The most immediate need for energy storage is frequency regulation, and short hours-long dips in power output. If we can solve that we can scale renewables very far.
For days-long dips in power output, it's probably better to keep some gas power plants on stand-by. I think many areas of the world has enough of them to handle these needs already. To make it sustainable, they could be switched to using renewables fuels, like hydrogen or ammonia made from electricity. We're going to need a shit-ton of those kinds of fuels for trucks, ships and airplanes anyway, so setting aside some of it for backup power wouldn't be a huge problem.
For seasonal variations, I think trash burning power plants is a reasonable solution. Sweden and Norway has some of them, and they also provide heating to nearby homes. I mean, yeah: first of all we should reduce, reuse and recycle. But eventually our trash become unrecyclable, and burning it seems to be the best option. Modern facilities seems to be able to extract almost all harmful compounds from the waste then. There are also experiments with carbon capture from these plants, which in a fully renewable world could make them carbon-negative, and become one of several tools to help reduce CO2 in the atmosphere again over time.
And of course, nuclear would be a great help. If it can be made cheap enough again, it can be used for seasonal variations. But we're still going to need renewables. So we still need energy storage for frequency regulations and minute/hours-long dips in energy output. Nuclear power plants are NOT a good solution for that.