How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Fusion power plants still need land, buildings, generators, switchyards, wire, own power consumption, environmental impact reports, planning permits, regulations, inspections, and all the rest. And they need exotic materials and weird engineering in their construction.
Really: how does fusion get us to ~1% (correction: ~5%) of current power prices?
I've never seen a convincing explanation. Usually it's bare assertion. Infrequently it's handwavium/unobtanium.
If you could hypothetically build a fusion plant that would generate several times more power than existing fission reactors at a similar construction cost, you would have so much power you wouldn't have to worry much about transmission losses. At which point you could put it in the middle of nowhere without those constraints and make it actually less expensive for several times more power.
Then for cities power gets cheaper, but for anything that can be built out in the middle of nowhere near the reactor, power gets a lot cheaper.
Unless fusion power is dramatically more efficient than other thermal plants, like 99.9%, your bigger plant will still need massive heat removal structures and systems, which means siting them near water. All the good spots are already taken.
Alternatively you can use truly massive air heat transfer structures, driving up your construction costs again.
I neglected to mention finance costs also. With an untried technology the rate of return demanded is going to be very high, further driving up project costs.
I don't know how it works in the US, but this is notably not true in the UK and Europe. Gas plants are comparatively small and nestled in, but big coal (to a limited degree) and particularly fission plants are frequently in the middle of nowhere. They're somewhere near a village that can supply a workforce, but siting concerns for nukes were more based on making sure any criticality excitement could be shared with neighbours across whatever nearby border was handy than putting them anywhere near cities.
I don’t know how it costs in US, but in France, fully charging a Model 3 costs about ~5€ at night. That’s not 10x cheaper than gas but that’s a lot cheaper.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/418087/electricity-price...
This doesn't matter, though, because France doesn't need many nukes anymore, therefore doesn't subsidizes new plants anymore. One new plant is built in France, and it already is hellishly expensive: "As of 2020 the project is more than five times over budget and years behind schedule. Various safety problems have been raised, including weakness in the steel used in the reactor." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
Fission is not cheap if you build a new nuclear plant, not in the Western world. That's why almost no nuclear plants are being build. Making a safe plant is just really, really complicated.
Second, this specific argument can be used to see why fusion is a pipe dream. The primary competitor to fusion is fission. And the fuel costs of fission are pretty low, as you just said. So fusion will not be competitive unless you can built them around the same price as fission plants.
Someone else in this thread talked about S curves. Well, those kind of S curves happen for tech that gets produced in larger quantities, where it is economical to spend engineering resources making the production of the tech cheaper.
But the majority of the reaction energy is carried away by high-speed neutrons, which are pure waste - they can't be captured by magnetic fields, they are heavy and penetrate almost any material, leaving holes behind that make the structure brittle, and when they do get absorbed, they make the atom that absorbed them unstable, turning the material radioactive.
So, at least as long as we use neutri-producing fusion (and any realistic fusion reactor has to) the actually usable energy is not that impressive compared to fission.
Direct conversion is theoretically about 60% thermally efficient, on par with combined cycle gas generators.
But with fusion the endless claims of "too cheap to meter" are because how much energy there is in a fusion reaction. [0] We know that fission produces a lot of energy (but is expensive) but fusion produces significantly more. It also doesn't have the radiation drawbacks and so it is expected to follow the S curve (fission did initially but things changed. This is part of why France has so much nuclear).
So if (big if) fusion does follow this S curve (which there are good reasons to expect it to) then it could provide a very cheap and sustainable energy source. Yes, it is a bet, but every technology is. We won't know until we spend significant time and money into researching it. But honestly, a few billion dollars isn't that crazy for the potential upsides. We've spent that money on far greater risks with lower payout. Despite what the OP said, the money for ITER does not require international collaboration. Any rich country could do it themselves.
[0] (Fission and fusion can yield energy graph) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/nucbin.htm...
... But if "cost wasn't a factor" then we could just simply dedicate the electrical output of fusion plants to brute-force CO2 out of the air.
But there are other environmental impacts. Fusion, even compared to fission, has an extremely small footprint (per megawatt). Its fuel is easily available (isotopes of hydrogen). It does require some pretty advanced magnets though, so it will contribute to the strip mining that we do for rare earth materials (though this applies to all energy forms, including solar and wind). I don't have numbers to say if a fusion reactor would use less total rare earth metals per megawatt compared to something like solar or wind.
One thing to note though. Once we get sustainable fusion reactors, it will still take a bit for that cost to come down significantly. That usually takes 10-20 years. This is a pretty common pattern. We've seen it from the price of laptops and cellphones to the price of solar panels.
> I like to think of solar, batteries, fission, and wind as compelling ways to go mostly carbon free and lower energy costs about 2x over the next 20 years or so.
> Fusion is what reduces energy cost potentially another 10x, which really changes the game for lots of things. Exciting stuff. Kudos to this team.
If the 10x is from avoiding fossil fuels, why does fusion get that credit, but the other non-fossil sources don't?
Because while renewable energy production is increasing rapidly, it is nowhere where we need it to cancel fossil fuels.
Nothing will be soon enough. That would have been now or ten years ago.
But anything that gets us there sooner will reduce the damage we have done, and fingers crossed, allow us to start undoing it.
You do see the irony of embedding this statement in a comment full of generalization and hyperbole, and lacking any evidence or credible sources, right? I genuinely laughed until I realized it may not have been intended as a joke.
