@cm0002 So that is the equivalent of the average nuclear plant output for six minutes, very useful. I'd instead invest the concrete and steel into making the actual plant, that way I would have 1GW (10x100MW) 24x7 for 60 or 70 years, take up less land, and not require energy from another source to "store". When one looks at the economics of what it takes to store six minutes of a nuke plant's worth of electricity the economics of wind and solar, or lack thereof, become obvious. When you consider all the energy that was required to make the concrete to store that six minutes, it becomes especially insane.

Now that we have commercial scale electrolyzers that can work on intermittent power, it makes a lot more sense to make hydrogen, which can then by used to 1) generate heat, 2) as feedstock for synthetic hydrocarbons or plastics, 3) as a reducing agent for iron rather than carbon, 4) piped and burned like natural gas with suitable adaptations.