They are in process. According to Wikipedia[0] "Pakistan plans on constructing 32 nuclear power plants by 2050"

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Pakistan

Or they could have all three: coal-fired power plants, trees, and nuclear reactors.

Granted, in the long run coal is neither a healthy, environmentally friendly or sustainable option but in the short term it may be one of the few viable options.

Not really, not necessarily.

Pakistan can build the bomb, and the reactors for high grade Pu. That doesn't mean they can make a thermal reactor which has many different and difficult challenges. The metallurgy to make a high pressure reactor vessel for 500 MW is quite different from making a quickly refueled open pool reactor.

In fact, most western countries' reactor designs are derived from US licenses.

They've had nuclear powered electricity since 1972 and have 1.3 GW plants operating commercially.

Two additional plants at 1.1 GW each slated to add to the grid by 2021/2.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pro...

Yeah, but they build nukes instead.

Even if they didn't have the technology, what stops them from hiring a company from another country that has such technology?

Pakistan can't hire anyone to build reactors or buy most of parts needed because they are not willing to sign NPT, unless they become part of NSG. So, they are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. They know fresh water resources are not unlimited for sub-continent and coal is worst possible solution for electric short fall. So, they are also working on Solar [1] and wind [2], along with some development on nuclear which is indeed very slow.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaid-e-Azam_Solar_Park

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jhimpir_Wind_Power_Plant

Edit:correction.

I suspect that will be a very unpopular opinion around here.

I don't see why. Nuclear reactors are objectively far less damaging than coal plants, even if you ignore global warming, and include Chernobyl (no containment dome) and Fukushima (70's-era plant plus tsunami). As far as proliferation goes, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons.

Popularity is not about facts.

When someone says "nuclear" many unthinking people with votes think "That's bad they could blow me up or polute all the things" and then shut off their brain to rational responses.

Because they have votes the politicians "Here" take action. If "Here" is Pakistan that means fewer plants in this case. If "Here" is the USA it means strained relations with Pakistan and perhaps even some public condemnation and minor sanctions.

HN loves nuclear power.

Or is this a comment about subcontinental international politics?

everyobe is very excited about nuclear energy as long as the plant is on the other side of the continent.