>Nuclear power plants are largely considered as one of the most reliable sources of energy. Inside the plants, reactors use fission to heat water into steam, which is then used to spin turbines and produce carbon-free electricity. However, nuclear fission produces nuclear waste, which requires great amounts of regulation for safe storage and disposal.<p>This is an odd angle to highlight. The risk of long-lived nuclear waste is extremely overblown, and the sheer volume of it that we produce (or even would produce, in the worst case of a once-through fuel cycle and nuclear power providing 100% of our energy needs for a century) pales in comparison to the amount of toxic and radioactive fly ash that even a single coal plant produces in a decade.<p>The real problems with nuclear fission power are threefold, in my opinion:<p>1. It is too expensive in terms of capital costs. Fusion will likely not help with this, but building a lot of identical large fission plants would probably help with economies of scale. Solar plus batteries might still end up being cheaper though.<p>2. Accidents have the potential to be catastrophic. Think Fukushima or Chernobyl, where entire towns have to be abandoned due to contamination. Fusion would help here, I believe.<p>3. There is a major proliferation concern. A civilian nuclear power program, especially one with breeder reactors, is not very far away from producing a fission bomb, and the short-lived high-activity nuclear wastes could be stolen and misused to make a dirty bomb. Fusion is perhaps better in this way, though an operating fusion reactor would be a very powerful neutron source of its own.