We could do it faster if we really wanted to.
Oh except for the year after 1956, where that site saw the worst nuclear accident in the UK's history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire
You've got to love the British understatement! Having said that, this was really at the start of the nuclear age and came about through the UK being excluded from US nuclear projects despite having contributed to the Manhattan Project under the incorrect assumption technology would be shared after the war. Windscale was built because Britain needed the atomic bomb to prevent its post-war decline making it geopolitically irrelevant and needed it before the US and Soviet Union banned further testing. There's no way anything like that would be built today by any sane government knowing what we do now.
I don't think it's that hard to argue that we should have been building nuclear plants en-masse 30 years ago, and that resistance to this has lead to immeasurable damage to our biosphere. And that continued resistance will result in even more damage. No projections for renewables is fast enough to meet the gap.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/15/renewable-e...
Nuclear is increasingly the only option for meeting climate targets quickly enough to save our biosphere.