So according to you, the major advantage of fusion is that it will take us beyond the next thousand years, which is the amount of time that we can supply our ne

So according to you, the major advantage of fusion is that it will take us beyond the next thousand years, which is the amount of time that we can supply our needs with fission (I am not taking maximum numbers). Let Dr. Prager say that in his article, then. He won't, because it will take away any sense of urgency from supporting his research; there are hundreds of years before it becomes necessary, and there is no reason not to leave this for people in the year 2371. I think his motivation is good, in the sense that he has real scientific curiosity about this, but it's still unethical to bamboozle people with talk about "harnessing the power of the stars" and "fuel from seawater", neither of which is really the point here: the stars are irrelevant, the tritium doesn't come from seawater in any meaningful sense. Current proposals for fusion reactors are also uneconomical, which is why people invent hybrid fusion-fission economies. > This is not great to harp on because nuclear fission is still one of the safest sources of energy, statistically speaking. Then don't harp on it. With immense shielding and cooling mass that needs to get irradiated in current fusion reactor designs, the safety is oversold; and some of that mass will get activated, since you can't economically make it only of materials that won't be.