Not quite. China is planning less coal capacity but existing contracts are still being built. They're not ramping up construction afaik. https://globalenergymonitor.org/research/china-hits-brakes-coal-power-permits-constructions-remain-robust
Most countries of the global south, when faced with the option coal vs nuclear, will err toward coal due to the far lower cost and weaker infrastructure. Nuclear is simply not that attractive an option if you're a poor country.
Makes sense, my country has been struggling with this problem for a while because it's tectonically simply not stable enough. And good luck convincing geologically suited countries to take everyone's waste.
Anti, pro arguments only work in comparison to coal which is a low bar. We frankly simply have not solved the waste issue. I study chemistry and yes, the amounts are tiny, but some isotopes in waste have half lives longer than any structure we can build would last and scaling up nuclear would scale up this problem before it's solved (just like we did with greenhouse gases). Also it's objectively more expensive than any renewable source, as multiple independent studies have found.
Realistically though you should compare the waste it produces to the waste from coal plants,
Why? Nuclear is not competing against coal, it's competing against renewables
it turns out you can basically just put the spent fuel back where you found it
Can you explain what you mean by this? I study Chemistry and am from a Uranium producing country and this frankly just seems wrong.
What else would it imply to state that Nuclear is actively competing against coal? If they're not ramping up, then it's not an argument because they're not currently choosing coal over nuclear.
Which is why nuclear is not competing against coal in the global south...