Then instead of 100B on maybe getting to usable fusion, let's spend $XX billion on solving those problems instead. What would $100b specifically directed into

Then instead of 100B on maybe getting to usable fusion, let's spend $XX billion on solving those problems instead. What would $100b specifically directed into panel conversion efficiency, grid improvements, and battery recycling look like vs the equivalent amount on fusion? I think we'd get a lot farther toward total clean energy conversion. That said, we absolutely should keep funding fusion research at some level - assuming we can get all the pieces working, it would be a great boon, especially for off-planet power somewhere down the road. However, the next 20 years are probably THE critical moment in stopping the worst effects of climate change, and I think betting on solar+battery tech is more likely to pan out in that timeframe than fusion, especially since we already have the tech to roll out a huge amount of solar panels RIGHT NOW if we wanted to spend the money. We're past the point of optimal solutions. We're running out of time, and compromises are necessary. Trading catastrophic sea level change in 50 years for panel+battery recycling problems today seems like a fair enough deal to me.