In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes

snip
These are probably totally impractical but the point is that throwing
money at one way of doing it hasn't worked: we need tp literally dream
up another, and a bloke in a garden sipping a cup of tea is as likely
to do that as 1000 scientists and engineers in a research lab.

You mean di-lithium crystals are not just around the corner?

Once you HAVE a viable methodology, well then yes, DEVELOPING it is
worth spending billions on

And THAT technology is nuclear fission: we know HOW to build reactors
that work. WE want better safer cheaper and cleaner reactors.

OK. I thought we had spent all we needed there. The problem seemed to be
in persuading commercial generators to invest their shareholders money.
Maybe we should build our own and undercut coal and gas?

So I say spend millions on a few scientist to dream up a way to make
fusion work, but spend the billions on new fission reactor design and
big engineering teams to handle it, because that WILL produce results.

Is there a better way of doing it? I note your comments about excessive
safety regulation but what could realistically be changed to save
significant sums without Joe public running for the horizon?

--
Tim Lamb