It's always interesting to see how well older articles age. At 10 years old, this one has aged pretty well. The article makes the main point that a lot of the

It's always interesting to see how well older articles age. At 10 years old, this one has aged pretty well. The article makes the main point that a lot of the costs of a theoretical fusion plant are the same as those for a fission plant, namely a way of turning heat into power. It also claims that 2/3 of the costs of a nuclear plant are for that conversion. If you look at energy costs by source [1] you see the wind and solar are already 4-8 times cheaper than fission. We're not really any closer to solving the profound technological challenges that existed when this was written 10 years ago. The most optimistic estimates still put fusion at decades away. My view is that our long-term power generation will come from space-based solar collectors. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source