You don't give a real foundation impetus to 'stop' fusion research other than the perception not making enough progress in general terms, and that the money could be used on renewables.
It's a problematic argument because 'a few billion' is a very, very small amount of investment for an energy potentially which could yield significant results, even decades away.
It maybe a 80 year-long project, even then, it would be worth it.
Renewables are not suffering from money otherwise allocated to Fusion.
I think if you gave some very specific arguments as to why some investment will not work - even as an experimental vehicle - that would lend more credibility to your argument, but then you'd also have to have that view corroborated in some way aka 'this experiment does not materially advance science, and they know it, here is the evidence or logic'.
[1] https://progressive.org/op-eds/let-cut-our-losses-on-fusion-...
He said so somewhere else. I would assume:
batterie, electrolyse, fuel cells, more flexible energy grid, solar panel as light weight foil ... all that works already today and can be greatly improved.
Fusion is awesome. And we can greatly benefit from it, someday. But to me it sounds like scam if it is advertised as the energy solution. Not when we are still at the stage of basic research (except for bombs).
Till then I would rely on the very big working fusion reactor we have: the sun.
It can’t be, it was first published in the Progressive.
It comes from my scientific knowledge of the field and is my factual description of what I personally observed, working on-and-off in both magnetic and inertial fusion for many years. My motivation is not anti-scientific but in defense of real science that is not getting done because of the billions wasted on fake energy projects.