I also skimmed the video. I felt it to be superficial in dismissing solar, which others nearby have pointed out has costs /kWh that are comparable to fossil fu

I also skimmed the video. I felt it to be superficial in dismissing solar, which others nearby have pointed out has costs /kWh that are comparable to fossil fuel. The arguments presented for dismissing solar were non-quantitative and based on abstract usage-vs-time curves. This is not a sufficient depth of analysis for this problem. It serves to motivate a talk on fusion to a non-specialist audience, but not to decide a societal resource problem. It's preposterous to say, "we can't solve the solar energy storage problem, so instead let's perform research on using neural networks to control fusion reactions". The kind of depth I'm after is a National Academies style report. There was a recent one on fusion energy, which is apparently being used to provide guidance for US fusion research. According to the report [1] -- "The four top-tier [new capabilities] identified by the panel were: advanced algorithms, high critical temperature superconductors, advanced materials, and novel technologies for tritium fuel cycle control." This report does not, however, give tradeoffs among different generation mechanisms. [1] http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=25331 http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?Rec... and follow to the 250 page pdf.