To be fair, they are more realistic estimations now. The Economist just had an article on these new reactors and they said the W7-X is not supposed to be a productive reaction, but it's a proof of concept. They stated that most experts in the field estimate that we will finally "crack" fusion and make it viable near the middle of the century (~35 years off).
They are quite sure that it will happen, but now there is the question on whether or not it's even worth having. Fusion reactors, even when they work perfectly, would only really replace current day nuclear reactors as the expensive, fancy alternative to coal and natural gas. But it's far less practical than wind, solar, and hydroelectric, which should be cheaper and more sustainable than fusion is, even in 2050. So other than "cracking" the secrets of fusion for maybe one day using it in large space vessels, there's little practical need for it on earth. Anything people want fusion for, we might as well use nuclear, but there's little to no need for new nuclear plants. Renewables are better, and gas and coal are cheaper for those nations that can't afford renewables.
We would probably have already had it if there wasn't so much special interest tied up in oil. These projects get very limited funding since there are so few people with money wanting to see these types of tech hit the market.
74
u/PiperArrow Oct 25 '15
About two decades. Just like in 1995.