3 ms·
"Disclaimer: None of the sites discussed in this study have been the subject of geological, hydrological, environmental, heritage and other studies, and it is n
by makomk 4y ago
"Disclaimer: None of the 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. As with all major engineering projects, diligent attention to quality assurance would be required for safety and efficacy. There has been no investigation of land tenure apart from exclusion of some environmental areas and urban areas, and no discussions with land owners and managers. Nothing in this list of potential site locations implies any rights for development of these locations."
That's a whole lot of important things that they didn't even bother to check before pushing out a nice impressive press release for the media to latch on to. Also, from what I can tell even finding that many potential candidates required changing the very definition of a suitable site away from the type actually used by existing real-world pumped hydro projects.
- pydry 4y agoIt didnt focus on those aspects because they are not about the core question which is the presence of suitable geography. Nonetheless nuclear power really doesnt stack up well against pumped storage on any of those other dimensions either. Certainly not cost or NIMBY potential.