hydro electric

Of course they have.

If it were thast simple/efficient/profitable everyone would be doing it.

Synthetic fuels have a crap efficiency compared with pumped storage.

Might as well use hydrogen anyway.

Burning hydrocarbon fuel nets us at best 65% efficient that's below pumped storage for just half of the equation.

No stine has been left untirned in the search for economical practical grid storage. There is none.

Just grant funded bullshit and virtue signalling

Take your pick:

It's how our energy supplier meets its claim for 100% renewable supply.

Big augments about geological waste disposal facilities in W. Cumbria; many tonnes radioactive water produced at Fukushima with little alternative to dumping it into the ocean. That enough problems for you?

I think the query was about waste disposal - try to keep up!

By ignorant peole. 'Augmenst' (sic!) are, by themselves, not a 'problem'

Theres 4 billion tonnes of radioactive uranium in the sea already. No to menton radiocarbon and potassium

A few tonnes more isn't going to make a blind bit of difference. Drop in the ocean as it were.

Nuclear waste is radioactive - try starting, let alone keeping up!

Oh, sio the waste in question is not radioactive then?

Well what's all the fuss about?

It's no problem to anyone. The oceans are full of radioactivity from natural sources anyway. A few more grams will just be...well...a drop in the ocean.

And you're gullible enough to believe that? LOL!

Just what happened when Merkel wet her knickers just after she'd closed all the nukes down. Large high pressure system stationary over Germany, no wind, no solar, and temperatures plummetted.I would imagine that all the surrounding countries that had to come to her rescue made a tidy profit out of it.

We kept piling more coal on the fire and drove the Dutch and French interconnects flat out, becoming a net exporter of electricity for the first ever!

Well, there is a model here:

Scroll to the foot of the page for the spreadsheet. It's entirely wasted on me as I have no way of verifying the data - or the assumptions. Or the whole thing ;-)

Ok, so it has been looked at. Still not better than a forest. I do wonder if, after all possible battery processes have been considered, some more indirect chemical change could be used for electricity storage in the hours to weeks range. But, like fusion, it is clear that it does not exist at the moment, and nuclear is the only option.

As others have pointed out, that's trivially unimportant. Get back to us when there's a *real* problem, OK?

If you believe the climate alarmism crap yes. Nuclear is the most cost effective way to reduce power statiuon emissions

Years ago a study was doimne on the cost benefitr of may menas of carbon reduction. Insulation. HEbulbs. nuclear power.

Insulation paid for itself. So did HE bulbs. Nuclear was cost neutral and renewables were fiendishly expensive.

Ive got a copy somewhere

Try following the thread, which was sparked by your comment that

"The main objection to nukes in the public's perception is the disposal of the nuclear waste, which in reality isn't a problem at all; it's just blown up to be one by the likes of Harry."

- which is clearly nonsense.

That's pretty crass - never eat fish?

Fortunately none of these pro-nuclear fans are in positions of responsibility.

If you do, mercury is a real problem. Radioactivity isn't.

What do fish have to do with anything? I'm still waiting for you to point out a real problem.