Depends on your country and energy usage pattern.
The peak in Germany is not at between 5 and 8 at evening/night.
Also you are somehow fixated in your mind on solar PV, hence your demand for batteries. The future will favour solar thermal solutions much more, which can run overnight via heat reservoirs.
And as mentioned before: evening and night time is prime time for wind. It does not matter that solar PV plants decline then in power production. Result: the imagined demand for (better) batteries is overrated. Especially as long as we in Germany are far from being able to fulfill demand/load on the grid with renewables alone.
However when we have days where renewables will deliver more than100% of the load, and we can not sell the excess production, THEN we have to think if it is worthwhile to store the excess energy somehow.
You mix up personal installations, where you use your own power, and perhaps like to have some of that at night, with large scale installations by/for energy companies.

What is your problem?
Standard SQL (1986/1999) is not turing complete.
The articles you linked are not about standard SQL but about modern derivates, no idea if they 'just yesterday' became an agreed standard (which is not adopted yet, and from which is unclear which vendor will when implement what of it). And I don't care. I'm not particular interested in using SQL for solving programming problems.
Your initial statement was provably false, and you're simply unable to admit your error.
No, it was not!
Google: is SQL turing complete
So simple, 100ds of articles showing you that I'm right.
But good luck with your insulting attitude, you might need that luck.

Wind power actually is very reliable if you chose a place fitting it ... ever heard about off shore?
Wind energy is cost wise on par with coal in Germany right now. Long term wind and tidal energy will be the cheapest. There are no real alternative.

Oh, so if someone posts 100m data points they are credible and when one only mentions one single life experience it is not?
Wow ... I did not know that. How does the judicial system in your country deal with testimonies? Sounds like you live in a very wacky society that you believe such nonsense.

I should cite "a creditable source" for basic facts of physics?
Erm ... in world do you live?
If you power down a reactor you have to power it up the next 20-40 minutes again, otherwise you accumulate so much Boron that the reactor can not be powered up again for 6h - 8h.
It is pretty simple to google for that ... sigh, pro nuclear advocates are supposed, not only supposed but expected to know simple facts about how nuclear technology actually works.

No it is not documented.
100 billion is far more than the solar installations actually costed, how could that be the subsidies?

Obviously I talked about the post before ... lol. The one which I answered to, rofl. Two posts back you claimed out if the blue that the amount of money we spent for solar and wind would have payed for enough nukes ... and I asked: how do you know that. Afterwards you came with that ridiculous claim of 100billion euro in subsidies ...

The simple fact that at night time you need only half the power as at daytime negates your idea.
On top of that you usually have more wind at night :)
Sure batteries are toxic waste usually, but that does not mean toxic waste is released into the environment during production :)

Why should I? It does not add to the discussion.
On top of that, the definition of turin complete is not that you are able to simulate a turing machine, albeit if you can do that you are turing complete, hence the misconceptions in this thread I guess.

That is wrong. Coal power was very small percentage rising in 2012, since 2013 it is on the decline again.
Http://www.fraunhofer.de
No, there are not more coal power plants build, at least not more as get decommissioned.

If you know how to tacke the waste problem, post it and farm in your Nobel prize.
Reprocessing, btw. does not reduce waste but produce more waste. It only tries to reuse remanents of the spent fuel. All the rest has still to be deposited. And on top of that comes now all the chemiclas needed for reprocessing. sigh, I guess you even don't know what 'nuclear waste' actually is?

You can hold out your hopes for the holy grail of only solar and wind, but you'll do so at the expense of making global progress on CO2 reduction.
The goal for germany is to be 100% renewable till 2030.
That won't make us CO2 free as we still have to tackle transport and house heating.
I don't get why you call something that is simple and straight forward a 'holy grail' ... are you payed by an pro oil or pro nuclear lobby?

Go and get an education, perhaps you should restrain yourself from voting as long as you have no clue about topics that are vital for the survival of the human race and the plant as we know it ... sorry, but your attitude pisses me off.

So, you don't understand the nature of subsidies. They only cover part of the cost. A lot more was spent on solar as well, the 100B was just the subsidies.
First: if you ment subsidies you should have mentioned that in your previous post, I asked about 'cost'.
Second: there are no 'subsidies' ... the energy revolution is payed by the customers buying and consuming power. You can that call subsidies ofc. but I would call it a financing solution.

You also hint at some ignorance when asking about neutron/boron poisoning. Are you just bringing up random things you read in some anti-nuke lobby article? How do you come to that idiotic idea? I just gave you a hint to educate yourself. Take it or leaf it.

Nuclear plants can load follow, they don't need to just be baseload. Strictly speaking they can, but in commercial applications, they can't. That means a single plant running in isolation could ... what the problems are and how france e.g. overcomes them is left as an excersise to the reader.

Most old plants simply were not designed for load follow, but the new designs are quite capable. Gas is still the fastest response load follow generation.
That is wrong. Boron poisoning is an inherent problem of nuclear power production which can hardly be tackled by 'design improvements'.

Did you ever wonder, worry, or even think about the chemical waste from solar panel production? Or is that a fair trade off in your book?
Solar panel production does not cause chemical waste.
So what is your point? Repeating fairy tales? Because you are to lazy to educate yourself?

You seem not to know about the lack of load following abilities, you seem not to know what boron poisioning is, you claim solar panel production causes chemical waste.

Three errors in one single post ... wow!

We are building new coal plants to replace old ones. And bottom line we phase coal power out. 2013 was an all time low for brown coal btw. It would be nice people would stop repeating this 'fact' out of context, because the claim we build "more coal plants" implies we burn more coal, which is plain wrong!

With said 100B you mention we could perhaps build 5 new nuclear plants, which can only be used for base load unless we build about 50 - 75 so we can shuffle the ones on load following duty around. You know about neutron/boron poisoning?

It is nearly (technological) impossible to transform Germany into a nuclear only grid. For that we are to small and the difference between base load and peak load is far to big.

Coal plants are not used 'to back them up' (* facepalm *) go read a book, you are so clueless it is a shame.

You know, in most countries you can't vote a government out of office!
They go out of office automatically after the current period.
Bottom line that means: you can do nothing but revolt against your current government.

You'll have a completely unreliable supply of power.
Actually both are pretty reliable ... and your other points are political problems. They have nothing to do with power production per se.