>>10852091Eventually, but not immediately, if a functional Q>1 (by a substantial margin) fusion reactor were rolled out tomorrow it would still probably take decades for it to be even the majority of power generation. In the long term though, yes it would be cheaper because it's fuel is more abundant , it's waste is minimal, it's less hazardous so needs less excessive safety regulation, and it has the same upsides as fission plants. Abundant high energy density fuel, scaleability (either through larger or more reactor cores), throttleability, small size compared to power generated. You just have to remember that changes in large power industries will always be sluggish because:
>1People are invested in other power sources, there will be both private and public pushback to preserve existing power infrastructure because it gives jobs, makes people money, and is familiar.
>2The initial investments for replacing major grid contributors are enormous, huge amounts of negotiation, regulation, and other bureaucratic bullshit has to get done before an old plant could even be torn down so it can be replaced by something else.
>3The initial investments for building a novel powerplant after old ones are removed is also enormous, and often it takes years or even decades before those profits are recouped, greatly limiting the pool of individuals or entities who would be willing to put forward such investments.
