Not that I'm against nuclear, but getting to full energy independence with nuclear seems like it would need several decades as well.
For example, the Blue Castle project in Utah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Castle_Project) started on the drawing board in 2007, started looking for contractors in 2016, hopes to start construction in 2023 and hopes to be fully operational in 2030. That is if construction is not delayed in any way, which seems unlikely given the schedule so far tbh.
The US alone has over 200 coal plants operating today, so even if the new nuclear plant would be on average twice as large you would need more than a hundred new nuclear power plants. It seems wildly unlikely that they could be constructed within three decades.
Also that is in the US alone, a country with a relatively large knowledge base surrounding all things nuclear. Most of the rest of the world has no chance of replacing even a fraction of their power generation needs with nuclear, so for them renewables will be the way to go.
China needs five to six years from starting to build a nuclear reactor to making it operational. I don’t see why western countries should be inherently unable to do this. They currently don’t want to (because they don’t need to and people dislike nuclear power).
China is at ~1.4 billion people, not even close to "most of the rest of the world". There are about 7.9 billion people alive atm, so that would make more than 80% of the worlds' population being outside China.
Try at least 2-3 decades.
Personally I'm still a firm believer in nuclear power.