From the calculations I've seen in recent scientific reports, that doesn't seem to be the case, barring major economic changes on a global level.

Even the cheapest grid scale storage solutions are an order of magnitude more expensive than constructing more electrical generation capacity.

Particularly closed cycle fossil gas thermal plants have a massive advantage in markets where variable renewable electricity generation (wind, solar...) achieve high degrees of market penetration due to the volatility they cause in the grid.

Hydro, transmission and nuclear are currently the most accessible non-fossil options to counteract the disadvantages of solar & wind.

Where I live (Sweden) our grid has been essentially fossil-free since the early 90's, thus we haven't had the same need. Particularly since our electricity prices (excluding grid fees) already dip into the negatives in the summer, and solar is useless in the winter (<3hrs of light and snow cover).

Unfortunately though, recent politically motivated shutterings of nuclear plants during the 2010s combined with higher volatility in continental Europe has led to the volatility of our own electricity market skyrocketing, and more decentralized electricity production has led to huge increases in grid fees (state monopoly).

During a recent winter we had prices (when accounting for taxes and fees) in excess of 1$/kWh. This, in a country where almost all heating is electric, is disastrous. For context, we live in a small villa with a geothermal pump, and despite keeping indoor temps as low as 12°C at times we ended up with 1000s of USD equivalent in power bills for the winters 22/23 and 23/24.

Quite sad really.