YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[sketch]

Unless someone cracks cold fusion then there is a finite amount of energy and sorry but people will have to take a blow when it comes to the amount of power they use.

The fact that many live in apartment blocks in the US almost makes it easier in some ways than in other places and tbf we will all probably be fuc*ed when the gas hydrates go up anyway...

In the UK the massive rise in fuel prices should hopefully lead people to look for more green alternatives but the point is to respond to shortages and price rises before they reach the point where so many are in fuel poverty.

 

[mheslep]

Unless someone cracks cold fusion then there is a finite amount of energy and sorry but people will have to take a blow when it comes to the amount of power they use. ...

A blow? Unlikely.

 

[Topher925]

Sharing appliances and micro generation is all well and good initially on paper but people aren't willing to put up with the cost or tolerate the inconvenience. Between nuclear, solar, and wind, the entire planet could have a carbon free existence. There are currently no major technical barriers that say we can't. The reason we don't is because the economics and logistics don't make sense.

People think nuclear is too dangerous and its a big financial risk to build a plant. Plus we have a limited supply of Uranium and for what ever reason Thorium fueled reactors aren't being built. Solar is nice except you can't farm it where the demand is and its too economically and resource intensive to transport it great distances. Wind is great, especially off-shore, but people would rather accept the wrath of climate change than see a wind farm on their way to work in the morning. The cost of energy storage (be flywheel, hydraulic, or w/e) is very high and is also very necessary for non-baseload energy sources.

 

[mheslep]

Sharing appliances and micro generation is all well and good initially on paper but people aren't willing to put up with the cost or tolerate the inconvenience. Between nuclear, solar, and wind, the entire planet could have a carbon free existence. There are currently no major technical barriers that say we can't. The reason we don't is because the economics and logistics don't make sense.

People think nuclear is too dangerous and its a big financial risk to build a plant. Plus we have a limited supply of Uranium and for what ever reason Thorium fueled reactors aren't being built. Solar is nice except you can't farm it where the demand is and its too economically and resource intensive to transport it great distances. Wind is great, especially off-shore, but people would rather accept the wrath of climate change than see a wind farm on their way to work in the morning. The cost of energy storage (be flywheel, hydraulic, or w/e) is very high and is also very necessary for non-baseload energy sources.

What do you favor as a replacement for liquid fossil fuels, that make economic and logistical sense?

 

[russ_watters]

I know it's late but since you replied recently...

Groups of houses or apartments to share high power appliances such as vacuum cleaners, tumble driers, fridges and freezers etc.

How would that help any? Sharing a vacuum cleaner or drier doesn't make you vacuum less or dry your clothes less, so it doesn't decrease the amount of energy you use.

More internal electrics to run on 12v, with the power supplied via small windmills and solar arrays.

What does running at 12V have to do with anything? It won't decrease the power used...

Larger windmills to store higher voltage using capacitors or flywheels to store energy for use in the higher-powered equipment.

Windmills don't store anything and voltage isn't something that is stored.

Simple really.

I'm sorry, but that post reads mosly like gibberish.

 

[russ_watters]

I see lots of suggestions that fit with sketch's ideas above, things that are all within our current level of technology. While these are technically feasible, I think we need to be realistic as to what is politically acceptable. (That also implies economically viable.) Engineers can develop all sorts of good ideas, but if the market can't sell it, it goes nowhere. Nothing that restricts our growth in living standard is acceptable to the majority of people today, and I don't see that changing.

That's a real toughie. You're right that as a matter of technology most of our energy issues are solvable without too much effort. But political will drives the US to make half its electricity with coal, while expressing fear over global warming. It is irrational and I don't know if/what will change it.

 

[Pkruse]

Yes, Russ. We as engineers need to become very creative to develop new solutions that are politically and ecconomically acceptable. We need to figure out what the people want, and then give it to them. They want an every increasing standard of living with zero impact on the planet. We will never attain that idea, but I believe we can approach it much more closely than we in the past have thought possible. We do know how to resolve all the World's problems from a technical point of view, but rehashing what we already know endlessly with little chance of actually selling it is not productive. We need to find simething that sells.

