What Black Jack Shellac said matches my observation and conclusion as well. I do want to add that batteries are not the only way to store energy though. Hydrogen, biofuel, and synfuel are possible alternatives too. There are also possible alternative battery technology, such as aluminium-air and carbon-air batteries. Likely most will end up non-viable, but deciding now to go all in on lithium battery tech is folly.
As for changing the infrastructure, both biofuel and synfuel does not require changing the energy infrastructure. Biofuel is proven to work. Ethanol replaces gasoline and FAME replaces diesel fuel with very minor adjustments needed. That the common method used in making them (grain, sugar, and palm fruit) has issues with how they are done (see US grain subsidy, Brazil forest clearing for sugar cane and Indonesia's for palm trees) does not mean we should dismiss them outright. Ethanol can be obtained via cellulose cracking which enables using grasses as feedstock. FAME can be obtained via algae farms. They still have problems today, but, again, dismissing them now would be mistake.
Synfuel is just fuel synthesized from some other carbon source. Currently the common carbon feedstock is coal, but given sufficient energy one can use carbon dioxide. If you remember the news when a USN carrier made jet fuel from seawater, that's synfuel. Tweaking the process can get us gasoline, diesel fuel, or LPG, or propane, anything really.
There are actually lots of things we can use to get a cleaner and more sustainable world. In many cases, once externalities are factored, it can even be cheaper.
Btw, for the Australians here, get the nuclear power ban lifted. It was politically convenient but gawd it is stupid and shortsighted. Incidentally, batteries pair really well with nuclear power.