How close is nuclear fusion power?

Neither. From TFA: "While the latest experiment still required more energy in than it got out, it is the first suspected to reach the crucial stage of ‘ignition’, which allowed considerably more energy to be produced than ever before, and paves the way for ‘break even’, where the energy in is matched by the energy out." Here [1] is an excellent video by Sabine Hossenfelder about why you should not get too excited about this result. [1] [VIDEO]

It’s true that ITER will not produce net power and that the administrators have misled the public about the difference in Q factors. You can have a reactor which produces more thermal power than you put in to it that is still a net power drain when you factor in the rest of the plant operations to keep it going. All clearly explained in this great video. [VIDEO] There is a real risk that by focusing on the wrong Q factor you sink all your budget in to plants which can never work as a real power plant. Still I am hopeful that ITER will be sufficiently valuable as a research system that we do move closer to commercial fusion power.

According to Sabine Hossenfelder, published numbers are frequently mis-stated on purpose. When you look at frequently reported Q Plasma (or plasma efficiency) we are not that far from it being > 1. However, we should look at Q Total (total efficiency), which is still way below < 1, even in the best plans. [VIDEO] For years, I was hoping fusion is close. After watching Sabine's video, I'm not so optimistic anymore.

Mandatory video by Sabine Hossenfelder: [VIDEO] So they probably are talking again about Q_plasma, not Q_total .

everyone should watch [VIDEO] to put this into perspective. for some reason, all the news articles are extremely misleading. previous output ratio for this fusion method was something like 70%, now it is 150%. it's a useful improvement, but not a major breakthrough. the whole system still consumes 100x more energy than it produces. 100MJ of energy is needed to power the laser. the laser generates only 2MJ of energy that powers fusion. fusion generates 3MJ of output energy. so all the articles are saying "they put 2MJ energy and got 3MJ energy back". no, they put 102MJ and got 3MJ.

The claims on nuclear fission being just around the corner are wildly exaggerated. Sabine Hossenfelder has a great video [1] on this topic. I want fusion to be real too, but focussing on small scale fission and solar is probably a better idea. [1] - [VIDEO]

Funny how this story gets posted after soon after Dr Sabine Hossenfelder's debunking and deflate the fusion power hype - [VIDEO] with a genuine Hans Gruber accent :)

Can anyone tell me if this is a net + like the lay person would understand it or something like the net + qplasma thing often misleadingly used when talking about tokamaks? Sabine Hossenfelders explains here: [VIDEO]