I don't begrudge money being spent on researching fusion. It is definitely a promising technology, but it's not coming to a power grid near you any time soon.<p>Even if we can figure out how to keep a reaction going with a useful energy surplus no one has any idea<p>a) How much a reactor will cost,<p>b) how long/hard will it be to build or<p>c) If there are any issues with the process - yes no nuclear fuel but there's still some nasty crap coming out of the reaction which you will have to deal with if you scale the technology.<p>Meanwhile there are a number of perfectly viable planet saving power sources - solar, wind, solar-thermal etc - already out there providing power.<p>Fusion is a nice idea, but it isn't the only way to save the world...
What's the "meltdown" equivalent of fusion? What is the worst thing that could happen given unlikely sequence of failures? Is it possible it would go from controlled fusion to uncontrolled fusion?
>> ''In contrast to its international competitors, the United States brings a worldview that favors early involvement of industry in technology development and a greater appetite for tackling technology risk if it leads to commercial viability.''<p>As an aside, fusion technology feels like a good testbed for what economic model is best for the democratization of a public good. Is government investment in the ITER countries a better accelerator than the American model
of private companies being allowed to take advantage of research in govt institutions? I suppose we will know in a few decades when fusion contributes to the power grid.
Tl;dr: The US tries smaller fusion reactors in partnership with industry in parallel to ITER.<p>Nothing really new from a tech standpoint, or what am I missing?
But is this just saving the planet from only the most pressing symptom of human over population? If we do get an abundance of cheap clean energy, what then?