Technology

cheaper,

Once commercial fusion comes out, it's likely to be about half the cost of wind.

[more] reliable

There's absolutely no way to know how reliable human-generated fusion is, but it powers every star in the sky for billions of years, so it could probably last for a few decades here on Earth without much trouble.

and safer alternatives

Nuclear fusion, when begun, creates water as its byproduct. This water is, admittedly, very slightly radioactive; if you drank the "nuclear waste" that is produced by a fusion plant as your only source of water, it would increase your radiation exposure the same as if you flew from New York to Los Angeles and back once per year. Now, that's not nothing, but it is almost nothing.

As for large-scale disasters from nuclear fusion, that's almost impossible—and you can see why by the fact that this very article is news. With a nuclear fission reaction, the difficulty is in containment; get the right things in the right place, and the reaction happens automatically. There are natural nuclear fission reactors in the world, caves where radioactive materials have formed in an arrangement that causes a nuclear reaction. But in order for nuclear fusion to happen on its own, you need, quite literally, a stellar mass. So if something goes wrong in a fusion power plant, where we're manufacturing the conditions that make fusion possible at great energy cost and effort, the reaction just stops unless there's a literal sun's worth of hydrogen hanging around. It cannot go critical, it cannot explode, it cannot break containment; it can only end. It's hard to sustain a fusion reaction, and that's why stories like this are news: because it's a major breakthrough anytime we get closer to a reaction where we can feed enough power that it generates back into the machines that keep it running. Once the power to those machines is cut, a fusion reaction cannot continue.

People fall off rooftops fitting solar panels, burn to death repairing wind turbines that they can't climb down fast enough to escape, and dams burst and wash away towns. Renewable energy is much less killy than fossil fuels, but per megawatt hour, it's comparable to nuclear, despite a few large incidents killing quite a lot of people each. At the moment, over their history, hydro is four times deadlier than nuclear, wind's a little worse than nuclear, and solar's a little better. Fission power is actually really safe.

The article's talking about fusion power, though. Fission reactions are dangerous because if you've got enough fuel to get a reaction at all, you've got enough fuel to get a bigger reaction than you want, so you have to control it carefully to avoid making it too hot, which would cause the steam in the reactor to burst out and carry chunks of partially-used fuel with it, which are very deadly. That problem doesn't exist with fusion. It's so hard to make the reaction happen in the first place that any problem just makes the reaction stop immediately. If you somehow blew a hole in the side of the reactor, you'd just get some very hot hydrogen and very hot helium, which would be harmless in a few minutes once they'd cooled down. It's impossible for fusion power, once it's working, not to be the safest way to generate energy in history because it inherently avoids the big problems with what is already one of the safest ways.

Wait, what is the cheaper alternative to the moon landing?

So much has manifested in the ripple effects from the pursuit of great things.

To moon landing, maybe. To fusion, no.

The space race gave us space age materials and advances. It wasn't for nothing.