When I hear stuff like this: "and for the first time on earth you will make more power out than in from a fusion plasma" I immediately become suspicious, because the energy required to sustain the fusion is typically only a fraction of the power needed to run the entire plant. For example, JET had a QPlasma of 0.67, which means they produced 67% of the energy needed to sustain fusion. Sounds like they got pretty close to break-even!
From the JET wikipedia page: JET set the record for the closest approach to scientific breakeven, reaching Q = 0.67 in 1997, producing 16 MW of fusion power while injecting 24 MW of thermal power to heat the fuel.
But at the bottom of the page: JET's power requirements during the plasma pulse are around 500 MW with peak in excess of 1000 MW.
That's because they're proudly stating their QPlasma while omitting the QTotal, which appears to be the norm in the industry. And even these numbers don't consider any losses from converting the heat from the plasma into electricity.
This video explains it better than I ever could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... The reason ITER won't generate any electricity despite having a QPlasma of 10 is because the QTotal will be about 0.57. It's a tremendous achievement, and one that gets us close to break-even, but not enough to generate any power. And yet QPlasma is the only number ever reported.
I'm a fan of fusion energy and I hope we eventually achieve it, but anyone who only reports QPlasma and omits QTotal is trying to deceive you.