My solar panel system fills my bank of batteries by noon on a sunny day. Since it doesn't hold enough to get me through a couple cloudy days and I have to run the propane generator the next day. The same problem exists for wind power.

There is a very interesting article in the march 2012 edition of Scientific American about the need for better technologies for the storage of energy titled "Gather the wind."

The article describes the problems experienced by Denmark who has some of the world's largest wind farms. Because consumer demand for electricity is often lowest when the winds blow the hardest. Denmark then has to sell it's overflow of electrons to neighboring countries for pennies, only to have to buy energy back when demand rises, at much higher prices. As a result, Danish consumers pay some of the highest electricity rates on the planet.

If we could solve this problem, we could reduce much of the need for dirty power and really help reduce our carbon footprint.

Plant life has solved this problem with photosynthesis and the energy is stored even after the plant has died. We use this energy in the form of burning wood, petroleum and coal. All energy we use is solar power in it's various forms.

The cost of solar panels is substantial, but the problem of storage is even more problematic. But, all that said, I welcome the news of less expensive solar panels, even after I bought the expensive, less efficient ones.

And although still a miniscule amount, stored hydro is up 40% in 2011.

Storage systems are behind renewable generation, it needs more R&D.

The issue is that it requires elevation and that can be a problem in places like Kansas. There is a lack of suitable sites.

They mention a project in southern California, where they will use an abandoned open pit iron mine (Eagle Mountain) and use it for that purpose. The Republicans in California wanted to use the mine as a huge landfill that would have very probably leaked into the aquifer was frightening.
The article shows the cons to molten sodium is that it is expensive, and hard to hold energy for long periods, but it can be sited anywhere and is efficient, cost effective and highly reliable.

Renewable energy and its storage technologies hopefully will become much higher on our list of national priorities, replacing "drill baby drill and contraceptive usage..

You've accurately identified its best use, however, which is something most people miss. Allow me to explain.

There are two different cases to be made for storage and renewables in the context of the grid. The first is to help smooth out grid variability caused by any reason - it might be variability caused by a) fluctuating output demands on the energy system or b) the variability associated with changes in generating inputs such as we see with wind or solar.

The second case for storage is the wasted energy from renewables when they are producing energy in excess of demand.

Due to end users turning power switches on an off, we have had to deal with grid variability long before variable renewables were a factor in any sense; so, the first case is something we already deal with using a variety of strategies and technologies. When we add in wind and solar, we change the profile of the grid a bit, but it is important to recognize the the operating profile of the grid is significantly different than that of any single source of generation. Trust me, when a nuclear plant has a problem and shuts down rapidly and unexpectedly it is much more significant to the grid than when a wave of wind travels between wind farms.

The second case for storage is what is starting to drive storage - it presents a new expanding economic opportunity to 'buy low/sell high'. But again, there are different ways to capitalize on that opportunity to time shift that energy supply, the most notable of which is the impending expansion of battery electric autos for personal transportation.

Off grid use is exactly as your post describes.

Both of you have given me a lot more to think about.

I had a longer post as a reply, but I realized that it should be better thought out utilizing the information that you have provided. What direction would you point me in to grasp a better understanding? Keep in mind, that I am at a technician level, not an engineer.

At least from my point of view.

It is intended for use with Concentrated Solar Thermal, where the molten salt is an integral part of the system.

Your presumptions are worse than useless since they are always designed to reflect negatively on the competition of the nuclear industry. As is usually the case, your agenda driven speculation is incorrect.

Denmark doesn't have high energy prices because they have to buy expensive power. They have high energy prices because as a matter of national policy they place high taxes on energy to promote energy efficiency. And no, it isn't to pay for renewable subsidies either, that is paid for with a separate revenue stream.

ETA: The energy taxes are rebated to everyone to be used as they wish.

You inserted your baseless and incorrect speculation.

Seriously, you want me to pop round and iron your shirt while I'm at it?

If you want to know now, then look it up.