If I recall correctly, this was twenty years away twenty years ago.

Some think this is the End-All. Hmmmm.

I'm too damn old to invest if it's a 20 year wait. I'd be in my 90's by then and money won't mean much in the retirement community. time does.

I agree Fusion is the answer, but I would argue it would be better for all first world nations to pay for a central project or projects and then share everything with everyone.

Fusion power was oversold at the outset. After all, we had a hydrogen bomb in 1954. Now, all of the scientific hurdles have been overcome and all of the engineering pieces are in place. The twenty year time frame is based on the size and complexity of the equipment.

So basically their argument is that now that everyone else has invested enough to "prove" (ahem) the technology we should just on the bandwagon? Or join the lemmings, as the case may be...

NIce synopsis Loz, just a little weak on specifics.
Yes, we should always invest in cutting edge technology if not to understand it all and the pitfalls from the get-go, at least so we don't have to pay trillions to license the technology. Scaling up, where are we going to get all of this hydrogen? Water is "unlimited" at the moment in wet countries and our oceans - but if we start converting it into electricity, where will that leave us in my grandchildren's old age? Not enough specifics to reassure - or to scare!

@Guzmanchinky: You say "first world nations should pool their knowledge and then share".
That ain't the capitalist way, dude.
(More's the pity).

Predicting twenty years success is away is what engineers say when they have no idea how to make the therory practical.

Fusion reactors of the ITER design would be operating long after climate change is past the point of no return,and have so many intractable problems they will never be able to generate power economically. https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/ The Aussie concept seems to have much greater potential.