We should charge fossils for them, else we are just disadvantaging everything but fossil and nuclear.
Green doesn't get subsidies either and still competes on price with fossils, and it does not have home solar (except arguably residential solar in some places).
A CO₂ tax has been demanded by lots of organizations over the years, but in the EU (and I presume elsewhere) has been repeatedly obstructed by fossil lobyists.

consumes a colossal amount of resources [...] so it takes a huge amount of oil

Solar is the main source of interest, since it's gotten so cheap. And solar is fundamentally a thin slice of silicon with trace amounts of mystery elements. The entire thing can be made extremely thin, but it doesn't really matter. Because silicon is just fancy sand, and we have enough, it's not a concern. The trace amounts of mystery elements (dopants) are so minor they don't matter, regardless of what they are and how they are sourced. Then there are conductors and structural elements, for which you can use what is available. This would be say aluminum for contacts (though they are very thin so you can still use fancier elements), aluminum and epoxy for the frames and protective layers, ...
In sum solar has no problematic elements, and the amounts involved are minor on the scale of large construction projects.

Wind I want to say is similar. Mainly bulk construction materials like resin, concrete, steel. With some electrical components. The main difference is that here you have generators that might need a lot of copper. Though that is changing, I am not sure how far that is in the rollout but it won't a concern into the future. Generators won't need nearly as much copper in the future.

The only thing relevant for pollution, oil use, cost, supply, ... in the constituent resources are the batteries. If you put electric car batteries from 10 years ago into a box, you'll have a bad time.
Since then though, we've seen chemistries that make good lithium batteries without problematic elements like cobalt or nickel.
Making batteries that don't move lets you optimize things even further than for cars in that respect. The production for car vs grid batteries are now also separate due to that.
The main issue of current grid batteries is thus lithium. Which is environmentally problematic to refine, and is expensive, but is readily available and does not depend on oil to my knowledge. The existing production also does not emit enough CO₂ to matter in the ultimate CO₂/kWh numbers when those go into grid use for decades, especially under overprovisioning where you need less batteries per renewable power production to begin with.
And ofc there are many developments in battery tech. Lithium is not inherently necessary for all batteries, there will be alternate chemistries available not too far into the future.
If you are thinking of building a nuclear plant now, then you need to consider what batteries you would need to buy in 10 years when it would be done, not which batteries are available now. In 10 years I'd expect something like molten metal or iron batteries that don't have any even slightly problematic elements.

the fact that they require an enormous amount of space

Loosely about 0.1% of current agricultural land. Even if you don't want to build some solar farms in place of existing farms for various reasons, it's not that much compared to other large infrastructure like cities, roads, agriculture, so you can find mixed use situations where they fit well.
For example over parking spaces providing shade, on top of roofs where you don't usually see them, or on top of crops that benefit from the shade.

If you look at countries that have a few tens of percent of their grid on solar at present (often with gas turbines instead of batteries), there will of course be a few panels visible when you get around, but it isn't omnipresent.

the fact that we still don’t have even the beginnings of a storage solution capable of lasting more than a few hours

Overprovisioning. If you naively assume you build exactly as many solar panels as you need to average to the demand over the year, you get some very large numbers for storage. But given that solar is very cheap and batteries are expensive and problematic, there is no reason to do that. What you do in practice with both solar and wind, is you build more than you would need, enough so that under suboptimal production you still don't need to draw from storage. Wind turbines don't always spin when it's windy, especially very windy, since then they produce so much power all demands are fulfilled and the rest would overload the grid. For solar it's increasingly the same, you just can't tell.
Private micro-solar often has a maximum power it can send to the grid, and home solar installations are over-specced for that and can send the maximum for far more of the day. Simply because overspeccing is minor increase if cost compared to everything else so financially the best decision.

In short: The sun shines every few hours, you don't have to store seasonal power.

Batteries need to be included if you want to compare renewables to nuclear, yeah. Still by now they beat nuclear on price, including the batteries.
Hydro can be disregarded since it's usually already built, as you mentioned.

For solar and wind, especially solar, things have changed quite a bit. Of course mainly batteries just got a lot cheaper and better, but the power production got so ridiculously cheap that you can use over-provisioning. Meaning you build way more power than you'd need if you could store it, and them simply don't store it all. For example you build enough solar to supply average power for a rainy day in winter, and then only build batteries for the night, completely disregarding seasonal and weather-based storage.

Overprovisioning compared to naive numbers (still thrown around by lobyists) can save you like 80% of battery capacity.

And as a bonus you can run power-based industry (aluminum, hydrogen, titanium, ...) for free when you are otherwise not using the over-capacity, if you don't mind running the machinery on-demand.