I have zero hope that fusion will solve our problems within my life time. When I talk about nuclear, I don't even bring fusion up. But our old plants were developed as they were because at the time we needed to make bomb fuel. We could have designed them differently, but we did not for that reason. Some of my friends in the industry talk about all sorts of wonderful ideas whereby they could develop entirely new designs from the ground up that would have zero possibility of a melt down, which would eliminate the problem of storing spent fuel, and which would be many orders of magnitude safer and less expensive than we have today. All this is technology that we could jump on and develop today, but first we need to develop the political will with funding that follows. It would be great if some of those working along these lines would post their ideas here, where we could develop a critical mass of thinking to stimulate further development, but they keep to themselves because their ideas are potentially very profitable and they don't want anyone to steal their ideas.

I myself work for a company that would fire me if I posted proprietory material here. So I'm one that is limited in that same way. But I'm seeing much more funding cut loose to develop these ideas, some of which will change the whole tone of this thread if we repeat it ten years from now. Between the various parties seeking new green technology, more than a billion dollars of research money is being spent in this direction. Some of it is government money, but much of it is private venture capital. When you see private sources funding research, you know it has at least a good probability of becoming productive and profitable--ideas that we can actually sell and the people will use.

 

[Topher925]

What do you favor as a replacement for liquid fossil fuels, that make economic and logistical sense?

I'm in favor of a 100% solar powered hydrogen economy. But since we have to live in the real world a combination of nuclear and solar (but mostly nuclear) is the best bet for the near term. I think 20 years from now hydrogen fueled plug-in hybrids will become the staple for transportation with the source of hydrogen coming from high temperature electrolysis, solar thermochemical hydrogen generation, and natural gas.

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting read concerning the economics of renewable energy: "Why the Clean Tech Boom Went Bust".
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2012/01/ff_solyndra/

I thought that the first photo might be photoshopped, but if one searches Google images for "wind turbine fire", one fines some numerous images of wind turbines on fire.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What do you favor as a replacement for liquid fossil fuels, that make economic and logistical sense?

If we can get artificial photosynthesis to operate on an economically viable industrial scale we could produce carbon-neutral oil by combining carbon from CO2 with hydrogen from water. This would have the advantage of not requiring a large retooling of our existing oil-based infrastructure.

 

[mheslep]

Yes I've been following some of the efforts: inorganic w/ Lewis (CalTech) and Nocera (MIT); biologic w/ Joule Unlimited and Venter. Lewis has already identified materials efficient and cheap but not robust to the corrosive environment of hydrolysis. Nature deals w/ the same problem by continually rebuilding the photoplasts, if at some energy cost.

For this reason I favor the biologic solution from Joule w/ its direct hydrocarbon engineered organism. Their approach eliminates the harvest and lipid conversion step (direct conversion), eliminates the 'gunk' build up associated with algae that has crashed some prototype systems, eliminates biomass feed stock transport problems, eliminates the fresh water resource problem (at least 19 mbbl/day) associated with all other biofuel efforts. Joule claims they can do 20,000 gallons/acre-year of hydrocarbon in a peer reviewed journal. They rely on bio-solar enclosures which has proved too expensive in the past, so they have that hill to climb.* If they succeed, then 7 million acres replaces all US oil imports, 15 million replaces all US oil period. That's a fraction of the land dedicated to just US corn ethanol in 2011.

*For instance, if the cost target is $2/gal, then they have to build an acre of enclosures, operate, and pay land taxes off $40,000/acre/year. If the cost of the enclosure is only $2/sq ft then an acre of enclosure costs $86K. Of course farmers make a living off $1000/acre/year, but they don't have to cover the dirt with plexiglass.

PS: The above is, I think, the best approach for liquid fuels. I still favor electrified, battery based, transportation over combustion and its inevitable byproducts whenever possible.

 

[turbo]

My wife and I are "fixing" the energy crisis in our own way. We burn properly seasoned wood in an efficient steel, fire-brick lined stove. I have never had to clean the chimney, because the hot fires strip out all the tar and creosote.

This weekend, we are replacing the last two problematic windows with brand-new double-hung windows with vinyl frames and IR-reflective glass. Winter is a good time to do such replacements, since the companies that do that sort of work are always looking for ways to keep their employees busy in the slack season.

