Or the "fuel from seawater" thing. Seawater contains 3.3 ppb of uranium, and it would be commercially feasible to extract it if the prices were higher. ... And

Or the "fuel from seawater" thing. Seawater contains 3.3 ppb of uranium, and it would be commercially feasible to extract it if the prices were higher. ... And you can use more advanced fission cycles, especially the thorium ones, to extend the energy you get out of fission fuels. Indeed. There's about a factor of 100,000x right there -- 500x for increased uranium supply (5e9 tons in oceans, vs. 1e7 tons in "conventional" <$130 kg/ton reserves (IAEA est.)), and 200x for increased fuel efficiency. But any continuous system for producing fusion power is theoretically capable of "running away" - it is a self-reinforcing process, after all - and producing an actual nuclear explosion. Don't think this is true. Fusion plasmas need active confinement -- a hotter plasma is no longer confined, and will no longer fuse. This is so incredibly misleading in many ways, without containing an actual false statement. For example, the limited resource is not deuterium but tritium (a misdirection). The plan to create this is by fissioning lithium, which is actually a rather scarce element (comparable with uranium, ironically). To get more interesting sustainability you need to switch to something like D+D fusion, which is much harder to achieve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Lithium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Lithium