Like China, they'll have to:
"scientifically and rationally design a new power system, and gradually reduce reliance on traditional energy sources in a planned and step-by-step manner on the basis of safe and reliable replacement with renewable energy".
Because Net Zero targets, whether Net zero CO2 emissions by 2030 or by 2050, they will not be able to meet them. "Stretch goals are good" you may argue. Yes, but only if they make sense. And only if what you do to try to reach them makes sense. Which right now, in the West, with huge stress on wind and solar, and none on nuclear, doesn’t make any sense.
Take Germany. Instead of, as above, "establishing the new before destroying the old", Germany is doing the opposite. Destroying its safe, clean, well-operating nuclear power stations before having enough renewables — and baseload power — to replace the. So they've had to go back to coal. And now, as a result of over a decade of energiewende — "energy transition" — and spending $US 550 billion, they have power that emits nine times the amount of CO2 as 70% nuclear France, and costs 60% more. How does that make sense?
"Nuclear and gas". There's a simple goal. Simpler.
ADDED: Germany vs France emissions: 
