[thfuran]

I'd guess they'll occur in reverse order. Or at least fusion last. There are some serious engineering concerns to work out. And even if it were to become economical and reliable overnight, there'd still probably be a few decades before it replaced enough existing infrastructure to be the primary energy source.

[itcrowd]

> if it were to become economical and reliable overnight, there'd still probably be a few decades before it replaced enough existing infrastructure to be the primary energy source

Well, hypothetically if nuclear fusion is solved, wouldn't that be the one of these three with the largest incentive to fix overnight?

Solving climate change for the whole world, not just a problem only some niche groups are interested in would seem more pressing than the other two issues (as serious as they are!).

[thfuran]

>hypothetically if nuclear fusion is solved, wouldn't that be the one of these three with the largest incentive to fix overnight?

Maybe but it's the only one that'd take probably several trillion dollars in infrastructure spending on top of just knowing how to do it. There's a huge difference between "net positive energy fusion reactor" and "economically viable fusion energy generation" and another huge gap between that and "fusion reactors are the primary means of energy generation". The other items are achieved either by a proof or by proof of concept / trial.

[sanxiyn]

Energy use is more than electricity. Fusion does not solve climate change.