Good numbers there stumble. I get into these kinds of discussions all the time with good-intentioned folks who are just certain that we can all be doing everything we need with batteries, PV solar, and wind turbines. Hard to get people to understand the dry numbers of energy storage and recharge.
I agree that it's going to take a quantum leap, technological breakthrough to get there.
IMO we ought to be focusing research dollars on synthesis of clean, renewable liquid hydrocarbons and clean ways to oxidize it. Liquid hydrocarbons are, after all, solar energy stored in carbon's covalent bonds in a fabulously compact and economical package. Why are we fucking around with batteries at all for large scale propulsion applications? Batteries make sense for electronic devices and such, but propulsion? Why?
There was an interesting fork in the road in the r&d with propulsion within the ranks of NASA scientists in the sixties. Those that argued the case for atomic propulsion vs fuel based propulsion were gradually weeded out or left on their own. The physicist Freeman Dyson has written about this juncture in history and where space exploration might be had they taken the less travelled route.
Their main problem was drag/resistance of the large tanks to house the fuel, which as history has shown, were opted to be discarded in flight.
Just imagine a rocket propelled by batteries.
The nuclear-thermal rocket engine sure is interesting... kinda weird that it never took off.