So you propose turning every mountain valley into an environmentally destructive storage battery? If we are willing to do that, why not just invest more in hydro power, since one of the big limits is the public's low tolerance for the environmental damage it causes? If we are just ignoring that damage or ignoring the public, why not build out basic hydro and not 'pumped storage'?

Hinkley Point C is being funded privately, based on a mechanism whereby the government guarantees EDF receive £92.50/MWh. This was thought of as expensive when the deal was being negotiated but the current wholesale price has been above that level for most of the past 12 months and is currently about £243/MWh. While EDF get the difference made up when the price is below the strike price, they pay back the difference if the wholesale price is higher.

That is very far from what "funded privately" means anywhere else.

No nuke anywhere was ever fully commercial. In every case they depend on heavy public subsidy.

Is not scalable at all. Not everyone lives in Austria or Switzerland.

Everyone (not on Antarctica) lives close enough to a place enough like Austria or Switzerland. Electric grids can be big.

And also a subject to state security and political leverage. I definitely would not like to be dependent on anti-nuke Austria fanatics who would be limiting storage capacity to me, just because I am using nuclear power plant.

It's only 1.4 GWh. https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2021/09/17/energyaustr...