It’s understood that Greenpeace and EREC are trying to hold up a virtuous target, rather than make a prediction about what actually will happen. Nevertheless, even my most optimistic predictions would assume a much higher urgency on the part of world governments and business leaders in acting upon competitive needs — i.e. securing adequate, affordable and sustainable energy supplies — compared with motives like reversing global warming and eradicating nuclear power.

Specifically, I expect coal to hang around a lot longer, due to its sheer abundance and where it happens to be located in the world — in energy-hungry places like China. So-called “clean coal” technologies now appearing will prolong its role by making emissions sequestration feasible, most likely. And while the environmental movement has for decades detested nuclear as a sort of symbolic “bete noire”, I see it as an unavoidable option for energy-hungry, resource poor nations who have capital to spend, especially given its zero-carbon-footprint credentials. It’s not sustainable or green, strictly speaking, but post peak oil, my sense is that nuclear will be clean enough for many. Sorry, Greenpeace.