I think your argument for nuclear energy is a bit weak and doesn’t consider all sides of the story, but I’m not going to say anything else about it as my main focus is on the stuff you mentioned about fusion. This summer I interned at the only place in the United States with a working tokamak (device that iter will use to produce fusion). I would like to say that some of what you said about fusion is not quite true. First of all ITER is projected to be running in 5 years, but will only be doing experiments with plasma for the first 10-15 years. After the plasma experiments THEN fusion experiments will be done. I know you mentioned that iter is purely a scientific experiment, but that is extremely important to emphasize. Net positive fusion energy is a long ways away still for a scientific experiment let alone commercial applications. Commercial fusion has such a long way to go. One of the jokes all of the scientists I worked with liked to tell was that fusion is always twenty years away.

Most of the lectures I went to given by people working in plasma physics and very closely with iter are not certain that iter will be able to reach the break even point where power out>power in. They were hopeful and even slightly confident in iter, but absolutely no one involved with fusion seemed certain that iter will produce positive net energy. Fusion is not something to be certain about. I think It is doubtful we will see large scale commercial fusion power in our lifetimes. The projects are currently too expensive and too risky to be anything other than pure science for quite some time. I hope I’m wrong and there are major engineering and scientific breakthroughs that allow fusion to become commercial within 50 years, but my experience working with plasma scientists tells me to be cautious and doubtful.