An interesting one, particularly the bits about the use of opportunistic storage from idle batteries. However, the article was merging three separate issues:
1. Compact, high tech storage required for cars and transport.
2. Cheap, small scale storage that might allow houses to take advantage of cheaper off peak (Peak was 70% higher than off peak for my last bill) and allow the potential cost savings from using DC power.
3. Large, very cheap storage required to convert solar and wind to base power.
Technical development is not required to allow the use of pumped pumped storage linked with wind or molten salt heat stroage linked with solar thermal. What is stopping large scale use of these technologies is that all renewable electricty can be used as made.

Eclipse Now
As has been pointed out, wind is almost totally ineffective at the moment due to the lack of large-scale power storage. The costs you believe are coming down don't take into account the fact that about 80 per cent of a turbine's output has to be backed by conventional power stations - unless there is some sort of large scale storage - which there isn't. Every power network that uses renewables (apart from hydro) in the US and europe has to back it with conventional power. One of the points of the article is that there are ways of overcoming this problem, however the solutions proposed are all impossibly expensive. So if you have a more cost-effective soloution to this wildly acknowledged problem lets hear it. Otherwise, sorry, if you agree emissions are a problem the solution is gas and nuclear (you need both for a network) and that's it.

I am always amazed at the ability of greenies to state with such conviction BS along the lines of:

Because of "xx" technology it will be possible to store / generate electricity much more cheaply, and thus nuclear power is not necessary.

All renewable generation is very expensive and un reliable. Likewise energy storage is expensive and inefficient (with the exception of pump storage schemes). Even the newer ones whilst much better than ever before are orders of magnitude away from being able to compete with nuclear let alone coal.

The new generation nuclear technologies are being developed, and can use the waste of the gen III reactors, so build the gen III reactors now rather than putting all your green house gas reduction eggs in the basket of a technology that might emerge.

A solar thermal/molten salt heat storage system stores heat before electricty generation so the only extra cost is the heat storage system. The non-toxic molten salt mix is stored in large tanks at atmospheric temperature hence the cost of storage will not be particularly high.
At present, the demand for large scale energy storage is very limited because most power grids are able to use all the clean energy produced. This situation is likely to last for quite some time given someof the ideas mentioned by others in this post.

The Shadow Minister is right. Gen4 nuclear might be a logical part of the system at some point in the future. However, I can't see the point of going ahead with gen3 while we wait for gen4. Smarter to wait until gen4 has proved itself and then see how it stacks up against the developments for other technologies.

The ultimate Power Generation System would have to be Ocean Currents.

One location example would be Montague Island about 12 nautical miles out from Narooma here the Continental Shelf almost meets the Island .
The current is so strong shipping almost clips the Island on the Northern end on their way from 100 fathoms plus to 60 fathoms to get out of Northeasterly Current thereby saving tons of fuel per hour on their journey north .

A canyon in the continental shelf approaches Montague Island from a NE aspect and I could imagine this feature could provide a very secure anchor point for a huge submarine type water turbine that would be submerged below Shipping in use then surfaced for maintenance .

Tiz never as easy as it looks.
Windpower may be getting close to parity with base load stations.
However something that many do not take into account is that the year
long average for windpower is about 25% of design output.
In other words you have to build infrastructure that is four times the
capacity of the average output.
Windpower is a victim of the fall in output is proportional to the cube
root of the wind speed.

Likewise using spare capacity to make hydogen has been given up as a
bad idea. It is just too difficult to store and to stop it leaking.
This means for vehicles that you just cannot park them anywhere but in
specially designed premises.
Also distribution is a problem, four times as many tankers are needed
to deliver the stuff.
Then there is the fuel cell problem. No one has yet made one that has
a 1000 hour economic life. But more like 10,000 hrs is needed.
The bus manufacturers gave it away for that reason.
ERoEI raises its ugly head as well.

Ultra capacitors look promising, but cost might be a problem.