[Anarch157a]

> won't be alive to see the full dream of infinite cheap energy come true.

You won't. Sorry for being cynical, but the true cost of energy is the capital invested in the equipment to harvest it. A fusion reactor would be at the minimum, as expensive as a fission one, which means all that capital will have to be amortised over the years. This doesn't even take into account the cost of extracting deuterium from sea water or producing helium 3 and tritium from lithium. Fusion doesn't even solve the problem of nuclear waste, since it will create radioactive isotopes by bombarding components of the reactor with neutrons.

You want cheaper, cleaner energy ? Solar and wind with battery storage is the best option, and it's already here, no need need to wait for fusion magic that may or may not happen in our lifetimes.

[adastra22]

> A fusion reactor would be at the minimum, as expensive as a fission one

What are you basing that on? Many of the fusion designs being talked about are quite small.

[Anarch157a]

So does fission reactors. Modern French nuclear subs are powered by 48 MW reactors. They're still expensive to build and maintain.