There are no sacrifice necessary, that's a silly meme that refuses to die. Its the same kind of thinking that made people ask where they are going to keep all the horses if cities become to large back in the day.

We have modern nuclear technology today, we should just elect to use it.

Even if thorium reactors could be built right now and use waste from older reactors, there is still the process of mining and handling radioactive material.

Nuclear may be preferable to coal but (IMO) not to large scale development of solar, wind, and higher efficiency grids.

We only need to mine 1/1e6'th of it compared to conventional chemistry. Thorium is a waste product, we mine it anyway, it's with the Lanthanides. It's an alpha emitter so unless you ingest it (serious hazard, dont ingest alpha emitters) it's not difficult to work with.

Even if nuclear technology provides all US electricity within "5-7 years", gasoline will still be needed to power the majority of US vehicles and aircraft.

It will be hard for Americans to stay at home some vacations, to build denser cities, drive smaller vehicles and eat less meat. Those are sacrifices that will not hurt the economy !!

"limiting warming below or close to 1.5 °C would require to decrease net emissions by around 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050"

How long would it take to build out nuclear "with no sacrifice necessary"?

> How long would it take to build out nuclear "with no sacrifice necessary"?

Less time than it will take to finish this lawsuit.

In the 1970s, Sweden built reactors in 5-7 years. In current decade, China has built reactors in 5-7 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Sweden#List_o...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#China

Except for the delay that they'll have to fight potentially frivolous lawsuits...

5-7 years