My argument is that it has taken us 30 years to reach 16% of global power generated by renewables. And every year we seem to add about two more percentage to that.

Mainly because of the fossil fuel and nuclear lobbies bribing politicians, not any deficiency inherent to renewables as you keep implying.

we don't have the fucking time scale to keep that slow rate going rate going

True, but the solution is to increase the investment in renewable energy generation at a faster rate, not giving up and pivoting to the slower, less effective and more dirty transition to nuclear.

Speaking of not having time, nuclear is already getting less effective and less safe due to climate change, a tendency that's going to get much worth in the several years, probably decades, it would take to transition from fossil fuels to nuclear.

Meanwhile, a major solar array or wind turbine park can be built in a matter of months and doesn't have those problems OR the waste disposal issues you keep downplaying.

We need to drastically cut oil yesterday

Again, absolutely true.

the only thing you can use to replace that much oil in a short time span is nuclear

Absolutely 100% categorically false.

Never once anywhere have I said that I want less renewables

Except for repeatedly suggesting that nuclear is a much better option, which it isn't.

There is zero reason that we can't invest in both for a more equitable future.

Except for the fact that a combination of the myriad types of renewables is a faster, cheaper, and cleaner way to get off fossil fuels.

Nuclear is the coal of low to no carbon energy generation: it's an obsolete method that is still used in spite of much better modern technology being available, chiefly because of rich lobbyists bribing politicians and gaslighting regular people.