That's missing the point.The problem isn't "what to do with excess of energy at peak times?", it's "where do we get energy from on quiet, wind-less nights?" Solar and wind are highly unreliable, so storing energy for is the necessity. Or we can use nuclear.
The problem you discuss has been addressed with tons of predictions and models. It's solvable with excess generation capacity, storage, and transmission capacity. Which path we choose will depend on the relative dollar costs and political costs of each. (For example HVDC transmission would likely save us lots of money, but is so difficult politically that it is unlikely to happen.)
But in any case, nearly all models show that under nearly all cost scenarios, we end up with lots of excess generation capacity, with curtailed renewables generation for a large chunk of time.
This is the future we are talking about, a future where we are meeting our energy demands with all renewables, and we have lots of excess generation capacity with zero marginal cost.
So now you're arguing FOR energy storage? Your previous post was basically: "let's overprovision and let excessive energy go to waste, instead of building costly storage infrastructure.".
If hydrogen electrolysis can become cheap in 2030, maybe we will even use hydrogen for some storage, but we will have to balance the capital costs of hydrogen generation and conversion back to electricity with everything else, which will determine how much of it gets deployed.
Energy transmission can be some solution here, but we might be forced to transmit energy across the continents (so, for example solar plant in Sahara delivers power to New York City at night) which probably is too costly.