Agreed, although there's degrees of accuracy. Since carbon was formed in stars you could also say that fossil fuel is harnessing the power of the stars. Fusion

Agreed, although there's degrees of accuracy. Since carbon was formed in stars you could also say that fossil fuel is harnessing the power of the stars. Fusion is the primary mechanism at the core of a star and would also be the primary mechanism in a fusion reactor, that does make it a partially valid comparison. (Supernovas use a different mechanism.) But let's not write off fusion over fission because the most common reactor in the solar system has a comparatively low energy output. It does kind of underemphasise the immense amount of energy that nuclear power generates per unit of fuel. It would take a few kilos of seawater to power a family for a year (a single person drinks tonnes of water each year). It should be very safe compared even to non-fission options. The output is relatively clean, especially compared to non-fission options. Excluding initial R&D costs, it should be more efficient than fission in therms of $/W.