The War on Terrorism was never to acquire oil for only the US, it was to assure access to the oil in the region for ALL the world market.
I think it is dangerous to even suggest that securing the oil in any way precipitated the war. If we wanted the oil all we had to do is remove the sanctions. But certainly the oil is safer in the hands of the new government who is not likely to use it as a bargaining chip as did Saddam. You will recall how he set the wells on fire to discourage any further aggression against him.
Methane, yes, also if we want energy we are capable of constructing more nuclear power plants, but the liberals don’t seem to want that. Isn’t that interesting?
The problem of what to do with the "spent" nuclear fuel? The answer, it is not "spent" at all, as some 97% of the energy that was originally present in the fuel rods is still available, but that reprocessing the fuel rods concentrates plutonium, of which the anti-nuke types have a superstitious dread, as it can be made into DIRTY BOMBS, and WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
The plutonium itself makes fuel for the atomic reactors, and eventually decays into a safe form, albiet more slowly than the radioactive isotope of uranium. The thing is, it is all heat, and heat is what forms the steam that drives the power generators.
For the amount of energy generated, the cost is very low, and the nuclear-driven power plants COULD generate electricity even more cheaply than hydro plants, or wind-driven plants, or even photo-voltaic plants. The power thus generated is used to electrolyze water, that is, break the hydrogen out of the water molecule, where it is collected and used to drive the ultimate low-emissions vehicle, the fuel cell-electric.
Hydrogen is not a primary power source, it is only an intermediary between the nuclear-generated electricity and propulsion of a free-ranging road vehicle. The oxygen generated by the electrolysis is taken up on the recombination with the hydrogen.