My wife and I bought this place 6 years ago and had the oil tank filled because we didn't have a decent supply of seasoned hardwood at the time. We still have over 1/4 of that tank of oil, and I have been nursing it along with 911 to avoid sludge. We are using the furnace on cold nights (especially when I'm not feeling well, which is frequently recently) trying to draw down that tank. Eventually, I'll order maybe 100 gallons of oil, and who knows how long that will last...

 

[mheslep]

My wife and I are "fixing" the energy crisis in our own way. We burn properly seasoned wood in an efficient steel, fire-brick lined stove. I have never had to clean the chimney, because the hot fires strip out all the tar and creosote.

This weekend, we are replacing the last two problematic windows with brand-new double-hung windows with vinyl frames and IR-reflective glass. Winter is a good time to do such replacements, since the companies that do that sort of work are always looking for ways to keep their employees busy in the slack season.

My wife and I bought this place 6 years ago and had the oil tank filled because we didn't have a decent supply of seasoned hardwood at the time. We still have over 1/4 of that tank of oil, and I have been nursing it along with 911 to avoid sludge. We are using the furnace on cold nights (especially when I'm not feeling well, which is frequently recently) trying to draw down that tank. Eventually, I'll order maybe 100 gallons of oil, and who knows how long that will last...

What kind of wall construction/insulation do you have? Any upgrades planned? I've upgraded my windows too, and air sealed the attic, but I can't find away to easily upgrade 2x4 framed w/ cedar shingle walls to the new super insulated design (double wall or 2x6). Might as well knock the place down first. Meanwhile an IR temperature gun shows a lot cold temps on those walls.

 

[turbo]

What kind of wall construction/insulation do you have? Any upgrades planned? I've upgraded my windows too, and air sealed the attic, but I can't find away to easily upgrade 2x4 framed w/ cedar shingle walls to the new super insulated design (double wall or 2x6). Might as well knock the place down first. Meanwhile an IR temperature gun shows a lot cold temps on those walls.

We live in a house made of ~6" poplar logs. We added 1" of foam insulation to the roof before installing a metal roof.

Sometimes, it would be nice to have the place a little bit warmer in the winter without stoking the stove, but adding studs and insulation to the outer walls would destroy the appearance of the place. As it is, I have to be careful not to stoke the stove when the outside temperature is freezing or higher, because it gets really hot in here. Extra insulation would require us to buy a much smaller wood-stove to avoid getting roasted out.

I enjoy splitting, stacking and seasoning hardwood that has only sequestered carbon for maybe 40 years instead of burning #2 heating oil (~$3.60/gallon right now). I could cut the wood off our 10 acres, but I prefer to buy the wood from my niece's husband, who runs a bulk-firewood operation in the spring/summer. That saves me a lot of work and risk. My footing is not so great after I had a stroke, so running a screaming chainsaw on steep side-hills (about the only terrain on our property) is not an attractive option.

 

[mheslep]

As it is, I have to be careful not to stoke the stove when the outside temperature is freezing or higher, because it gets really hot in here. Extra insulation would require us to buy a much smaller wood-stove to avoid getting roasted out.

You might consider an HRV for that problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation
Sealed up homes still need to turn the air over, and I expect you'll get a more even room temp as a benefit. Not sure how much duct work you'd need to add.

 

[turbo]

The only duct-work we have is connected to the oil furnace, and this place is so small that ducting would be overkill. We burn less than 5 cords of seasoned hardwood/year, so our heating energy costs are negligible. As summers have gotten hotter and hotter, we need more air-conditioning, but hopefully the new windows will cut back that cost, too.

My youngest uncle is a (semi-retired) HVAC guy, and he's pretty darned sharp. When he saw these last two problematic windows, he said "Replace them, and they'll pay for themselves in a few years." I know he's right, and shouldn't have waited this long to swap them out, but there always seemed to be other priorities cropping up. Still, replacing drafty old windows pays more than keeping money in savings accounts.

 

[Artus]

It's official now. We have passed the Peak Oil and there is not evident solution:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/01/nature-journal-study-peak-oil/

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's official now. We have passed the Peak Oil and there is not evident solution:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/01/nature-journal-study-peak-oil/

It is neither "official" nor clear. These arguments have happened before, we should wait until it is clear to conclude or discuss the rationale for the recent conclusions, not take them as fact.

