Malgraŭ tio, ke la deponejo estas for, ni iras.

Malgraŭ is normally a preposition, and prepositions usually take a noun or pronoun, not a full finite clause by themselves. So standard Esperanto often uses tio before ke:

malgraŭ tio, ke ...

That is very close to English despite the fact that .... You may hear malgraŭ ke in real usage, but malgraŭ tio, ke is the safer textbook form.

Here tio points forward to the whole ke-clause. It does not mean some separate object; it stands for the idea that follows.

So the structure is basically:

despite that — namely, that the depot is far away

This is why English learners often find it helpful to think of it as similar to the fact in despite the fact that.

Yes. Kvankam la deponejo estas for, ni iras is perfectly natural.

The difference is mostly one of style and structure:

• kvankam = although / even though
• malgraŭ tio, ke = despite the fact that

So kvankam is often shorter and simpler, while malgraŭ tio, ke sounds a bit more explicit.

No. This is a false friend.

Esperanto for means away, off, or absent. It has nothing to do with English for.

English for is often Esperanto por, but sometimes other words are needed depending on the meaning.

In Esperanto, adverbs can be used after esti to describe a state or location. This is very common.

For example:

• Li estas hejme.
• Ŝi estas ekstere.
• Ili estas for.

So estas for means something like is away or is at a distance. That is normal Esperanto.

If you wanted a more adjectival idea, you could also see forms like fora or words like malproksima, but for itself is idiomatic here.

It is built from parts:

• depon- = deposit, store, put down
• -ej- = place used for something
• -o = noun ending

So deponejo literally means a place for storing/depositing things. Depending on context, that could be a depot, warehouse, storehouse, or repository.

La shows that the speaker means a specific depot, one that is known or identifiable in the context.

Without la, deponejo would be more like a depot or some depot. Esperanto does not have a separate word for English a/an, so the bare noun often covers that idea.

So:

• la deponejo = the depot
• deponejo = a depot / depot in general, depending on context

The commas help mark the subordinate clause clearly.

In malgraŭ tio, ke ..., the comma before ke is very common in writing. Then, because that whole concessive clause comes first, the second comma marks where it ends:

Malgraŭ tio, ke la deponejo estas for, ni iras.

So the final part ni iras is clearly the main clause.

Yes. You could also say:

Ni iras, malgraŭ tio, ke la deponejo estas for.

That means essentially the same thing. Putting the malgraŭ clause first gives it more emphasis, like setting up the contrast before the main statement.

Esperanto word order is fairly flexible, especially with subordinate clauses like this.

Esperanto -as covers both the English simple present and present progressive, depending on context.

So ni iras can mean:

• we go
• we are going

Both are possible readings unless the context makes one clearer.

If the meaning were definitely future, Esperanto would normally use iros instead.