Australia

Problem is we do not have technology for that yet which is scalable

Yes we do. And projects like Snowy Hydro 2 are significantly cheaper and quicker to build than a nuclear power plant.

Tasmania is near as makes no difference 100% renewable now. South Australia is rapidly heading in the same direction. It's going to take time, but eventually the entire country will get there - because renewable power is just cheaper.

Hydro is not modern technology - humans have been using it for thousands of years. Coal is far more recent, and we never should have switched to it.

Australia could easily run entirely off hydro and we'd be paying less for power than current prices. That won't happen though, because there are even cheaper options than Hydro (solar, for example, is significantly cheaper if you don't need baseload power, and a lot of use cases don't need that).

I agree, it's not possible to run the country off batteries. Nobody (who knows what they're talking about) is suggesting that.

We will overprovision.
We will use long range transmission to compensate for local weather.
We will use storage.
We will all pay more for power in the short term.

It's a myth that conventional generation is cheap. This was only (relatively) the case in the recent past as that infrastructure was already paid for, primarily by tax dollars; from the power stations, to the rail lines to transport the coal, to the transmission lines and substations.
Now the key part of that infrastructure, the coal plants, are reaching end of life.
Power prices are already trending up, not because evil renewable energy is destabalising the grid, but because the cheap old machines can no longer be maintained. Not tomorrow, but within the next few years, they will need to be replaced with something.
It will not be new coal.
Origin, AGL, EnergyAustralia, Ergon, Alinta etc have all said as much.
It's just too expensive to build, and the prices required to pay back those loans make it a non-starter.

Currently we need coal sometimes, and due to the long start up and shut down times of a coal plant, that means we need coal all the time - contractually.
THAT is what is causing the current grid instability. Wind and Solar are mature technologies, but currently, we curtail (turn off) wind and solar output, when it is adding too much to the grid.
If we had large storage infrastructure, we would no longer need to do that, as we could take the over abundance of power and store some tiny fraction of it, for times when the sun is down and the wind isn't blowing.
And industry is making that pivot, they're just waiting to see how the political dice will fall, how they can maxamise their profits and minimise their costs.
They are businesses after all.

As for scalable storage technology, here's an example we have right now: Liquid Air. It is infinitely scalable, since it doesn't rely on perfect sites like pumped hydro (which requires an ongoing water supply, proximity to transmission and at least 2 storage reservoirs with a significant height differential).

The largest trial I'm aware of happened in the UK 10 years ago, and only had 15% efficency, but considering we were going to throw the power away anyway, and now that 15% is dispatchable, that's suddenly a good deal even if it never acheives the hypothesized 60% efficiency.
There's more of these being built right now: https://highviewpower.com/projects/#uk-projects
And this is just one storage technology example, chosen to address your concern of scalability.
Scale is solved, money to build it is not.

But as I said, the fact that this transition will occur is not in question and eventually the major players will have to pay for it themselves, or the government can pour tax payer dollars on it to ensure it occurs smoothly.
The fact we are seeing nonsense like "Why not nuclear?" from one particular political party, is just a step in this dance.