There'll be the usual pro-fission claims from the anti-renewables taskforce I'm sure, but these kinds of stories continue to boost claims that we can move away from fossil+nostorage without any significant disruption.
They have 60% hydro there. It's not an especially useful data point in places where hydro is fully developed and accounts for a much smaller fraction of generation.
Hydro doesn't need pumping to provide load balancing. Just build more turbines [1] than you need for average load - then you can flow extra water overnight and less water during the day while keeping the average the same. This is then equal to the superposition of a traditional and PSH dam, but all in one footprint.
[1] Yes, extra turbines are expensive. But you'd need to build them anyways for a PSH facility.
Hydro's biggest issue is peak capacity in addition to possible ecosystem issues. Barring tidal generators they tend to be built up. I would question the "how" of being better. Durability I would certainly grant given the Hoover Dam it has worked for 83 years proving cheap power.
I'm not sure what you're asking for. Do you want hydro stations to pump water upwards when there is an energy surplus? What problems would that solve that a dam wouldn't?
Hydro is so great because water is easy to store as a reservoir. There is very little hydro generation that isn’t dammed (and most of that is for small scale local power generation).
