I don't think people truly understand the gap from "net-positive fusion is technically possible" to "fusion plants are real and have an ROI competitive with fos

I don't think people truly understand the gap from "net-positive fusion is technically possible" to "fusion plants are real and have an ROI competitive with fossil fuels". Seems like we're getting close to step 1 (exciting) but that's really just the beginning if fusion is actually going to live up to the hype as the savior energy source. We need to make it politically and economically viable, solve the mineral supply chain and construction cost issues, mobilize existing industrial resources towards rapidly build out fusion plants, concurrently with improvements to the grid and battery systems, while electrify everything. And it has to happen tomorrow. But consider that we already have several viable non-fossil-fuel energy technologies that _could_ power our civilization but don't. It's worth reflecting on why. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and nuclear fission are already established energy sources at a certain scale. Yet physical limits, politics, and economic realities prevent us from fully deploying them at the scale required. To wit, none of them have made a dent in the still-increasing global fossil fuel consumption. "Renewables" are just added on top in the pursuit of additional growth, with fossil carbon still the core engine. It's not enough to make fusion work technically. It has to out-compete oil, gas and coal in the market to such an extent that it incentivizes rapid electrification - we have plenty of examples of once-promising energy technology that have failed to deliver at this scale. Honest question for the nuclear fusion hopefuls - why do you think fusion will be different?