https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/
Probably won't happen because batteries will be even cheaper by the time much of it is developed.
In this case, from the study:
> None of the PHES sites discussed in this study have been the subject of geological, hydrological, environmental, heritage and other studies, and it is not known whether any particular site would be suitable. The commercial feasibility of developing these sites is unknown.
There it is. Always so concerned" about whatever imaginary downside alternatives have, but completely credulous about nuclear which has failed over and over again.
You're claiming without any evidence whatsoever that at least 99% of geographically appropriate sites are unusable.
It's not a downside. It's a problem with the study.
> completely credulous about nuclear which has failed over and over again
Can you cite where I've done this?
> You're claiming without any evidence whatsoever that at least 99% of geographically appropriate sites are unusable.
And where I've done this?
Could you provide some more info for this? My understanding was a lot of the sites that could do this, have done. If that's not the case it'd be good to see what the real picture is.