"One thing is certain, we cannot meet the world's growing energy needs with hydrocarbons without creating ecological disaster... right now it is either nuclear, or an unacceptable reduction in our standard of living..."

I think more important than our living standard is general living standards- without increasing the energy supply poor people will remain poor. In other words if you want to increase the standard of living of the poor in America, we need more energy. And if you want get the poor of the world [getting less than $1000 per year] at least up to our poor [less than $10,000 per year] then you need more global energy supply. A world which has large middle class needs lots of relatively cheap energy, a world in which 99% are dirt poor and 1% is rich requires less energy.
If you want a world in which are countries are democratic then you need more energy- a world of dictators requires less energy. Having less energy will be driving force to create a more oppressive world filled with lethal conflicts.

Nuclear energy is not the only solution to our energy needs, but it is a relatively easy solution in the short term- and discounting "easy" solutions is not a good idea. Of course nuclear energy is very good solution if CO2 emission is considered a significant problem. And along these lines, it would be more important for India and China to increase nuclear power generation than the US. The US should increase it's nuclear energy but it's going to be tough political road.

In longer term we could significantly reduce energy needs via better technology and increase energy supply by number of means- I believe space development is the most promising route.