Perhaps "like" is too strong a word, but it's rather bracing to get an idea of how long high-energy civilization can last; barring some miracle like practical, cheap fusion power appearing in the next decade.
If I were to make a comparison to a work of fiction, it wouldn't be to Mad Max or The Day After Tomorrow; but to The Cold Equations, by Tom Godwin.
Nuclear can prolong us for a long time, uranium would basically be a stop gap to full on conversion to thorium reactors, as it's 3 times more abundant than uranium, but 550 times more abundant than U-235.
Basically nuclear would only be a stopgap to Fusion. Once fusion becomes available, you can begin replacing fission with fusion. Existing nuclear power plants have so much land reserved around them as a buffer zone that entire fusion plants can be built on them without the requirement of any new land as the old nuclear plants are decommissioned.
The ITER project currently puts the first commercial fusion plant in 2050, however that's based on current funding and research. As fusion increasingly becomes our only alternative I have a feeling the funding will begin going through the roof. I still wouldn't bet on anything closer than 2035 though.
2. It's been a while, but IIRC we're looking at at least 50 more years of U-235 and maybe two centuries of plutonium and thorium (lowballing). I have a hard time believing that there won't be even one revolutionary breakthrough in how we use or generate energy in the next 150-250 years.
If I were to make a comparison to a work of fiction, it wouldn't be to Mad Max or The Day After Tomorrow; but to The Cold Equations, by Tom Godwin.