Arguably, due to recycling (which is coming online), battery materials only have to be mined sort of once for the total capacity of batteries produced - IE you can recycle and get close to 100% of the materials back.
So, in a theoretical future where we've reached a stable state of total EV capacity, we'd only need to mine enough to replace materials lost during recycling, accidents like fires where the elements end up re-oxidized and released, etc... Maybe 2-5% of each battery.

Don't forget that fuel cells are also, besides lasting less time than modern batteries, also hilariously more expensive for the power level needed. At least right now, and more development is necessary to bring that price down, not just expansion to a good economy of scale. This is primarily because they also use rare earth elements to operate.
Note: Most EV batteries have plenty of power capability once they're big enough to provide enough energy for decent range. But you need like 40kW and up for a fuel cell.

Power: How fast you can get energy out, watts
Energy: How much energy, kWh, joules, etc...

Steam reformation of methane is the primary method of producing hydrogen for things like rockets today. And all the other industrial uses of hydrogen.

So "steam reformation" very much exists.

Now, steam reformation to convert H2O into H2 and O2? As Londo Mollari says, that basically doesn't exist today, at least not outside of laboratories. It's a relatively simple process if you can get the temperature high enough.

This process would normally use some electrolysis, which generally would give you the H2 and O2 in separate spots that you can then use as reasonably pure sources.

If they're produced in a mixed state, well, cool to 70K and you can just let the now liquid O2 flow out, while keeping the still gaseous hydrogen going elsewhere. Use a backflow heat exchanger to keep the process reasonably efficient. If you pressurize to ~50 bar, you'd only need to chill it to ~155K.

Or use some sort of molecular sieve, like with desalination. O2 is a relatively big molecule, H2 very small. The membrane shouldn't be hard.

When I did the analysis, using the electricity with conventional battery powered EVs did make better fiscal sense. It's a back of napkin analysis, of course.
1. You can make electricity from nuclear power, especially if you're using a GenIV reactor, with relatively high efficiency. Current nuclear is around 30% due to Carnot cycle limitations - you can only keep water liquid at limited temperatures, even at extreme pressures. If you switch to molten salt/metal, you can drastically increase temperatures, which increases electricity efficiency - you go from 30% to 50% (roughly). Which means you go from 3GWt producing 1GWe to 2GWt producing 1 GWe, meaning you go from having to dispose of 2GW of heat down to 1GW. You just cut your cooling demands in half.
Anyways, you want the new reactor designs if you're going to be producing hydrogen because the current plants don't get hot enough. But they can produce hydrogen using mostly heat. WNA predicts "50% or more", up from 25% current, using "direct thermochemical production" - which requires over 1000C. Given that current reactors are limited to around 300C...
Conclusion: Hydrogen and Electrical production efficiency around equal.
2. Compression: This is something that electricity doesn't have, but you're going to use around 8% of the energy potential of the hydrogen just to compress it: ~2.6 kWh/kg. There's 33.33 kWh/kilogram of Hydrogen. So even if you're using direct thermo from nuclear to produce the hydrogen, you're still going to want a turbine to produce electricity just to power pumps to render the hydrogen into a practical form for storage (though I suppose you could also use direct mechanical from steam turbines for that, but electrical is more controllable). That's 1k bar, you'd save some energy, most hydrogen cars are 700 bar, but that raises a question: Do you compress more to make shipping more compact and not need pumps at the station, or do you pressurize to 700 bar, and now need some sort of pumping system at fueling points... I used 1k bar because that's what the internet popped out when I searched.
3. Distribution: With electricity you can use the existing power grid, though at some point you obviously want to beef it up. With hydrogen production from nuclear power, you'd need to ship it everywhere. Shipping hydrogen is a pain because it likes to leak out of everything and anything. This means either hydrogen trucks or piping. While you can apparently retask some natural gas piping with minimal refits at acceptable leak rates*, it still probably means a lot of new piping, as opposed to just upgrading electrical lines more and faster.
4. Use: If you think batteries are expensive, wait until you see fuel cell prices. Sure, you can use an ICE with hydrogen, but then you're down at ICE efficiency levels. Worried about rare earth use in batteries, fuel cells use the really pricy stuff, and they have limited lifespans as well. Overall efficiency with hydrogen is also less than battery. Which, if you want to bring that up, means you still need a traction battery, like with a hybrid car, because otherwise you're not storing braking energy to really boost efficiency.
5. Weight: Sure, the hydrogen is the highest energy density stuff by mass going. It's also one of the least energy dense ones by volume. And getting the volume down enough to be practical requires high pressure - 700 bar for hydrogen cars. A PWR reactor is a bit over 200 Bar. You end up with the same problem as batteries - the storage vessel ends up weighing enough to be a significant factor in mileage, and that weight doesn't really drop as you drive.

