Very cool, if true

There isn't any cheap storage on the horizon, ready to deploy when people put cash down on the table. There are a lot of Wired articles, TED Talks and Powerpoint presentations around but deliverable storage systems cost, minimum, £200 million per GWh (pumped hydro storage requiring lots of water and convenient geography).

No-one wants to buy storage, they'd rather sell generation capability because storage costs money, it doesn't make it except by arbitrage (buy cheap, sell dear). There's also the problem of generating excess electricity to fill that storage if it comes into existence, over and above supplying immediate need. If we have to rely on storage to keep the lights on rather than spinning up gas turbine plants then electricity-at-the-socket will be very expensive to cover those storage costs.

Right now Germany is bringing the Nord Stream II pipeline on-shore to supply them with an extra 55 billion cubic metres of Russian gas annually to replace their shut-down nuclear plants. They'll need that amount of gas and more to cover for the loss of their lignite power plants over the next twenty years or so assuming the legislation to enforce that shutdown gets passed. There are a number of entrenched (gettit? Hah!) interests, areas of Germany where the lignite mines are the only employer and source of wealth who object to such legislation so the target date of 2038 and another 10 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions is not likely to be met.