The point I'm making is all these studies use very surface level analysis. For price comparison, the majority refer to and use lcoe only, and neglect to mention that Battery storage is an additional cost not included in those calculations. When those storage methods are included, the price comparison begins to balance. And when you are talking about a battery system with a large enough capacity that it is capable of reliably replacing a gas plant (by which I don't just mean matching capacity, but with a surrounding generating system able to meet normal demand and recharge the battery for when it's electricity is needed). When you consider a battery system with that much capacity, the lcos starts to increase dramatically, and given that neither can be implemented without the other is a carbon free future grid, you have to address both costs.

Having said all that, do I know if that price tag is higher? I don't. But ultimately I support renewable energy. Wind solar batteries other methods of storage nuclear etc. I think these direct price comparisons are flawed at best and disingenuous at worst and are generally bad arguments.

My argument for renewable energy and for nuclear more and other green tech is the same - i think the initial price tag for these things is higher than the fossil fuel status quo but it doesn't matter how much it costs to implement these new technologies, it much be done as quickly as possible and by any means possible and damn the price tag.