If the regulation worked we probably wouldn't need nuclear reactors. If the trillions spent on oil subsidies due to regulatory capture (which incurs the cost of warfare) went to renewable energy, we'd likely be close to non-dependent on oil and nuclear.
We'd still want them though - progress of civilization is predicated on increasing availability of cheap energy, and nuclear reactors are great for this - using high-density fuel to generate electricity in a safe and non-polluting way.
WRT. energy needs - pulling carbon out of the atmosphere will be energy-intensive; it's yet another reason why we need clean and cheap energy (and lots of it!). Nuclear shouldn't be taken off the table.
Seeing the shape of the slope needed now and comparing it to the shape we have needed in e.g. 2000 and knowing the current political climate in the U.S. makes me very pessimistic that the 2 deg limit will be achieved, and knowing how dramatic e.g. 4 degrees or more are going to be, I doubt anybody can expect much “progress”. More some medieval developments.
The current estimate is +3.2 deg in 2100, but it still assumes that the current actions progress:
