This sounds to me, alas, like a "lie back and like it" argument:  implicitly we're being told that conservation and sustainable practise are impossible, and therefore our only two choices are coal or nuclear -- since no other choices can accommodate the "growth cult" economic model (which is already faltering due to drawdown of resources other than energy, so why keep it on life support?), and it is tacitly assumed that we cannot possibly reduce demand except by catastrophe (which no reasonable person wants).  Jerome seems to be telling us that if we don't want nuclear, we'll get coal -- there is no third, or fourth, or fifth or sixth way -- so we'd better hold our noses and learn to love those warm and friendly isotopes.

I decry this as (a) defeatist and (b) rhetorical blackmail  :-)  I think there are plenty of practical reasons why nuke plants cannot possibly meet the imminent energy shortfall, and plenty of practical reasons why coal is a huge mistake.  Either one, to me, is a disastrous choice -- like being forced to choose Bush or Blair for World President.  But we'll have to do some more reading and reasoning together to present, and wrangle over, these points.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...