Yes, but the issues of cost and resources.

Compared to generation technologies that are dispatchable-on-demand, intermittent sources will continue to face drawbacks.

First, storage comes three costs. The simple cost is that now I have to pay for batteries on top the solar panels. Batteries aren't cheap, and need to be replaced more frequently than the panels.

The next cost is the price in energy to store it. There are efficiency losses in storing energy in a battery. Around 12%. So now we need to generate 12% more electricity than the storage suggests, which is a pretty large waste on a national scale. So, I need to build more solar.

However, the most important cost is uncertainty. For solar, I know that the sun will not shine at night. However, I cannot guarantee that the sun will shine with decent intensity tomorrow during the day either. It could be cloudy, snow could fall, or there could be a long-tail particulate issue like desert sand or a volcano erupting that might block it for weeks.

So I need to work off a probabilistic model. To be more certain of power when I need it, I have to overbuild nameplate in a large way compared to demand, and do the same for storage. I also have to distribute where I build to try and reduce of covariance between solar plants (hopefully being cloudy in one area doesn't cover another, though weather systems can span nations). The further away solar plants are, the lower the covariance, but the higher the distribution losses from resistance on the power lines. Now I have to build even more.

Yes, storage is key to the future of renewable energy sources (solar more than wind). However, we are a long, long way from costs being competitive when energy sources are compared on an apples-to-apples basis where it is dispatchable-on-demand without regard to source.