*Tiny leaks aren't actually a fire hazard; the hydrogen disperses too fast.

Or maybe use an actual date variable,

I figure the problem is that it does indeed get converted into a string as some point - a string consisting of 2 characters for the age, so 101-> 01, so when it goes back into the more modern systems to spit out a work order for picking up the 1 year old...

Personally speaking, if there isn't a date variable/class available, I think that I'd tend to reach for int before a string for dates. Only switch to string when I'm looking to output the data.

Well, duh, why do you think I said "a fraction of them"? IE the occasional one here and there. Were you thinking I was considering this to be some sort of universal policy? Rather than a shitty boss here and there doing it?

And this is not a bad thing, on the balance. I like employers always being at least a little hungry for workers. And Chick-fil-a led the charge on discovering that better paid workers are generally better workers, and the productivity boost more than pays for the extra pay.

As for "several years experience", well that can lead you down a rabbit hole where eventually the experienced workers are retiring and you're looking at having to hire those 3 inexperienced workers to replace 1, because there's nobody with experience left. I'd consider some sort of apprenticeship/learning program to keep generating those experienced workers.

I'm retired military, and the military is relatively obsessed with keeping new people in the pipelines, so you always have a range of experience. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Oops, you probably meant having the researchers create a program that every time the worm calls in it sends back instructions to delete itself.

The answer to that is probably "liability": There are legal questions to be asked if they actually write anything to alter the computers that connect to that IP address in the worm's way, even if it would be purely beneficial. It could be considered illegal hacking, for example.
The next question is: They'd be doing this for free, but if they managed to screw up the delete program and it damages computers at all - they may be sued or even arrested.

So while setting up the server prevents anybody else from screwing with the worm in its original form and provides them their research data, actually clearing the infections is a case of "high risk for no gain".

That would require people to actually update their software.

Not my intent, though obviously the normal minimum wage worker has a minimal amount of agency, and a number of them are indeed dumb. Otherwise they wouldn't be a minimum wage worker. In addition, even much better paid workers still have limited agency.

1. We'd be talking about "franchise owner", not the manager.
2. When I was a minimum wage employee working at a franchise and elsewhere, I didn't have easy access to "corporate".
3. If they quit, unless they're associates outside of work as well, the information isn't necessarily going to spread that much.
4. The owner can always play up "not enforcing the contract clause" as a favor, not a necessity.

I think you're mistaking that it doesn't need to be a 100% effective tactic to be considered to be worth it by a shitty boss/owner.

Well, when you sit there and accuse me of being deceptive and using a fallacy, I'm going to argue back.

I'm also me. My positions are mine, not somebody else's.

Batteries, today, are now cheap enough to use in grid storage. The need for battery type technology has risen as well - making what we're willing to pay for it increase (demand increase, resulting in higher price point). The reduced cost and increased buying point has resulted in an increased amount of sales. From effectively zero to dozens a year.

It's basic economics that if the cost of production of grid storage compatible batteries continues to drop, if the overall performance improves*, that they'll be used even more. If the demand need for them increases - for example, what if a carbon tax is put on natural gas, significantly increasing the cost of natural gas peaking plants? What if solar power costs continue to drop - giving you periods where storing energy is effectively free?

*Just purchase price isn't enough. There's also questions of efficiency. A system that spits out 50% of the energy you put into it is going to be less attractive than one that does 90%. But if the storage is cheap enough, the prior might still make it. But multiplying the cost of every kWh you feed it by two, makes it a much tougher sell. Historically, efficiency was around 70-90%.

Gaslighting attempt spotted. You: posts after. Me: I had made ONE reply, consisting largely of me writing the exact same thing as my first post, when you accused me of motte and baily. While my defense might look like an impenetrable castle to you, because it consists of reasonable informed stances, that doesn't make it a motte and bailey fallacy. For one, you don't seem able to respond to what you see as my "motte" arguement and my "bailey" argument. That's something that should be easy to define, you know? You respond with more personal attacks and gaslighting rather than provide that simple information.

Good attempt, but if you're going to throw fallacy accusations around, it might help if you weren't using them as a playbook. Or maybe, remember that I'm not Shanghai. Note how I treat sodium as a possible way forward with grid storage, not a guarantee. I know there's a lot of competing technologies, which can each make sense in their own niche at the moment.

And it's a good thing my typing speed is "yes".

