I strongly support work like the ITER, but this said, it seems very clear to me that even if they can get a positive energy yield for a confined fusion reaction, there is still quite a bit that needs to be addressed. Among these are materials science issues, as well as effective heat transfer, as well as protecting equipment from very high energy neutrons, an order of magnitude higher than fission neutrons.
It's possible that some day it might be useful technology, but we are fresh out of time to wait for it to become so. At the current rate, which is by the way accelerating, we are adding 2. 5 ppm of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year.
If it takes another 20 years for fusion reactors to actually produce usable energy, and another 20 years to scale the technology to a significant level - it is sure to take longer - you are talking about 100 ppm, minimum, 520 ppm or higher.
We know how fission reactors work. It's time to stop pretending that they're "too expensive" or "too dangerous" or any of the other claptrap anti-nukes hand out while not bothering to to consider whether climate change is "too expensive" or "too dangerous."
From my perspective, you have to be as dumb as a Republican carrying on about Dr. Suess during Covid and mass shootings to even dream that this kind of comparison is even remotely reasonable, the danger and expense of climate change compared to trivialities (on scale) like the Fukushima and Chernobyl boogeymen.
= new reply since forum marked as read
