I think the time it'll take to come up with economic grid storage will be a lot shorter than the time it'll take to get thorium and liquid salt reactors designed, tested and constructed all over the world.

> The sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow 24x7.

And power plants don't run 24x7, they're regularly down for maintenance. With either solution you need to over provision.

It is not an analogous situation at all and it is mainly due to the highly intermittent/variable nature of wind and solar.

If I have to provide 100 units of energy (peak) a wind/solar farm that produces 100 units of energy (max) doesn't cut it. Solar obviously varies with time of day and doesn't particularly match actual demand curves. Wind is very unpredictable and can generate 0 units of energy when it is needed and 100 units of energy when it isn't needed. So you still need to have 100 units of capacity coming from traditional systems (coal/gas/nuclear). Congratulations you are now using renewables perhaps 30-40% of the time, still building/maintaining your existing systems, and everybody's electric bill has doubled or tripled.

See southern Australia or Germany for real life examples of the problems caused by relying too much on renewables.

These problems can be solved though with renewable backup/storage sources and increases in efficiency in electricity consuming tech.

Pumping water up a hill using solar and harvesting the kinetic energy has been proposed numerous times but it's a matter of social will to build the infrastructure to support such projects. Imagine if we built massive offshore tanks to pump sea water into and released them overnight. Inland areas would need a different solution if they didn't want to modify the landscape too much, but I think we can find a balance between traditional batteries and natural "batteries".

Sure if you imagine some future technology that doesn't exists. We don't have storage mechanisms that have the capacity and are cost efficient.