> If it actually cost $100B to build then you're never going to break even.
IOW, we're never going to break even. You and I are paying now, and would in any case never get any of the revenue, if in fact any could be had.
But we are supporting the careers and research of plasma fluid dynamics physicists and their students, and a few of them might do other, actually useful, and anyway wholly unpredictable things, later. With a good measure of luck, none of those things will build up to any world-spanning catastrophes the way the steam engine did.
I give it 10% chance of being better than nuclear power in 30 years. That’s worth the investment even if the odds of a solid payoff are low, the upside is significant.
Lower risks should mean fewer NIMBY issues, which means wider adoption. Nuclear advocates miss that if fission played a larger role in energy generation it would also see more major incidents. Which then risks a backlash etc.
IOW, we're never going to break even. You and I are paying now, and would in any case never get any of the revenue, if in fact any could be had.
But we are supporting the careers and research of plasma fluid dynamics physicists and their students, and a few of them might do other, actually useful, and anyway wholly unpredictable things, later. With a good measure of luck, none of those things will build up to any world-spanning catastrophes the way the steam engine did.