Heinberg, Fusion Power, and debates

So, while reading Heinberg, I came across his section on Fusion Power. To put it mildly, it seems to me that his opinions on fusion and cold fusion power are detrimental, to say the least. He completely throws away the issue and refers to it basically as "science fiction".

Muller, in Chapter 23, also states his belief that fusion power is a long way off and that we should not be counting on it. He writes that we have always been waiting for twenty years for fusion power to become commercially available, and then it hasn't (since the 1950s). Greenpeace even stated that "Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy".

I think that this is the wrong attitude. The entire purpose of science is to discover new technologies for us and not limit us to the use of current technologies, also known as "renewables". Renewables should be invested in for the time being, (early 21st century), while other funds are put into newer tech. research such as fusion power. If this funding is not put now, we will have ZERO chance of having alternate power sources available by, say 2050. However, by funding such project now we keep the possibility open.

ITER (International Thermonuclear Experiment Reactor) opened in France in 2006. The project is funded by the G8, China, Brazil, and other countries. The plan calls for 10 years of construction, followed by 20 years of research. This is what is needed, so that by 2040 when energy is in much higher demand than it is now, hopefully the project will yield good, useful results. I also don't understand how fusion power is 'dangerous' when compared with current fuels such as fission power and coal. Fusion produces hundreds of times less radiation, no gaseous Co2 and or other exhaust gases.

Sources:

1. Muller, NonSolutions Chapter 23

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

3. ITER, a Brief History of Fusion
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17952-iter-a-brief-history-of-fusion.html