As the article itself states: In the words of my colleague Jon Amos: "Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society in the second half of this century."
Edit: maybe I’m needlessly pessimistic but I feel societies are much more fragile than they seem. We had it unreasonably good in ‘the west’ for the last 77 years but that time span is so short in the grander scheme of things, it gives a false sense of security.
In some part, due to societal changes, schisms, injustices, the increasing distrust that eats at the foundation of society,
At some point, there may be nothing worth left to power with nuclear fusion.
Although I start to wonder if we should keep powering a lot of things in today’s world. There is so much needless unnecessary madness going on.
Replace money with "technology that sustains society".
Just to be clear, I 100% believe in climate change, and do what I think is a fair amount to help (cycle as much as I can, don't take long haul flights, take train instead of short haul flights, drive EV, insulate house, don't eat much meat, Solar PV panels).
BUT!
I feel like humanity and the earth are way more fault-tolerant than the parent comment gives them credit for. I don't think we are going to see the total collapse of civilisation - far from it. But I would welcome any links on people/studies/groups who have theorised what might happen in a medium-case scenario?
So other than nuclear apocalypse, I fail to see what could remove society by 2050? Climate Change's worst effects will not be seen by 2050, they'll be very bad but they won't destroy society in all places, just hamper its economy and lower societal living standards.
They will start in 2025, then will stop for a few years then will really only start in 2035. ITER is a scientific experiment not the first commercial prototype.
Assuming it succeeds you are looking at a procurement and construction process of 20 years for the first commercial prototype by 2060!
At best, you will start constructing commercial power in 2060 and making in impact in 2080. If its even commercially feasible and not an incredibly expensive toy.
Fantastic achievements from the SPARC (MIT) project are not likely to impact this. Conclusion: Forget about Fusion as a solution to help with the current climate change emergency. The planet will be here, but Gaia will clean us up as parasitic extras, if we don't do something in the next 5 to 10 years.
And no, you wont be allowed in the Belt.
Fusion research is still very interesting, but honestly it's starting to feel more like an expensive hobby by now. It certainly shouldn't take precedence over more attainable and faster solutions.
But we need to go nuclear [fission] in the mean time... I can't imagine any other way that wouldn't devastate the environment excessively at the same time (e.g. river dams are bad IMHO).