That was part of the old nuclear age dream back when a fleet of reactors would make power too cheap to meter, although using methane or propane instead may be e

That was part of the old nuclear age dream back when a fleet of reactors would make power too cheap to meter, although using methane or propane instead may be easier to work with from an engineering perspective. Moving energy around as liquefied gas is also significantly more efficient in most circumstances. IIRC there was some study on doing something like that in Germany in the 2000s but I'm not finding references to it now. If you don't have to build the dam (since it already exists), pumping water back up into the reservoir is going to be better in the limited locations you can do that, and given the relatively tiny amount of energy storage vs power production I suspect the economies of scale on that won't change without a preceding sea change in global commitment to fossil fuel retirement. There is also a better transition path to that as we already are building amazingly good gas turbines that could just as well be burning synthesized or biogas on demand from solar or nuclear over-generation. I sort of suspect that may end up being politically poisonous to the people that would normally be pushing for carbon-neutral storage options. It would be way more than double the solar panels though. Solar generation is generally maxing at around 25% capacity factor, so replacing an existing fossil fuel generator requires 4x or more the nominal capacity in solar plus whatever efficiency loss in storage, so going with a pure solar + storage replacement of a 1500 MW combustion plant could easily require 12,0000 MW of equivalent generation.