China can build nuclear power plants and indeed is building a large number of them.

But as you mention the demand for energy is vast and they can't 'just' get rid of coal.

China's nuclear power plants come from the US. Westinghouse's bankruptcy set back the targets for many years.

Of course, the big problem is also geopolitical concerns here.

I would say that India is in a better position here (on geopolitics), however the tech transfer from US even to India has been iffy at best.

Here's a bigger problem - India has set a goal to switch to electrical vehicles by 2030. If that happens, all gasoline/petrol/diesel consumption will switch to coal.

Which means that switching to EV will double India's pollution norms. Unless nuclear power takes over.

Actually the majority of China's nuclear power plants are a local design based on French technology (there's been a long term cooperation with France, which has built a couple of nuclear power plants there, including recently)

The point is - if westinghouse transfer had happened, this would have already been in place. I'm not disputing what they are doing now.

Eventually all countries will have the ability to make gen 5 reactors...but the COP26 is today. And we lost time.

That's the reason why coal usage will double or triple in the next 2 years primarily from India or China.

> Which means that switching to EV will double India's pollution norms. Unless nuclear power takes over.

Why is nuclear the only alternative?

India's electric vehicle goal is pure politics and no one in India takes it seriously. It has zero chance of happening.

EVs produce less CO2 than ICEs even when powered by coal plants.

China's reliance on US tech for nuclear is over. Now they're using French tech domestically manufactured for their current gen reactors, and building next gen reactors with their own tech.

Yes. This is a huge win for coal lobby. This might be the turning point that kills humanity.

> This might be the turning point that kills humanity.

What makes you say that? To me it seems like the worst case is probably human deaths in the hundreds of millions, not extinction.

> To me it seems like the worst case is probably human deaths in the hundreds of millions, not extinction.

I think this underestimates the societal repercussions of an initial set of hundreds of millions of deaths.

Millions of deaths probably means billions of refugees looking for new places to live, probably in places that are already struggling with the changes themselves.

In the worst case only few hundred millions will survive.

As you accurately describe the threat is mass conflict and disorder. Why do you willingly support that or changing the narrative?

Global instability is likely to lead to more conflict and war without any guarantees of end. A vast population reduction of vulnerable people for a lot of people IS extinction.

> Why do you willingly support that?

I’m sure where you got that impression. But language matters and the worst case outcome isn’t a situation that “kills humanity”. I was asking for clarification in case there was something I was missing in terms of impact that would actually lead to extinction, which by definition means a complete end to all human life.

which is why i included 'or [support] changing the narrative'

i appreciate your language as well.