 

[Most Curious]

Lift ALL restrictions on oil and gas production / refining nationwide.

CEASE all exports of energy. To include crude and refined product as well as gas. Possible exception for batteries.

Eliminate trading of ALL futures contracts of energy.

Defund the EPA and scatter those responsible for the outrageous damage they have done!.

Cease all "alternative energy" dreams and subsidies, including tax breaks. All research to be privately funded. I wish them well but see no need to fund their pipe dreams.

Kill all building of hybrid cars which in fact ADD to pollution.

Suspend the clean air act until such time as all job killing, cost increasing provisons are removed.

Eliminate all efficiency standards for things like vehicles, light bulbs, home heating etc.

Remove alcohol contamination from gasoline and bio contamination from diesel fuel.

Give a tax break for construction of new coal fired generating plants and advanced nuclear plants. To aid construction, eliminate income taxes for those working on the projects.

IMMEDIATELY resume nuclear fuel reprocessing for the valuable material otherwise wasted and to reduce the volume of high level waste to be stored.

Build such new electrical transmission lines as necessary. Grant maximum of 14 days for all NIMBY actions and hearings. No more roadblocks to sighting of transmission lines, coal and nuclear plants, refineries and nuclear waste disposal sites to name only a few.

Am I serious?? You better believe I am! Our "energy crisis" has been created by politics. Our current economic funk can also be traced to the treasonous acts of the EPA, DOE and congress to mention only a few of the crimminals involved.

 

[Abraham]

Lift ALL restrictions on oil and gas production / refining nationwide.

CEASE all exports of energy. To include crude and refined product as well as gas. Possible exception for batteries.

Eliminate trading of ALL futures contracts of energy.

Defund the EPA and scatter those responsible for the outrageous damage they have done!.

Cease all "alternative energy" dreams and subsidies, including tax breaks. All research to be privately funded. I wish them well but see no need to fund their pipe dreams.

Kill all building of hybrid cars which in fact ADD to pollution.

Suspend the clean air act until such time as all job killing, cost increasing provisons are removed.

Eliminate all efficiency standards for things like vehicles, light bulbs, home heating etc.

Remove alcohol contamination from gasoline and bio contamination from diesel fuel.

Give a tax break for construction of new coal fired generating plants and advanced nuclear plants. To aid construction, eliminate income taxes for those working on the projects.

IMMEDIATELY resume nuclear fuel reprocessing for the valuable material otherwise wasted and to reduce the volume of high level waste to be stored.

Build such new electrical transmission lines as necessary. Grant maximum of 14 days for all NIMBY actions and hearings. No more roadblocks to sighting of transmission lines, coal and nuclear plants, refineries and nuclear waste disposal sites to name only a few.

Am I serious?? You better believe I am! Our "energy crisis" has been created by politics. Our current economic funk can also be traced to the treasonous acts of the EPA, DOE and congress to mention only a few of the crimminals involved.

Everything will come at the cost of the environment. I don't think eliminating those who oversee the protection of it---however muddled or inefficient these departments are---will help us survive as a species. I'd rather live in the dark and breathe clean air, than live in "modernity" and breathe the poisoned air.

An important question is why we have a looming energy crisis at all. Perhaps we should find an answer to a lifestyle crisis that is clearly driving an energy crisis. Just a thought.

 

[Topher925]

An important question is why we have a looming energy crisis at all. Perhaps we should find an answer to a lifestyle crisis that is clearly driving an energy crisis. Just a thought.

I've thought about this a lot. There was never an energy crisis 200 year ago because people lived different lifestyles and the technology which consumes large amounts of energy hadn't been created yet. Solving the energy crisis is rather simple, just revert back to the lifestyles of Ben Franklin and its problem solved. This would obviously never happen but I think it is a very practical solution.

This of course raises another question; is it really worth doing? Man kinds time on Earth is finite no matter which way you look at it. Is it better for humanity to exist as long as possible, or to achieve as much as possible. Without the consumption of energy and pollution of the planet we would never go to Mars, there would be no LHC, and we would have to give up on our search for a theory of everything.

I think there's a practical solution somewhere there in the middle but there's no telling if we'll ever find it.

