Well, making deuterium is not really a good idea. Too inefficient, on Earth at least. We have naturally occurring deuterium in our oceans. A lot of visions in the future depict massive off-shore distilleries that harvest deuterium for the purpose of creating fusion. Also, the moon has a high abundance of tritium, or hydrogen-3, in its soil. Tritium is like deuterium but instead it has two extra neutrons, not one.
The fusion reaction most accessible to us at this time is a deuterium-tritium reaction, which is why these two harvesting methods are so often seen. This reaction releases about 20 mega electron-volts, which is about one-tenth of the energy released in the nuclear fission of a uranium isotope. Doesn't sound so impressive knowing its less than a Hiroshima bomb, but deuterium and tritium are tons more common than uranium.
And yes, Flarespire, we are actively working on sustainable fusion as a power source. The largest barrier as far as I know is the physical capacity for it. Fusing atoms produces tons of energy, even if you fuse literally only a few atoms. You see, with current nuclear power, we don't actively fissile radioactive matter in the same sense as a nuclear bomb detonation. It's more like the natural radioactive bleed that we are leeching power from. In the case of fusion, it'd be much more like a fusion bomb detonating, something akin to the natural process that keeps the sun shining. Electromagnetic suspension of the atoms to be fused is the only viable way we know of to safely handle the reaction. That in itself takes lots of energy.