> such as new plants being too expensive to build and old obsolete plants being too useful to decommission?
There's no guarantee that these issues will be surmountable.
But fusion largely avoids the fear association with past fission disasters and fears about nuclear waste. This is a non-trivial political problem in many parts of the world, especially much of Europe. If fusion becomes economical (big if) and the differences between it and fission are well communicated it might be easier for the world to swallow.
I think visions of a 100% fusion world are fairly pie in the sky. Most of our energy most of the time will probably come from already viable renewables. But renewables cannot offer consistent baseline power all day, year-round, in every part of the world. We need either huge breakthroughs in storage, or carbon-free baseline generation. Economical fusion if it were achieved could offer that without some of the most politically difficult drawbacks of fission.
I'd probably still bet the farm on renewables + storage though, at least for my lifetime.
There's no guarantee that these issues will be surmountable.
But fusion largely avoids the fear association with past fission disasters and fears about nuclear waste. This is a non-trivial political problem in many parts of the world, especially much of Europe. If fusion becomes economical (big if) and the differences between it and fission are well communicated it might be easier for the world to swallow.
I think visions of a 100% fusion world are fairly pie in the sky. Most of our energy most of the time will probably come from already viable renewables. But renewables cannot offer consistent baseline power all day, year-round, in every part of the world. We need either huge breakthroughs in storage, or carbon-free baseline generation. Economical fusion if it were achieved could offer that without some of the most politically difficult drawbacks of fission.
I'd probably still bet the farm on renewables + storage though, at least for my lifetime.