The first step is to be profitable, ie that revenue is higher than costs, and the second is that the rate of profit exceeds the investment cost over its lifetime.

A project is not commercial viable if it lacks either. Currently I have not heard of a single energy batter project that is profitable. The cost of buying energy together with employees and maintenance is significant above that of the revenue that they can get out. The hope is that if there is enough overcapacity in the future from wind and solar then the price will be low enough, and the electricity price during lows is high enough, that they could then make a profit. Nuclear in turn has seen mostly a drop in revenue while cost has only increased.

Choosing between two nonviable commercial options is a bad choice. I do however want an energy grid that is emissions free so one way or an other the economics need to change. Increasing the electricity price by kicking out fossil fuels is a good bet to help both technologies to be more commercial viable. Convincing wind and solar investors to over saturate the market and crash the price during peaks would be an alternative. Time will tell.

As a earlier article suggested, we need to actually do all of it if we want to reach the climate change goals. Pump more money into researching cheaper and more effective production of wind and solar plants that can saturate the market, research more effective battery solutions, kill fossil fueled power plants by aggressively tax them to death, and expand more nuclear plants.

A big problem with batteries as currently envisioned is that under a centralized utility model they don't "generate profit" per se.

Puerto Rico has post-Maria microgrids that are more resilient than the old utility model was to natural disaster, but they're making PREPA's financial situation worse, not better.