[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Better to spend time, energy and money developing something that uses the power of the sun directly, cheaply, and efficiently.
What do these people think they will build that will contain the fusion reaction? It will have to be a plant much bigger than current nuclear plants. Also, nuclear plants have controls to regulate the reaction. Just what do these people expect to use to regulate the fusion reaction? On the earth, a fusion reaction is actually an explosion. How do they plan to control the explosion?

[SunkenCiv]

...nuclear plants have controls to regulate the reaction. Just what do these people expect to use to regulate the fusion reaction? On the earth, a fusion reaction is actually an explosion.

Nope. That's like saying, "on Earth, a fission reaction is actually an explosion" because an uncontrolled chain reaction produced a big pile of ash where Hiroshima had been. A fission plant generates electricity by using the regulated nuclear pile to generate heat to run the turbines. In conventional generation, the turbines are turned by steam generated from coal, natural gas, other fuels, as well as falling water, wind, and (occasionally) geothermal sources.

How do they plan to control the explosion?

The reaction will be small, and the electrical generation will be similar to fission plants (steam to turn turbines). There are a handful of different ideas for how to contain the reaction, which will turn out a lot of heat even in a short period of time. The tokamak is the method being attempted in the multinational ITER project (based in Europe), and has been in continuous research for over thirty years. Inertial containment has been worked on for a similar length of time here in the US, and the method of ignition has been giant laser arrays. This topic links to a story about another method, and there's a link to another recent topic about electrostatic confinement.

None of these approaches has demonstrated much at all, much less breakeven or the surplus needed for an electrical plant. But just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be done.

Photovoltaics have been around since the 19th century. During that time they've gone from a percent or so of efficiency to the approximately 15 per cent efficiency of brand new run-of-the-mill cell arrays, all the way up to a bit more than twice that efficiency. That has taken over a century to do. Why waste more money on an approach that, at best, hasn't shown even 50 per cent efficiency and doesn't work at night -- and disregarding the energy used in its manufacturing and money required to maintain hundreds of square miles of arrays required to replace existing generating capacity, conversion of its output to AC for the grid (or of every other electrical use to DC), down time due to windstorms of various kinds, not to mention the need to fight the Kennedys et al, and the enviro-Luddites for every large installation...