A discussion of "global cutting back" is central to the arguemnent, as it is an alternative option to using nuclear. We need to work out if we can cut back and then use renewables, perhaps some biodiesal, to make up the rest of our energy supply. Only if that won't work do we need nuclear power.
I'm optimistic that we can cut back significantly. I think business bears the brunt of the responsibility but so, tbh, do we.
Because I think a lot of the problem is "global wastefulness" I think nuclear power is unecessary and I resent introducing nuclear power to our country because people want to drive down to the local shop in their 4 mph SUVs.
Think China, India etc are a problem but not yet. Theres scope for prevention there. We don't have to assume they'll go the same way as America. They do have a very different culture and ethos.
Oil is meant to peak in around 2010, then it declines. No, it doesn't mean it all runs out suddenly, thats not what a peak is. It does meant there will be increasing shortages. If you don't believe that will happen, best of luck to you!
Think biodiesel is not the answer in the long term, it has huge environmental problems of its own, but it has a few significant advantages, particually that it shouldn't cause so much global warming. (its taking carbon from the biosphere not geosphere cycle, coal takes it from the geosphere at a masively increased rate, sending the system way out of whack)
Think it can be a useful cushion as our oil runs out.
The problem with SUVs is that they are part of the Western entitlement approach that got us here in the first place.
Oh, and everything is energy, by the way, DC!. You, me, the sun, light, microwaves, everything is energy in some form or another!