[speed_spread]

Your argument mixes "easy" and "cheap". Storage can be "easy" and you have plenty of choice: batteries, pumped, thermal, chemical, name it. If you have a large enough east-west country (hint), you might also invest in transport infrastructure to move energy where it is required so you don't have to store as much. This is also "easy", maybe moreso than storage because we've been doing it for so long. As to whether these easy things are cost effective when compared to other solutions is a completely different issue.

[gglon]

none of those storage solutions are easy for grid scale. For batteries you need whole factories, pumped requires permits and tone of cement, chemical is like hydrogen with low efficiency. All of those are expensive which for government is synonymous with difficult.

[speed_spread]

Being expensive is the _easiest_ thing for most governments. It's often a requirement! i.e. As a contractor, bid too cheaply and you will not be taken seriously.

[gglon]

This doesn't apply to energy grid scale projects. Also that is why energy sector in most countries is privatized. Take Germany with total energy costs that would be like ~10% of the federal budget (about 40 billion euros). Making energy even more expensive would only lead to further deindustrialization and lower gdp making it politically non viable. Also, you can't just throw money and buy storage like with typical government contracts - it requires building entire new industries (like Germany's struggles with hydrogen infrastructure).