If you look closely at the IAEA report you sited it essentially says the same thing. And note the IAEAs mission is to promote use of atomic energy! Also of note they give TWO possible scenarios. You only sited the high scenario. Their low scenario shows even the absolute amount of nuclear generating capability decreasing over the next 30 years. And that is from the foremost lobbying group for nuclear energy!
Perhaps you should reread that article because I have quoted the high AND low scenario:
The high projections indicate an increase from 2016 levels by 42% in 2030, by 83% in 2040 and by 123% in 2050.
The low projections, on the other hand, indicate a decline in capacity by 12% in 2030 and 15% in 2040, before rebounding to present levels by 2050.
No, not exactly. In their low scenarios it rebounds almost, but not completely back to present levels (despite the spin they put on it).
So they say by 2050 there will be equal or more nuclear energy used in the world.
Yes but even in their high scenario - the percentage of nuclear power contribution to overall energy mix will have declined.
If you haven't done so already, I'd recommend reading
the actual report not just the press release you linked. If you do you'll note that one of their primary sources of data is from the annual Statistical Review of World Energy which I've been citing - but they have not incorporated its most recent data.
Also - as I said - keep in mind that the IAEA is a nuclear power industry lobbying group so they are going to put a particular spin on the data and their forecasts.
Looking at the assumptions of their Low and High scenarios (page 9 of their full report) - you tell me which one seems more plausible:
The low projection assumes that current trends will continue with few changes in policies affecting nuclear power. It does not assume that all national targets for nuclear power will be achieved. It is a ‘conservative but plausible’ projection.
The high case assumes that current rates of economic and electricity demand growth will continue, with particularly high growth in the Far East. Nuclear power would also be accepted in many countries as a cost-effective climate change mitigation option.
Uninterupted growth for the next 32 years? That has never happened. Even China's growth has slowed dramatically since this was published -
so the high case has already proved to be wrong. A least they don't claim the high case is plausible
As already stated this depends on so many parameters that it is hard to predict accurately.
Yes, it's hard to make predictions. Especially about the future.