See for example here: https://energycentral.com/c/ec/comparing-costs-renewable-and...
Storage issues might be solved before new nuclear plants go online at the current pace of progress.
Perhaps a few years of gas until the renewable infrastructure is set up will suffice? At least the issue does not seem to be as clear cut as most people claim they are.
The problem as I see it as that any '100% renewable' solution which could be ramped up relatively quickly would necessitate technology that doesn't exist yet. Of course there will be some progress in tech, but we have no way to predict exactly what it will be. It will also be extremely expensive simply due to the massive scale required, and there are numerous powerful & well funded groups who will throw down roadblocks along the way.
The reality is that we will continue to use fossil fuels for a long time. While nuclear energy is our best low-carbon option for baseline power, we probably aren't going to be able to build new generators quickly enough to displace natural gas usage for decades, and that's only if it's politically possible to do so. Which continues to appear to be a long shot.
In short, we're holding our collective breath for a 'hail Mary' breakthrough that somehow cuts through all the intractable quandaries and gives us a viable path forward. In the mean time, the increase in severe climate events will destabilize nations and make it even harder to reach the kinds of major agreements needed to go down such a path.
It's probably a good idea to either own land or have friends in an area near a large freshwater lake that isn't prone to flooding and has a history of handling both extreme heat and extreme cold. There's no way of knowing whether you'll end up embroiled in civil unrest or full blown war in such an area, but at least you can limit the number & types of risks you need to worry about.
Batteries exist, and estimates of how many would be needed are around 50TWh. We have over 500GWh of annual battery production, and the doubling period for that capacity is under 18 months.
This is where different types of batteries that are too impractical for vehicle use might come into play, but we still don't have a clear idea which of those battery technologies will be appropriate and/or agreed upon for grid use, let alone who is going to pay for the mind boggling amount of them we will need.
As for cost, if the next decade drops costs 90% like the previous 4 decades have, then 50 TWh will cost $500 billion. Given that the electricity market is $3T annually, that's peanuts.
But there is a MASSIVE amount of potential for nuclear to be cheaper and better.
People in 2000~ were more then happy to predict massive improvement in cost for renewables if money was invested but absolutely denied that the same could happen with nuclear.
Had the same amount been invested in nuclear, prices there could also have changed.
However we have 28 years until 2050 and for really deep carbonation having advanced nuclear would be really awesome. Not to mention other benefits like radio isotopes, medical isotopes, rational solution to the removal of the current waste, a backup option in case a volcano disrupts solar on a large scale and so on.
We are not doomed just because not every single $ of spending is going into more solar panels.