If we had good storage options the issue would be moot.
What are the attributes of a “good storage system” that are lacking from those mention?
Energy density.
The best (ie highest energy density) batteries are rapidly approaching the limits of what can be done by manipulating free electrons.
You can get higher energy densities by playing with the electrons involved in molecular bonding, but then you aren't using batteries anymore, you're using fuels.
You can get higher energy densities still by using nuclear forces, but then you are using nuclear power.
The other option is to abandon energy density and instead use sheer volume of something incredibly cheap - that's how pumped hydro works. You need a massive amount of water, but water doesn't cost much. If you can build a battery out of materials that are cheaper than water, and find enough cheap land to put your unobtanium batteries on, you are on to a winner.
Energy density is inextricably linked to technology - a high tech process is one that uses high energy densities.
For a clear example, look at ships - they progress from low energy density (sailing), through steam, to internal combustion, and finally to nuclear power. Each step more effective at getting stuff across an ocean quickly than the last. Each requiring less fuel than the last (sailing ship fuel is free and abundant; But if you measure how much air is needed, it adds up to a lot).
Industry shows the same progression, from windmills, waterwheels, and greenhouses, through steam engines and internal combustion, to nuclear power. As energy density goes up, so does wealth.
Going back to wind and solar power is as practical as a return to the age of sail. Sailing vessels have lots of niche applications, but a push for all (or even very much) modern shipping to go back to wind power would be stupid and disastrous, just on energy density grounds (though there are, of course, other problems too, not least wind's unreliability).