The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

[LP]

Nuclear power is certainly part of the future energy mix for those countries where it is an established industry.  It's simply too late and too expensive to be a viable option for our future energy needs unless fusion becomes a realistic proposition.

So writing "unless fusion becomes a realistic proposition" suggests you're happy with a technology that will cost at least an order of magnitude more than fission, because you wrote "too expensive" for fission and "too late", so did you mean "too dangerous"?

Fusion will be more expensive and much much later but it's OK as a realistic proposition, the logic seems inconsistent?