The point is that the current worldwide energy consumption is 4.3 % nuclear, 6.9 % hydro, and all the rest is hydrocarbons. To stop consuming hydrocarbons, we'

The point is that the current worldwide energy consumption is 4.3 % nuclear, 6.9 % hydro, and all the rest is hydrocarbons. To stop consuming hydrocarbons, we'd have to multiply the nuclear plants by 21. There's a difference between the energy supply and the final energy consumption because of loses in conversion and transport, but let's assume that 100% nuclear energy reduces them and we need 150000 TWh total, so we need 95% of that in new nuclear power plants: 142500 TWh. 1 nuclear power plant produces about 1 GW and there are about 8000 hours a year. that's 8 TWh per nuclear power plant. So we need to build 17812 nuclear power plants. (And it takes between 5 and 10 years to build a nuclear power plant). Now have fun: compute how many nuclear engineers, architects, and technicians do we need to build those nuclear power plants, and then to use and maintain them, build new ones when needs increase, and then to renew them; and the compute how much time you need to raise and educate these engineers, and cry on how much time is spent on "women's studies, gender studies, anti white male patriarchy studies" and bullshit like this. Now take the problem the other way: how many people would 5% nuclear power plant support? Well, 5% of the population. ie. 400 million. Then you understand why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones, or you understand why no more than 5% of our energy is nuclear power? But is CO2 so much of a problem? More CO2 means more green plants, means more food, means more animals and humans will be able to live on Earth! Before the coming ice age, anyways.