> but really if we are not willing to switch to Fission, a technology we already have, why would be do it for Fusion.
I thought the extremely compelling rationale for Fusion was (assuming it can be done) not just orders of magnitude more energy, but also extremely little safety risk and on top of that, your "waste" is pure helium. Am I misinformed? This seems like of course we'd be willing to put the effort into that.
No. The cladding of fusion chamber is bombarded with neutrons and has to be replaced frequently, producing radioactive waste. This a drawback of all experimental designs today, AFAIK.
I thought the extremely compelling rationale for Fusion was (assuming it can be done) not just orders of magnitude more energy, but also extremely little safety risk and on top of that, your "waste" is pure helium. Am I misinformed? This seems like of course we'd be willing to put the effort into that.