So you mean to say that there is no practical reason for fusion power to exist for as long as you ignore the long term consequences of what you're doing?
What are the consequences you are talking about?
We are not talking about some absurd 300000 year storage facility build into the earths core. That is not needed.
Guaranteeing something for 100 years is far easier then for 300000 years. And it can be easily monitored, if one location for some reason is a an issue after 100 years, just move it to another location.
In general, fission is very safe and next generation fission plants in development are incredibly safe. To a point where you have to really be Micheal Bay to come up with a scenario where radiation is escaping the exclusion zone.
Germany does not have a safety problem, they have a culture problem. This is driven by a 70s anti-nuclear war agenda that basically makes civil nuclear plant = nuclear weapon argument. I have lived in Berlin and the amount of anti-nuclear nonsense you see there is amazing. Anti-nuclear foot mats are common.
Fusion is not a practical viable option in the next 2 decades likely more.
You can right now go to South Korea and order 10 1GWh nuclear plants for the next decade and probably much more. Germany could have started built nuclear 2 decades ago and they would be as or more carbon free then they are now.
Next generation fission plants are going threw regulatory process in a number of places and I am not informed on China. Canada is your best bet for a internationally recognized regulator to license an GenIV plant. The US is cooperating with Canada and hopefully will issue dual-licenses.
Most of these companies have a hard time getting money, the process could speed up if other countries really invested in this tech.
See the current state here:
https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/pre-li...
The furthest along are Terrestrial Energy with a Molten Salt fast reactor. They have been in 'Phase 2' for a few almost 4 years now and should finish that relatively soon. This is the furthest along any non-research GenIV design has ever come as far as I know.
Hopefully by the end of this decade we will see some actually operating.
Technology wise this could have been done long ago, but the Canadian regulator is really the first to be so forward thinking. In the US non of this would have really been possible.
On the plus side, it wouldn't be very radioactive, not like a nuke meltdown. Mostly molten and on fire.
"Acute inhalation toxicopathology of lithium combustion aerosols in rats", A.H.Rebar, B.J.Greenspan, M.D.Allen
"Male and female F344/Lov rats were exposed to aerosols produced by burning lithium metal under conditions designed to simulate a fire in the containment building of a fusion reactor. ... 14-day LC50 values ... were 940 mg/m^3 ... necrotizing laryngitis and ulcerative rhinitis"
Fusion fuel cost over the long term is likely more expensive then a fission fast breeder (not to mention a potential of thorium thermal breeder).
Is a fusion reactor going to be cheaper to build then a advanced fission reactor? Not from anything know so far. Advanced fission concept are viable with pretty normal tubes pretty industrial steels or at most advanced aerospace materials. Any fission reactors actually consider would have waste more complex and expensive parts.
The nuclear waste argument is sometimes made in favor of fusion but with the right kind of fission reactor this problem and issue that has very viable practical solutions and storage for a few hundred years is viable.
Its really cool science but don't wait for fusion to solve any of our practical energy problems.
Maybe at some point fusion can build really small making electricity directly (Aneutronic fusion). Then it would actually be relevant. I would prefer fusion research to focus on that problem, rather then trying to build an oversized power-plant style fusion.