NIF was never made to generate power. NIF uses lasers which are less efficient, but were cheaper to build. We have better lasers. What is important about NIF's

NIF was never made to generate power. NIF uses lasers which are less efficient, but were cheaper to build. We have better lasers. What is important about NIF's result is that they demonstrated 'burning' plasma. The yield might be increased by adding more fuel. The author claims that cryogenic targets will always be too expensive. Why should they be? Mass production has brought down the cost of precision devices like CD drives and hard drives. Why should it be so difficult to do this for fancy ice? They claim cryogenic targets won't stand up to the heat in a power plant like environment. They don't need to for very long. If the pellets are shot into the chamber, the time they spend exposed to residual heat from the walls can be very short. Their entire discussion of the economics of ICF power is superficial. There is a range of conditions in which ICF power may be profitable.[0] Repetition rates of kilohertz as claimed are unnecessary. [0]https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2020.0053 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2020.005...