thanks to ZoneBlue for the link to this article on Costs of Energy Storage for Wind and PV, it lists several storage technologies. Its a thick read.
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2013/ee/c3ee41973h#!divAbstract
to read the article , click on the PDF in the lite blue area mid page, under Open Access
The title here is somewhat off as the article is not about evaluating individual battery technologies. For solar PV, all battery technologies are found to be economically suitable, and none for wind. The article purports to evaluate the economic feasibility of curtailing generation vs storing different types of energy -- such as wind and PV.
I chose the title to focus a readers thinking towards the info contained in the graphs, as it 'ranks' the different technologies as to effectiveness, and not towards the focus of the article as IMO it is a bit skewed. I also posted it because of a number of pro LiFePo4 threads lately that favour LiFePo4 batteries due to size, safety, efficiency and (lowering) cost of those batteries. This article did rank them highest in one of the graphs.
I agree that it purports to look at the comparison of shut down vs storage but for off-gridders there may not be a/is no choice, it's either Diversion (wind), Opportunity loads (PV) or Non use (PV). It does make one think about all the costs of storage by storage technology type... I just do not see Molten salts and Hydro pumping storage for the average O-G install as viable in most cases
I think the 'research team' tried to create a new term for what has long been known as total-life-cycle costs but in doing so made it quite complex and at times confusing due to the very subtle differences in terms. 'Use it or Lose it' comes to mind most of the time at our place, once we hit Absorb.