 

[mheslep]

There were energy crises hundreds of years ago. People denuded the forests of Europe for fuel and building materials, and were well on the way to doing so in the Americas until Coal came along. In the early 19th century it was said that a man had to travel 50 miles from Boston center to find a tree fell-able for firewood.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This of course raises another question; is it really worth doing? Man kinds time on Earth is finite no matter which way you look at it. Is it better for humanity to exist as long as possible, or to achieve as much as possible. Without the consumption of energy and pollution of the planet we would never go to Mars, there would be no LHC, and we would have to give up on our search for a theory of everything.

I think there's a practical solution somewhere there in the middle but there's no telling if we'll ever find it.

I think the interesting point to think about is if it is possible to build a clean, sustainable, high energy civilisation without going through the dirty, non-sustainable phase. I'm not so sure however we could have done a better job already, we could have converted mainly to nuclear power and mass produced renewables for example.

Inevitably we will have to convert to a clean, sustainable and high energy system. Clean because we don't want to cause any more ecological damage (for practical and aesthetic reasons), sustainable because if not we just delay the problem and high energy because we have to maintain our current level of infrastructure as well as coping with the developing world electrifying.

On the subject of growing levels and ease of renewable power according to this new scientist article the cost of solar panels have quartered in the last four years. This doesn't surprise me as in the UK there's been something of a gold rush for home solar power, a few years ago the only solar panels I saw on buildings were corporate show-offs or university institutions. Now there are solar panelled roofs everywhere, there are probably a few dozen in my small town alone. It doesn't sound like much (and it's not) but the cost is now low enough for the above average wealth family and if they keep coming down soon it will be affordable for the majority of people. Obviously there are problems with solar power like not producing power at night or on a cloudy day but it is a great supplement and an intensive for people to nail the storage problem.

 

[mheslep]

Part of that solar expansion in the UK must be due to the UK's large solar feed-in tariff. The cost of PV panels have dropped by ~half in the developed world over the past four years, but not the installed cost and not the cost per kWh (though they too are falling), especially not in the higher latitudes. London's year round average daily insolation is ~2.7 kWh/M^2, compared to ~7-8 kWh/M^2 in Phoenix. Furthermore London gathers most of that energy during its long summer days, and in the winter collection falls off to nothing, up to 40X less than in the summer, unlike Phoenix. I agree the solution is storage as Ryan says, but currently long term storage is much more cost effective with solar thermal-hot water than PV.

 

[Topher925]

There were energy crises hundreds of years ago. People denuded the forests of Europe for fuel and building materials, and were well on the way to doing so in the Americas until Coal came along. In the early 19th century it was said that a man had to travel 50 miles from Boston center to find a tree fell-able for firewood.

I did not know this. OK, guess there's only one solution then. Massive population reduction of man kind. So who wants to start WWIII?

 

[Topher925]

I think the interesting point to think about is if it is possible to build a clean, sustainable, high energy civilisation without going through the dirty, non-sustainable phase. I'm not so sure however we could have done a better job already, we could have converted mainly to nuclear power and mass produced renewables for example.

I think converting mainly to nuclear and mass producing renewable energy farms is what we should have been doing once we realized the implications of fossil fuels. It would be nice if we could even start doing that now but things seem to be going in the opposite direction. Japan and Germany are planning on completely eliminating nuclear power and replacing it with coal for the short term. I wonder what their plan is if renewable sources don't come to fruition in the next 15 years.

 

[mheslep]

I did not know this. OK, guess there's only one solution then. Massive population reduction of man kind. So who wants to start WWIII?

Which would do what, take the developed world back to 19th century technology and population where the answer was to mow down the natural landscape? I think the best approach is to get the developed world on the same track as the developed: trending down in energy use per head.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...region&tstart=950504400000&tend=1234587600000

I'd also like to see fossil fuel energy use per capita in developed countries, which must be falling even faster.

 

[Jakoeb]

Which would do what, take the developed world back to 19th century technology and population where the answer was to mow down the natural landscape? I think the best approach is to get the developed world on the same track as the developed: trending down in energy use per head.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...region&tstart=950504400000&tend=1234587600000

I'd also like to see fossil fuel energy use per capita in developed countries, which must be falling even faster.

