"1. Energy storage technology has improved exponentially in my lifetime and the laws of physics in that arena have yet to be broken so expect further exponential improvement."
Moore's Law doesn't apply to batteries: https://www.pnas.org/content/110/14/5273
Scientists and battery experts, who have been optimistic in the recent past about improving lithium-ion batteries and about developing new battery chemistries—lithium/air and lithium/sulfur are the leading candidates—are considerably less optimistic now. Improvement in energy storage density of lithium-ion batteries has been only incremental for the past decade. A large-scale research consortium (the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research) has been created with an ambitious goal of improving energy storage density by a factor of five and reducing cost by a factor of five in 5 years. This can only happen if there is a terrific, wonderful, and amazing breakthrough in battery technology. One can only hope.
"2. Articles appearing in that publication aren’t peer-reviewed scientific papers produced by MIT researchers. That article was written by a professional journalist on staff that doesn’t even necessarily have a science degree in the field, much less from MIT. In fact, if care to look under the rug, the editorial board’s credentials aren’t too impressive either. They largely appear to be journalists with business backgrounds and none of their bios include an MIT university degree. And his argument is the current energy storage technology is too expensive? Sounds like something a business person would say."
You asked for my credentials. I have a mfg and engineering background and now work in the space industry (having come from first the auto industry and then aerospace). As such, when evaluating an argument or claim, I consider the objective data, how sound the premises and methodology, etc. What I don't do is say, "I don't care how good the analysis, Ted is a (fill in the blank) so he's got an agenda! I'm not going to even begin to evaluate his root cause analysis!" That's what you seem to only do, pre-judge arguments and analyses based on suppositions around someone's motives, like some amateur cable pundit.
Re MIT's Technology Review, you might be right, don't know don't care. Where I work I have access to a very extensive technical library. I'll browse from time to time and over the last several years I've come across many articles discussing the challenges and hopes surrounding renewable energy. I understand that the manufacture batteries and windmills is very energy and materials intensive. I seem to remember that to make one lb of batteries you need to mine 50 lbs of earth, or maybe it was 50 lbs of raw minerals and metals. In either case, if the numbers in the Devore article are accurate, that would mean that ONE MILLION TONS of earth would have to be mined to produce enough batteries to make a small city of 75,000 fossil fuel independent. Now extrapolate across the U.S.; again, an ecological nightmare.
Last thing. While I don't buy the alarmism (how are the polar bears doing? Last I heard they're doing better than ever, yet fifteen years ago they were front and center in every global warming scare article) I am
interested in clean, efficient, affordable energy. I'd love to see lesser developed nations continue to modernize, and they can only do that with affordable energy. I'm Catholic but I'd tell Pope Francis that if he's worried about AGW's threat to the world's poor, the threat is coming from the Greenies wanting to take India's cheap energy away (among others). The harm people like you do, IMHO, is that if you get your way, cheap energy will disappear (hurting poor people most, the world over), there will be much harm done to the Earth mining all the rare earth metals and other needed materials needed to replace the existing energy infrastructure, and in the end it won't help one bit. It's estimated that windmills will take thirty years to break even in terms of carbon footprint, and that's optimistic. To make solar work (and it would take A LOT of solar) you'd have to produce all those millions of tons of batteries; batteries which have a useful life of a few decades at best. Then there's what seems to be 180OUT's main concern, being loss of individual freedom and autonomy in the face of a centralized all-powerful government bureaucracy, which in light of the evidence of the 20th century is not an illegitimate or paranoid concern (every College student should read Solzhenitsyn; instead they get Zinn and whatever "intersectional" social justice tripe their $20k or more a year is buying). In short, you care about the environment and reducing industrial carbon production? Nuclear power is the ONLY realistic option, until we have fusion (if that ever happens; re natural gas, it's pretty clean but it won't last forever). Reduce the mountain of punitive regulation (of course there's legitimate regulation) so nuclear is again attractive economically and like France, we can have a (mostly) nuclear-powered largely carbon-free energy grid. Wouldn't it be nice?