Those are vague, nebulous, handwavy arguments. Some (like the inefficiency of hydrogen) are dog whistles that fall apart on close examination of the applications for which hydrogen would be suitable. The geography for OFF RIVER pumped hydro is not rare at all; it's present basically anywhere there is sufficient vertical relief (feasible even in deserts), in enormous amounts.
The generic problem with "it can't be done" arguments is you are claiming all possible ways of solving a problem don't work. This is a very strong claim, and is not backed up by such vague arguments.
Woah, ease up, friend! We're on the same side! I agree these storage solutions are all worth investing in. They're going to be great solutions for many areas. I just think nuclear is a great and proven solution for many areas too. I absolutely don't think "it can't be done," I just think we should hedge our bets a bit and rely on the fantastic, proven solution we already have, in case the other solutions don't pan out.
Nuclear is not a great and proven solution. It's a terrible solution, because it costs too much. All sorts of terrible solutions are available if we discard cost consideration. Cost is an inescapable part of engineering.
Nuclear has the disadvantage that they've been trying for longer than either of us have been alive to make it cheap, and it hasn't worked. This real world evidence can't be easily dismissed, especially when competing technologies have crashed in cost by orders of magnitude over that time.
Note that my position here would be revised completely if nuclear were, unexpectedly, to become much cheaper. But at this point I can't take mere promises of cost reduction as anything other than sales talk of that kind that has proven false too many times in the past, too many times to accept the facile excuses that it's always someone else's fault.
> It's a terrible solution, because it costs too much.
That's a reasonable position, and I think reasonable people can disagree here. I disagree for two reasons:
1) I think (could be wrong) the cost is largely regulatory. I suspect (could be wrong) that we could streamline that without sacrificing real safety and dramatically lower the cost.
2) Even still, the cost is absolute peanuts compared to the cost of climate change. Even the famous $30B Georgia plant cost less than the world's richest individual spent so he could smash a social media network against the wall like a toddler with a Tonka truck. The US Military gets about 100 of those plants in funding every single year. It's really not that much money in the grand scheme of things, when you're talking hundreds of trillions of dollars in damage about to smash us in the face. IMO we need to stop counting pennies here and really actually tackle this problem.
But yes, absolutely agreed it is relatively expensive compared to other solutions, and it should be a priority to get that cost down. I just don't think it's so expensive that it's disqualifying. And, again, I think reasonable people can disagree here.
(1) there is an often heard argument, or at least excuse, but it has problems. First, the cost problem is pretty much universal. Nuclear has stalled out everywhere (even in China it's experiencing cost problems and is underachieving). This suggests issues that go beyond local regulatory burdens. Second, what's the alternative? Just trusting the builders/operators to be good boys? That won't work. Appointing Philosopher King Regulators who can tell ahead of time just what regulations are actually necessary? How can they do that?
I will agree that one particular regulatory framework in the US could use serious rework or even revocation: NEPA, the law that requires laborious environmental impact statements. It's sand in the gears for dubious benefit for not just nuclear but all sorts of efforts. The big regulatory lawsuit that hit nuclear back in the 1970s involved NEPA (the "Calvert Cliffs Decision").
(2)'s first sentence would be a valid argument if the choice were between nuclear and climate change. But that's not the choice being made. That nuclear is better than climate change is damning with faint praise, the "it's better than a poke in the eye" of energy arguments.
As for naval reactors... putting a nuclear reactor in a ship increases the overall cost of building and operating that ship, compared to burning oil. And this is true even though burning oil is very uncompetitive for grid power generation. There's a reason the majority of the ships in the US Navy are not nuclear powered.
The generic problem with "it can't be done" arguments is you are claiming all possible ways of solving a problem don't work. This is a very strong claim, and is not backed up by such vague arguments.