Technology

I would prefer to use energy rather than store it, but yes, pressure vessels are preferable to chemical batteries.

As someone living in Texas presently: you could have saved yourself a full sentence:

This is a shitty Texas-based company cutting corners...

to

Texas company

or honestly:

Texas

Would be sufficient. Any Texan that doesn't own x texas-based-company is tired of that company's bullshit. It's one of the few things natives and transplants agree on.

This PSA brought to you by the makers of: y'all, you all, and all y'all.

You're right, but I think less dense but safer and more sustainable options are the better choice for this

Nuclear though, never had a problem with excess heat at one of those. /s

Nobody's ever died from a dam collapse.

Mechanical energy storage, like pumped hydro or flywheel. Thermal energy storage, like molten salt.

Electrochemical isn't entirely off the table either: less-volatile chemistries are available, and better containment methods can reduce risks.

Non-electrical chemical storage methods are available: electrical energy can be used for hydrogen electrolysis, or Fischer-Tropsch hydrocarbon fuels. Fuel cells, and traditional ICE generators can recover the energy put into those (relatively) stable fuels, or we can export it from the electrical generation industry to the transportation industry.

There's also avoiding (or minimizing) the need for storage at all, with "demand shaping". Basically, we radically overbuild solar, wind, wave, tidal, etc. Normally, that would tank energy prices and be unprofitable, but we also build out some massive, flexible demand to buy this excess power. Because they are extremely overbuilt, the minimal output from these sources during suboptimal conditions is more than enough to meet normal demands; we just shut off the flexible additional demand we added. We "shape" our "demand" to match what we are able to supply.

A really strong elastic band.