It's a matter of running the numbers on each project. We agree,...

It's a matter of running the numbers on each project. We agree, the gas itself is an opex, but the physical location relative to transmission and pipelines is a significant issue too. Batteries can be put anywhere, in dribs and drabs, or great numbers, not forgetting they can be located close to heavy users, and add in domestic batteries. Transmission line losses can be quite big. I know small gas plants are technically possible but are they feasible.

When all the arithmetic and software/switching issues are done, there will most likely be room for some peaking gas plants, in those cases where it makes sense, but you can't just put them anywhere. Big pumped hydro seems to face some of the same locational/logistical issues. Too soon to tell how much of the cost of Billion-plus pipelines can be paid back, IMHO.

My personal view is that any subsidy should be justified, whatever the technology. After all, the closing of coal plants creates public support issues for retraining, relocating workers etc. so a holistic approach to cost comparisons should be adopted to keep everyone honest. While we are doing that, the public health issues associated with mining need to be assessed, too. Bit of a minefield (pun intended). How do you balance the demolition of communities, and the fallout of economic uncertainty on communities against the likely future health and economic costs of climate change mitigation? Companies are feeling their way. Tesla looks like placing bets on networking domestic/small industrial batteries.