Yeah maybe the WW3 is not a real option here. But the fact is that there's just going to be too many of us in a couple of decades or a century. Sooner or later we're going to have force some kind of population control laws. For example in China, parents are only allowed to have one child. IMO, that's the way to go.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yeah maybe the WW3 is not a real option here. But the fact is that there's just going to be too many of us in a couple of decades or a century. Sooner or later we're going to have force some kind of population control laws. For example in China, parents are only allowed to have one child. IMO, that's the way to go.

I doubt this will be necessary. Population booms and constant growth are a characteristic of developing countries. In undeveloped countries mortality is very high, in developed countries the need for many children, the price of raising children, widespread contraception and (most importantly IMO) equal rights for women.

All that is needed to decrease population growth to near nothing is to establish these things.

 

[mheslep]

...But the fact is that there's just going to be too many of us in a couple of decades or a century. Sooner or later we're going to have force some kind of population control laws. For example in China, parents are only allowed to have one child. IMO, that's the way to go.

I disagree:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...90000000&tend=1298869200000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US

Replacement birth rate is 2.1

 

[Topher925]

Which would do what, take the developed world back to 19th century technology and population where the answer was to mow down the natural landscape? I think the best approach is to get the developed world on the same track as the developed: trending down in energy use per head.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...region&tstart=950504400000&tend=1234587600000

I'd also like to see fossil fuel energy use per capita in developed countries, which must be falling even faster.

I was just joking about the WWIII thing. Obviously that would not be a good solution. But what do you mean by "developed" country? Are you referring to a developed country like France or a developed country like China?

 

[Topher925]

I disagree:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...90000000&tend=1298869200000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US

Replacement birth rate is 2.1

Your graph only accounts for some of the worlds most developed countries, not all of them. Fact is that many researches in the field of sustainability anticipate the world population to be unsustainable around 2030.

 

[mheslep]

I was just joking about the WWIII thing. Obviously that would not be a good solution.

Yes I know, my target was more the often expressed idea that all would be well with energy needs if the world just returned to its 18th-19th century behavior.

But what do you mean by "developed" country? Are you referring to a developed country like France or a developed country like China?

Developed, as in little or no abject poverty - France, not China.

 

[brerabbit]

Set goals, ie:

1. Operating WarExperientialal Fusion Reactor near Hoover Dam grid by 2017 and ITER in France.

2. Ten updated Warm/Iron Fusion Reactors at Main Electrical Grid Nodes in US. 2027.

3. 75% Federal Energy Dept budget and Research Constructed to fund this effort.

4. Refunds to National Debt made if goals met by 2027.

HOW TO SAVE OUR ECONOMY
by Joe Shea
American Reporter Correspondent
Bradenton, Fla.
http://www.american-reporter.com/4,403/458.html ...And like the Internet once did, they can save the American economy - this time for good. Now there is a greater imperative than there has ever been to adopt and fund them: without such a boon, we will become a bankrupt nation, unfathomably deep in debt to China and other trading partners. Those in power have a hard, cold choice: take what the good Lord has given us in these new technologies, and abandon those that have failed and polluted this lovely planet, or die as other civilizations have, in debt, desolation and disgrace. Those are choices that separate the real patriots from the flingers of rhetoric and defenders of the status quo.

Too many people presume that putting the oil industry out of business would be a terrible thing. That's not true. With a new source of electricity that is pretty close to free, hundreds of thousands of small businesses would spring up overnight, both to replicate the technology under license and to develop new applications for it.

In turn, that would stimulate jobs for hundreds of thousands of well-educated engineers and millions of people who will assemble these devices from newly-manufactured parts. Finally, energy-intensive businesses that have gone broke on $3 gas can spring back to life without that burden of cost and maintenance.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Set goals, ie:

Operating Warm Experental Fusion Reactor near Hoover Dam grid by 2017 and ITER in France.

Ten updated Warm/Iron Fusion Reactors at Main Elictrical Grid Nodes in US. 2027.

Somewhat unfortunately this is highly unlikely. By 2017 construction of ITER http://www.iter.org/proj/iterandbeyond. Also ITER is only a step towards commercial fusion, it's meant to be followed up by DEMO that hasn't even started its design phase yet.

Sadly commercial fusion is still years away.