, not released, so both the salt and the water will get slightly cooler as a result of the salt dissolving.

Many of the people on "To Catch a Predator" were charged with "Criminal solicitation of a minor" (or similar charges, as these are usually state charges and can vary from state to state).

Most of these charges contain a clause that reads - or is similarly worded to: "if he/she knowingly contacts or communicates with, or attempts to contact or communicate with, a person who is under the age of xx"

By this definition, it is not required that the person actually communicate with a minor, merely that they attempted to do so (usually by believing the person they're contacting is a minor and continuing to solicit them anyway).

We're not even to the point of slowing the bleeding yet. The bleeding is still getting faster, it's just not getting faster as quickly.

Pointing that out isn't doom and gloom, it's fighting complacency. We still have a lot to do, and every year what we have to do is getting bigger because we didn't do enough the year before.

>I dont know if you realize just how small of a drop in the ocean it really is compared to the shit we are doing now.

It's such a small problem, that beyond all the environmental regulations and monitoring we have to do, we also have an entire government program dedicated to the security of just nuclear waste:

https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Nuclear%20SRMA%20Fact%20Sheet_508.pdf

It's literally described as "the most highly regulated and heavily guarded of all civilian infrastructure."

But tell me more about how small an issue it is.

>Using vitrification? Anywhere.

Which currently isn't being practiced in any substantial quantity in the US.

Even if it were, vitrified waste is still radioactive and must be carefully stored. While it does make the issue a little easier to manage, it is not a solution to the storage problem.

You cannot store vitrified nuclear waste "anywhere."

>I wonder why there are none after the big stink people made about nuclear. Putting the cart before the horse.

Actually it has nothing to do with that.

Breeder reactors were phased out primarily for two reasons:

We found more uranium fuel sources, so the need to get all the energy out of the uranium we had greatly diminished.

The navy needed pressurized water reactors because they were the only design that could be shrunk down to a size that would fit on ships - submarines in particular.

Because the navy poured so much money into the research and development of PWRs, the cost to build them commercially was highly subsidized. There was far less research completed on making reliable, safe breeder reactors, so the costs to pursue them were substantially higher.

I also appreciate that you didn't address the fact that per dollar, we can get almost ten times the power output from offshore wind, and we can do it faster.

>Im not going into the waste thing

Of course not. Why would you deal with a problem that there's no good solution for? It kind of blows up your whole argument. Why acknowledge that.

Oh, there's good long term storage solutions? Where?

Oh, there's breeder reactors we can send it to? Where?

>Sure, it might take that time (10yrs for each plant)

10 years is about the minimum time, 40+ years is not an unreasonable length of time for it to take to complete a single nuclear power plant.

Watts Bar began construction in 1973, unit 1 was completed in 1996, unit 2 was completed in 2015. Combined, the plant can produce ~2.33GW of power and cost more than $23 billion to construct.

Meanwhile, offshore wind costs about $1.3 million per MW.

For $23 billion, you can build about 17.7GW of offshore wind, and it will be finished sooner than the 1 nuclear plant that produces about 1/10th the power.

This is just propaganda from the oil companies, are you a paid shill?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/11/30/fact-check-recycling-can-keep-wind-turbine-blades-out-landfills/8647981002/

That's not to say wind turbine blades are widely recycled, they aren't, but they can be, and anyone stating otherwise is spreading misinformation and lying.

Further, the toxicity of solar panel production is overstated due to a non-peer reviewed study that reached erroneous conclusions by using deceptive comparisons with spent nuclear fuel.

You can read more about that here:

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/03/clean-energy-facts-belie-common-myths/

So you couldn't quote a single thing, got it.

Meanwhile, solar panels and wind turbine blades are recyclable.

Who is recycling nuclear waste again? Or right, no one, it's not recyclable. It's radioactive for tens of thousands of years and requires nuclear plants to keep full time security staff at every plant to prevent terrorists from getting to it.

Please quote something I said that is a lie.

If you're going to accuse me of lying, be specific about what I lied about.

To be fair, even in West Virginia, where more than 90% of power comes from coal, EVs are still greener than ICEs.

It's what he was told.

Nuclear isn't the magic bullet it's made out to be.

It will take years, even a decade or more to get plants built if we start today. Those plants must be built near water supplies. And all their waste will be stored on site because we have no where to put it. And the electricity produced will likely be more expensive than what you're used to, so expect rate hikes. Nuclear costs about double what solar or wind costs per kwh.

Tax credits do apply to the batteries, but only if you buy enough solar to charge them, and only if you keep them in a mode that powers them from solar and not the grid (although the latter is harder to enforce).