I think that I wasn't quite clear enough - I'm not saying that they actually take the employees to court. This is the equivalent of threatening a lawsuit. Which many $25k employees would be terrified of even though, as you mention, they're effectively judgement proof.

The idea isn't to sue, it's to keep them from quitting their shitty job for a slightly less shitty one down the street.

Given that most fast food stores are franchises, and that there's ~200k such stores in the USA, I would absolutely NOT put it past a fraction of them being asshole enough to attempt to do this, in order to keep their employees from quitting and seeking greener pastures elsewhere.

Somebody posted that Texas has "at will" employment, IE is "right to work", but that non-competes could be legal there. It read more like an opinion though.

https://www.texasnoncompetelaw...

"Supported by valid consideration (ie. something of value given to the employee)"

To me, that means something like, "they continue to pay you during the non-compete period."
There's also "need" - something like trade secrets. Which a fast food worker wouldn't have.

Given that I'm not the one who made that argument, it isn't a motte and bailey fallacy. My position remains exactly where it was.

And batteries do indeed make sense today - that's why they're being installed, I mean, the first BESS in the USA was installed in the town I was living in at the time - Fairbanks, AK. And it uses NiCad batteries.

Nope. I restated and rephrased. You're the one that constructed the strawman.
My FIRST POST stated the so called "retreat" position.
1. If battery costs are cut in half again, they'll challenge pumped hydro: Note how this is an IF. I'm not guaranteeing it, I just think that it's a real possibility.
2. Batteries now make sense for part of the solution: Given that they're already being installed, I don't think this should be all that controversial.
3. While past returns are not a guarantee of future returns, we do know that, for example, development for sodium-ion batteries is ongoing, and that's projected to be 10-20% less than lithium-ion, and lithium-ion keeps getting cheaper and cheaper. It probably helps that I didn't mention a timeline for it to happen.

I'm not defending your strawman position for me, but I'm fully willing to defend my actual one.
For example:

I mentioned zero magic about grid storage, batteries, or EVs. Given that you're the one bringing magic into it, I rest my case: You're creating a strawman to argue against.
Or, at least, properly identify my supposed position, using what I actually posted, as well as the backup. Keeping in mind that it should be a major difference, not just shades from attempted rephrasing of stuff.

You can't take a point that was "maybe" in my first post, treat it like I declared it a sure thing, then accuse me of being the one to commit the fallacy. Sure, you can debate on whether or not they'll be able to cut the cost of batteries in half again, but keep in mind that I was just treating it as a "maybe." I think the odds are good for them managing it, but it isn't guaranteed, especially on some sort of short timeline.

Yes, indeed there are. That looks like a hefty lever to me, but it's only rated at 4 liters an hour. Enough to keep you alive, of course, but it also will go through 20 liters to produce that 4.

Can you get 800 PSI on a handheld tool? Yes, you just need a big enough lever. Looking, you can get over 2000 PSI using a manual car jack.

Also, remember my mentioning that you can do lower pressures as long as you're willing to accept lower throughput? You can work a RO system down as low as 60 psi, but at that low of a pressure, your throughput is going to be low for the amount of media needed, and you will have to flush most of the water. When you do RO, you generally get your freshwater flow and a wastewater flow that is saltier than the input. Only a percentage of the water is desalinated. You need higher pressures to do higher percentages, because the more salt, the harder it is.

Let's see, first thought is "How high would the water column need to be?"

Wiki on RO desalination

Brackish water: 225-376 psi
Seawater: 800-1180 psi. (Note: This might actually liquify some atmospheric gasses)
1 foot of water = 0.43 PSI.

Brackish water would require a ~700 foot tower
Seawater: ~2,302 foot tower.

Tallest water tower, the Union Watersphere, ~212 feet. I'm thinking a tower isn't going to cut it.

On the other hand, I live on a well. My tank doesn't depend on height for pressure - it has an air bladder that you compress to provide the pressure. That should work, though for seawater you might need to pick a gas that won't liquify at the necessary pressure.

There's a big difference between what I said and the strawman you constructed to attack.

Me: "Batteries now make sense for part of the solution" and "cut the cost in half again, it'll threaten pumped hydro"
You: "if only we discover some utterly revolutionary technology..."

1. The major revolutions have already happened.
2. LiIon prices ~1/7th the price per kWh they were 20 years ago. Asking for another halving? Not really that big of an ask, I think, with things like sodium ion batteries in the works.
3. Intermittants can indeed totally work, it just requires proper engineering. Such as having energy storage systems, more load shedding abilities. Which EVs tend to be ideally suited for.