What a bore, there I was thinking this was going to be an article about all those new "Green Jobs", or "Green Technologies" we hear so much about, that are just around the corner.

Sadly no, just some hyperventilating web searcher who has cobbled together a number of disparate snips from various sources. (Yes we know we need better batteries.)

No solutions, but more puff of solar and wind power and how wonderful they are after a comment about how they are almost on parity with nuclear and coal sourced electricity, and no reference how the author reached that conclusion.

Why does the renewable energy sector see fit to spin or as others have suggested the true translation of that word, to bullshyt, all the time?

I don't think the King Island battery can be judged as a success; the high cost of electricity on the island was cited as a reason for the closure of some businesses there. However I believe Tasmania has significant potential for pumped hydro energy storage. Simplified wind turbines on the coastline could generate unregulated power to drive variable speed motors at nearby hydro dams. Those motors would pump water back up to the lake and gently refill the dam. Often the wind is still blowing when river flows are low.

The problem with vehicle-to-grid is firstly I think the cars will be too expensive with limited range and secondly they need to be 'online'. It's hard to see huge car parks with millions of cars connected to sockets. Those people could have taken the bus instead. If a safe (cool and low voltage) compact battery could be made that stores say 10 kilowatt hours then every house could have one. Combine that with roof covering thin solar film and there would be less need for new power lines and large generators. The cost would have to come way down from present prices however, from say $20,000 to $2,000 per house.

Gosh, whose pie-in-the-sky should we choose, the renewable lobby's or the clean coal lobby's?

One (serious) question: if the storage is based around presumably non-renewable materials such as lithium, should it really be classed as "renewable"?

A good summary of the present state of affairs in electrical storage, Jon.

What seems to be overlooked is "end-use storage"- that is, making more of the final product while the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Examples include refrigeration, airconditioning (heating and cooling), desalination, electric car battery charging etc. The only technology required is (presently available) smart metering, which is connected to electric power suppliers, signalling that supply is up or down.

Obviously this technique can't be used for all purposes, but close analysis will reveal that there is a lot of electricity demand that doesn't require a very steady supply (as lighting and many industrial processes do). Further, some of the end uses could be modified to enhance the opportunities of fluctuating supply (and cost). For example, increased heat and "coolth" storage in houses and offices by increasing thermal mass, extra insulation on houses, offices and refrigeration,etc.

A problem that we face is that we are still thinking within the paradigm of constant fossil fuel electricity and our systems are designed around this assumption.

The future must have a diversity of solutions. Storage batteries are one of them, end-use storage is another. Straight-out conservation is very important- if we can reduce demand , then new possibilities open up.

The challenge we have as Jedimaster says to get away from the paradigms of the last century. We are in need of a strategy change. As he says, and I'll repeat it 'til I bore the pants off you dear reader, the major thing we must do (and know how to do) is reduce consumption.

My local Bunnings has three 20,000L rain water tanks that collect roof run off and they water their garden section with that and I daresay more. Just one simple example.

We could even paint our roofs white........

As for this storage question. It is isn't confined to solar and wind electricity but large scale solar thermal plants - and there we have promise in storage. As for the commentator who thinks this is all spin, think again. Hot rocks and salt are there as storage agents, but not of electricity but heat. Right now we have solar thermal plants providing useable steam for turbines to generate electricity. We have adjunct solar plants running side by side with coal and gas, giving the back up during the day when demand is higher (hot sunny afternoons). Somebody might offer the comparison between the cost of storage between hi-tech batteries and salt. My suspicion is that salt would be cheaper.

If you are dismissive of the need for R&D then you may as well stick your head in the sand and wait.

I admire Jon's optimism about electricity storage being "within reach". Industry has been working on this problem for several decades. There is progress but it is very slow with some real physical hurdles.

Electricity is not like widgets. Widgets can be stored cheaply as widgets. All you need is a big enough storage area for the amount of widgets you need to store.

Electricity cannot be stored as electricity in any quantity. It has to be stored in some other form (for example chemical or kinetic energy). So you need a double conversion process from electrical energy to some other form of energy and then back to electrical energy. This is going to be expensive however you do it.

At last the wind and solar advocates are recognising they need storage if they are to become mainstream. But expensive storage will actually be the undoing of "grid parity" for variable renewables like solar and wind. When Jon talks about grid parity for wind he isn't including the cost of storage or (in its absence) the cost of additional traditional backup generation capacity.

Oh and we actually need to store billions of watts (GW), not millions as Jon suggested - even in little old Australia.