Nuclear Fusion has in some ways struggled in its relationship with nuclear fission. Few standard people in the street would know the difference and some would hear nuclear and assume it was the bearer of toxic waste. In an era of NIMBY, nuclear does not have the best image with the wider population.
The negative impact of this relationship is two-fold: first, whilst scientists think that the issue of heating is unresolvable in fusion they will continue to dismiss hydrogen boron as a fuel source. This is especially true when safety records and output measure from the dirtier, uglier fission power stations are so rosy. Secondly, the cheapness of the proposition, along with the name, does not make for good copy in the world’s press. In some respects, nuclear fission is a victim of its own lack of grandiosity. Although, those involved with the ITER project might have some issues with this idea.
With fusion there is no long term nuclear waste. The bi-product is ionised helium gas, quite similar to the gas that blows up balloons at your children’s birthday parties. The environment impact is much reduced.
With fusion there is no chance of nuclear proliferation, as the mining of plutonium with stop and the increase in power stations in nations with rogue leadership will stop or decrease. The move towards a world without nuclear weapons is possible with fusion.
Power stations producing fusion cannot go into meltdown. There is no chain reaction involved in fusion power. There are continual small bursts of energy that in turn are magnified to bigger bursts of energy. Stop the energy input and you stop the process of fusion.
The size of a fusion reactor is small enough to be stored in your garage. Therefore, this will reduce the impact on the environment of the large power stations and will mean an end to the grid. This means remote areas of poor countries could have electricity with minimal investment. To build a nuclear fission reactor would be a major natural disaster in terms of land claimed by contract but also, in reality, the investment would be too much for most poorer countries.