Right on.<quoted text>
... we simply MUST switch to non-carbon emitting energy, & switch ASAP. It's notable that nuclear power doesn't emit carbon, & it would be VASTLY preferable to burning more fossil fuel. We just need to use fast neutron "breeder" reactors, or make the switch to liquid thorium; both these have the advantage of much, MUCH less dangerous waste that is radioactive for a MUCH shorter time.
Simple geometry says fusion will never be competitive with fission. Here's why -<quoted text> ... Ultimately, mining the lunar mare for Helium-3, which can fuse with deuterium without releasing excess neutrons, may be much better over the longer term. The amount of energy is enormous. The lack of excess neutrons means reactor vessels last much, much longer. The Chinese will probably dominate this industry in the future; they're the ones who are foresightful enough to be returning to the moon.
1) All that lovely energy is useless until & unless you get it transferred into a working fluid that drives a turbine. Heat transfer is a function of surface area, which is in turn a function of the square of the cross-sectional diameter. A PWR fuel rod is less than 1/2" in diameter, while the fusion plasma in a tokamak (if they can ever keep one lit) is several inches in diameter. Thus, fission plants will always be an order of magnitude more thermally efficient than fusion plants. Simple geometry.
2) Fusion plants will have all the same radwaste issues that fission plants do - their reactor components will get just as 'hot' from induced radioactivity as in fission reactors. But fusion reactors will present an additional radwaste/environmental radioactivity release problem on top of that, for which there is no apparent solution - tritium, and lots of it. How do you contain and prevent release of a radioactive gas that diffuses right thru steel itself?
Nope - fission will always be more competitive as a baseload generation technology than fusion.