That argument isn't even an argument. "Oooh, numbers are big and scary! Run away!"
The truth is that renewables (well, aside from biomass; that's usually what those arguments boil down to, so don't use biomass as your renewable source) scale just fine. The Earth is constantly struck by 100,000 terawatts of sunlight, and global primary energy demand is less than 20 terawatts.
Where do you put all the waste you generated covering renewistan with all the equipment and infrastructure you had to build??? Is that not an environmental disaster??? The environmental impact of all nuclear would be an order of magnitude smaller.
Where do we put the waste from industrial society in general? The material flow through the renewable energy system will still be but a fraction of the flow through the economy as a whole. The US makes 100 million tonnes of steel annually, for example. There is no need to use any toxic (or, really, uncommon) elements in renewables, so recycle what it makes sense to recycle and just landfill the rest. This is sustainable indefinitely.
In the very long term, humanity might face a problem with exposure of crustal rocks by mining operations. This causes reducing materials in the rocks to react with atmospheric oxygen, gradually depleting that oxygen. The long term solution to that will be to bury some reduced materials to compensate (the production of those materials released oxygen when oxides or CO2 were reduced). So, some level of sustained burial of waste material is not only acceptable, it's likely to be necessary.
The truth is that renewables (well, aside from biomass; that's usually what those arguments boil down to, so don't use biomass as your renewable source) scale just fine. The Earth is constantly struck by 100,000 terawatts of sunlight, and global primary energy demand is less than 20 terawatts.