From the Article

>Nuclear fusion reactors around the world are being built to find the best way to control and capture the energy of such reactions.
>
>Pioneering inventors, including TAE Technologies in Southern California, are racing to bring this natural process that fuels the sun down to Earth, with terrestrial fusion power plants. It’s an idea that’s been around since the late 1950s, but that has moved forward dramatically in recent years. Commercial fusion power generation is expected by some to roll out in the 2030s — which could give the world a seismic final push to meet the UN’s 2050 climate goals, if implemented broadly and quickly.
>
>At COP27 this November, there will be plenty of talk about cutting emissions in half by 2030 to meet targets we’ve set in the Paris Agreement, and the responsibility of more developed nations to assist poorer countries that are already being battered by climate change. Nuclear fusion, however, is unlikely to be a major part of the conversation — but as the drought and heat waves in Europe, the flooding in Pakistan and Nigeria and every other climate catastrophe shows, we need large-scale changes. The transition to nuclear fusion in the coming decade could provide just that.

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:

From the Article

>Nuclear fusion reactors around the world are being built to find the best way to control and capture the energy of such reactions.
>
>Pioneering inventors, including TAE Technologies in Southern California, are racing to bring this natural process that fuels the sun down to Earth, with terrestrial fusion power plants. It’s an idea that’s been around since the late 1950s, but that has moved forward dramatically in recent years. Commercial fusion power generation is expected by some to roll out in the 2030s — which could give the world a seismic final push to meet the UN’s 2050 climate goals, if implemented broadly and quickly.
>
>At COP27 this November, there will be plenty of talk about cutting emissions in half by 2030 to meet targets we’ve set in the Paris Agreement, and the responsibility of more developed nations to assist poorer countries that are already being battered by climate change. Nuclear fusion, however, is unlikely to be a major part of the conversation — but as the drought and heat waves in Europe, the flooding in Pakistan and Nigeria and every other climate catastrophe shows, we need large-scale changes. The transition to nuclear fusion in the coming decade could provide just that.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/z3wrwb/heres_how_supporting_fusion_energy_today_could/ixo0hlv/

I wonder when it will get closer than “closer than ever”

People have been working on fusion since the 1950s! It was said to be 50 yrs away from commercial use then - pretty much what is still being said! WHEN we get there it will be wonderful, but not wise to hold your breath waiting!

Fusion probably won't be economically viable by the time we get it.

"Big" (thermal) fusion will be similar to today's fission plants, as far as I can tell, minus the fuel costs. Still a big complicated reactor, actually MORE complicated than a fission reactor. Tons of electronics and high-power electrical and electromagnets and maybe superconductors to control and confine and heat a plasma, or drive lasers to ignite pellets. You get a thermal flux (neutrons) to drive a big steam plant that drives a generator. So lots of high pressures and temperatures to control, lots of pumps and turbines and other moving parts. Still some radiation, not sure how it compares to a fission plant (some say more for fusion, some say less). No need for a sturdy containment vessel. Still a terrorist target, still need security.

Fuel cost is about 30% of operating cost [not LCOE, I don't know how that translates; some say fuel is more like 10%] of today's fission reactors. Subtract that, so I estimate cost of energy from fusion will be 70% of today's fission cost. Renewables PLUS storage are going to pass below that level soon, maybe in the next 5 years. [Edit: maybe I'm wrong about fuel for fusion, see https://thequadreport.com/is-tritium-the-roadblock-to-fusion-energy/ ]

And "big" fusion really isn't "limitless" power, either. All of the stuff around the actual reaction (vessel, controls, coolant loop, steam plant, grid) is limited in various ways. They cost money, require maintenance, impose limits, and scale in certain ways. You can't just have any size you want, for same cost or linear cost increase.

A flagship project, ITER, isn't going to start real fusion experiments until 2035, and the machine planned after ITER is the one that will produce electricity in an experimental situation, not yet commercial. So you might be looking at 2070 for commercial "big" fusion ? ITER is not the only game in town, but ...

Now, if we get a breakthrough and someone invents "small" fusion, somehow generating electricity directly from some simple device, no huge control infrastructure, no tokamak or lasers, no steam plant and spinning generator, etc, that would be a different story.

Thanks for this comment. Too many people are still thinking fusion = free, easy, limitless energy for all.

Could fusion let us grow materials in the lab? Like lab grown meats but for rare earth materials, sand, etc. Lab grown meats will have a huge impact on the environment, but if we could grow any materials in the lab that would be even more significant.

I don't think any of that is limited by amount of energy that can be applied.

I'd be interested to know the rest of the operating costs for fission. As far as I know a fusion reactor breaking down is harmless and will just stop. I expect a lot of the operating costs of a fission reactor is related to safety and preventing meltdowns, which won't be a concern with fission.

I don't have actual numbers mind you, just speculating.

> As far as I know a fusion reactor breaking down is harmless and will just stop.

Well, in both fusion and fission there are a lot of "breakdowns" that can be far from harmless. You're dealing with high-pressure high-temperature steam, a big generator with high electrical currents, etc. In addition, fusion may have high voltages or currents in the confinement magnets and controls. These are not radioactive meltdowns or releases, but they're serious if something fails.

> rest of the operating costs for fission

Well, again, for fission and fusion both there are systems and moving parts that need to be maintained, replaced, etc.

> I expect a lot of the operating costs of a fission reactor is related to safety and preventing meltdowns

I wouldn't assume that. And the controls of a fusion reactor are likely to be MORE complex than the controls of a fission reactor. The other plant controls (steam, cooling, generator, transmission, etc) should be the same for both.

Fusion made great sense in 2010 and before that, when solar PV had an LCOE of like $350 per MWh.

Less so now when we're hitting $40MWh, other than specific applications

Yes, if you had a magic wand you could do great things. But you don't.