So the article is wrong in multiple ways. Not only is "no-water hydropower" a contradiction in terms, but when you look into it, it is in fact using water. This is the status quo for science journalism, unfortunately.
There's discussion of something to stir both reservoirs to keep the mineral particles from settling. Which seems rather energy-intensive and wasteful.
There's no specification for what kind of minerals or surfactant, or what kind of properties they'd need to have. No discussion of how to pump an abrasive mixture without lots of expensive maintenance. It, frankly, sounds like they're saying "sand!" What happens if the surfactant leaks or there's a dam break? The scale of disaster from something like this is pretty insane; they're proposing what amounts to a ready-made mudslide behind a dam.
There's also discussion of using the water to cool the generators, like that's somehow novel...and for some strange reason, heat pumps and geothermal heatsinking?
This feels like patent trolling. It reminds me of crazy-board-of-string-and-photos meme guy. "OK, so we have a hydropower plant! BUT, BUT, we put SAND in the water! And and we need some things to stir the water to keep the sand in suspension. We can tack on this geothermal well! And cool the pumps with the water!"
It's the status quo for any kind of journalism. Read anything you either do for a living or have life knowledge or education about, and the credulous BS just leaps off the page. Pick any controversial issue, do some research on it, and you'll realize how much "common knowledge" is misinformation due to crap media coverage.
I think good journalism still exists, you just need to pay for it. I don't see the Economist getting basic facts wrong, even in topics I'm familiar with. The main problem is that there is far more money in ad-driven content than high quality subscriber content.
