> 1. It takes 20 years to build a nuke plant, 2 years to do wind and 6 months to do solar. Solving the problem 20 years from now is not solving the problem.
As another comment suggested, it shouldn't take 20 years to build a nuclear power plant. "Modern nuclear power plants are planned for construction in five years or less" [1] (with delays, as with all projects of such scale).
> 2. In case you haven't noticed, the wind subsidies are now negative. Wind subsidizes natgas, not the other way around.
Then why is there still a "green tax"? If wind is as great as suggested, why is it being invested into natural gas, and not into more wind?
> 3. If the lithium supply gets cut off, existing EV's don't stop working. If gasoline gets cut off, gasoline cars are stranded. EV's are crucial for self sufficiency.
Lithium is just one raw material, out of many. It's not just power generation, we need massive investments into the electrical infrastructure, green energy to actually supply it (or it's pointless) and a way to feed power from EV's back into the grid on mass (to make up for the shortcomings of green energy). Some of these things will take years and years to fix. Look at how long it took to roll out fiber across the UK, and that's just a small glass cable. In the meantime, the Country actually needs to be able to run.
EVs will one day be the future in one form or another (I still think hydrogen could make sense), but for now and the near future petrol and diesel are here to stay. 2030/2035 will come and go without mass adoption of EVs (the typical lifecycle of a car is much longer than the intended 10 years). I suspect we will see more and more hybrids at that time to aid the transition, but we still won't have the infrastructure.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla...