It appears that the LCOE for utility-scale solar which you're referencing here, community and rooftop both being significantly more expensive, is based on existing installations. But existing installations would have used the cheapest available land, and the cheapest available land tends to be in short supply. Solar installations on a significantly larger scale would have to use less ideal land (less accessible, more rugged, more expensive) and would incur associated cost increases. Solar is like a huge orange tree where we have been mostly picking from the lower branches — there are more than enough oranges on the tree for everyone, but you can't expect them all to be as easy as the low-hanging fruit.
However, I am optimistic about storage, particularly since zinc-bromine seems poised to break into the market, with excellent resource availability. Zinc production is about 13 Mt/yr [1], and the battery offers about 67 Wh/kg, with ~1/3 the weight in zinc, so 200 Wh/(kg Zn), so potential production is over 1 TWh/year before running into availability problems. There are also about half a billion tonnes of bromine in the Dead Sea alone [2]. (Since this is my third Zn-Br post, I'll add that I don't currently have investments in them, but I'm considering it.)
Cheap land is cheap specifically because there is a very great deal of it. But it is a stupid place to site solar, anyway: there are much better places, already in use, that may continue in that use, but with added solar revenue.
The overwhelming bulk of utility scale storage will not be in batteries. They cost too much per kWh stored. Bulk storage will be in media where incremental kWh are cheapest. Think tankage.
>The overwhelming bulk of utility scale storage will not be in batteries. They cost too much per kWh stored. Bulk storage will be in media where incremental kWh are cheapest.
One side of this comparison has cost estimates, the other one is vaporware. You need a certain generation capacity for hydrogen (or whatever) measured in watts, not watt-hours; these plants require maintenance and operation costs likely much higher than batteries. With battery costs approaching $100/kWh, many TWh of storage are attainable.
I'm assuming that nuclear will be a significant part of the energy supply, so I would not expect it to be necessary to, for example, store six months' worth of energy for the winter.
Nukes will soon be unable to find buyers for their power at a price they can offer, most of the time, so will be unable to collect enough revenue to continue operating, anywhere they are not propped up from money coerced by taxation.
There is an enormous amount of cheap land, globally. Any land that is cheap enough for farming is cheap enough for PV, and land that isn't even adequate for farming tends to be even cheaper than that.
Apparently, my use of the phrase "cheap land" was misleading. The acquisition price is one thing. But then you have site suitability, regional suitability, site access (running powerlines/roads), and construction labor availability. Any of these can drive up costs. Desert sands are soft and blow around, rocky hillsides are difficult to maneuver equipment on, forests have to be cleared, et cetera.
However, I am optimistic about storage, particularly since zinc-bromine seems poised to break into the market, with excellent resource availability. Zinc production is about 13 Mt/yr [1], and the battery offers about 67 Wh/kg, with ~1/3 the weight in zinc, so 200 Wh/(kg Zn), so potential production is over 1 TWh/year before running into availability problems. There are also about half a billion tonnes of bromine in the Dead Sea alone [2]. (Since this is my third Zn-Br post, I'll add that I don't currently have investments in them, but I'm considering it.)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc#Production
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromine#Occurrence_and_product...