I want to add that experimental reactors used for scientific research might never become net energy positive and that would be fine. Their purpose isn't to generate profit, it's to learn more about the physics, so it will be more valuable for them to be adaptable than efficient.

However, that doesn't mean that you can't take a configuration that has been shown to have potential and make a reactor that is more efficient than adaptable and use that to generate power for the electrical grid.

Basically, they have two different purposes.

but the publications are grossly misleading.

I think you're only referencing the headline, the article itself clearly states what you said

The publications are not misleading, just these headlines.

You'll never believe what they do next!

Scientists RIP stubborn atoms for bad faith energy negotiation policy.

I agree it's good that the article is not hyping up the idea that the world will now definitely be saved by fusion and so we can all therefore go on consuming all the energy we want.

There are still some sloppy things about the article that disappoint me though...

1. They seem to be implying that 500 TW is obviously much larger than 2.1 MJ... but without knowing how long the 500 TW is required for, this comparison is meaningless.

2. They imply that using more power than available from the grid is infeasible, but it evidently isn't as they've done it multiple times - presumably by charging up local energy storage and releasing it quickly. Scaling this up is obviously a challenge though.

3. The weird mix of metric prefixes (mega) and standard numbers (trillions) in a single sentence is a bit triggering - that might just be me though.

Still, from an acorn grows a massive tree.

...and accidentally incinerated its home world, as the supply dependant lunar colony could only look on in horror.

✨The End✨

When they do they should come up with some original quote.

"The power of the sun in the palm of my hand", something like that.

What is with peoples insistence that we only ever use one kind of power generation?

Wind, solar, fusion, fission, hydro, they all have their uses. Why limit yourself like some kind of console fanboy?

*minus the energy needed to make, maintain, and replace solar panels.

I support more solar installations, just calling out it isn't free power.

I think nuclear energy is a great idea in theory, but I have absolutely zero trust in companies handling nuclear waste responsibly. It's not like they have a great track record.

That being said, pretty excited about this if it's as safe as they say.

I believe the general principal is giving such a device “seed energy” to get it started, then just feeding the power it produces back into itself. The only time you’d ever need that solar farm is to get it started.

You could also pump that energy into other fusion reactors to get “unlimited energy” so to speak.

There is a very efficient way to beam solar power from space. It is called light.