> we have nothing on the horizon which can replace the energy density of a barrel of oil This is in the vicinity of a good point, but as written it's false. Ur

> we have nothing on the horizon which can replace the energy density of a barrel of oil This is in the vicinity of a good point, but as written it's false. Uranium has oil's energy density beat by a wide margin. And (at least if we're looking at naturally-occurring isotope ratios) thorium is at least 30x more energy dense. (Hydrocarbons are very nice as energy storage, of course, and can be produced in a carbon-neutral way if you throw enough energy at the problem.)