For my country, those calculations were done by a government body in 2014, and they estimated that the total cost would be somewhat higher, but not astronomical. But since then, the prices have fallen much faster than they anticipated.
It's not what I think: it's what we can be sure of!
If we ever get to the point where we can keep the same living standards as of today, with no fossil and no nuclear, well: let it be!
Should we push for it? Yes, we should!
Should we pay more taxes in order to push for it? Yes, we should!
Should we bet on it and risk our living standards? No, thank you!
But since batteries can be used a few thousand times and then can be recycled efficiently, the volume required is a tiny fraction of the petroleum requirements.
Other materials are used in even smaller quantities. Cobalt is a disaster, but grid batteries don't use cobalt, they generally use nickel & iron.
It is a large environmental impact. But compared to the alternative, it's very green.
When speaking in relative terms to a newly built fossil fuel plant you are most likely correct. You'd be hard pressed to find a plausible source of energy that's worse for the environment (immediate AND long term) than burning dirty sequestered carbon sources like coal and oil.
When speaking in relative terms to a newly built nuclear plant—the context of my response—batteries would be significantly worse per KWh of baseload energy supplied.