The fusion reaction didn't really create more power than it used when you factor in the power to run all the devices required to make it happen, it didn't even reproduce 1% of the power consumed in fact, so there is still a long way to go. If you want a deeper breakdown of this I suggest you watch Anton Petrov's video about this he recently put out. Great channel in general but also a great reality check on this achievement.,(reply>), @ReivecS Yep the media, they probably misinterpret and over exaggerate at least half of all scientific reports. Not surprised one bit.,(reply>), Sorry, you're missing the point - it's the scientists who intentionally misinform even GOVERNMENTS. Well, especially governments - after all public opinion is one thing," but science grants and financial support comes from the governments. You want a proof? Here's ITER operational director literally LYING to US representative <a href=""https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY&amp;t=670s"">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY&amp;t=670s</a><br>How can one not see this as a clear and delibarate misinformation? ITER would not get funding even close to what it's getting if everyone", including public opinion, knew how far away they are from a commercial application. Have you seen ITER spots? They say "clean energy for everyone". They can't know that yet. They don't even know if it's possible to tackle all of the engineering difficulties they have to break even, not to mention produce electricity. It's all very optimistic (that we will somehow make progress in many fields in the meantime). Before I got interested, I thought like most people that ITER's goal is to be able to produce 500 MW - then, when you dive deeper you realise it's not 500 MW "netto energy" but 500 MW without the cost of maintaining temperatures, stability, etc etc.,(reply>), @ribowski Yeah I think you are missing the point. The official written announcement clearly state all this, it is the media that just runs with the soundbites without looking further that causes confusion.,(reply>), Thanks for the additional context, I still think the way they framed the story was good for the average viewer though.,(reply>), ​@Finwolven Oh no no. Hold on a minute. They are not saying "net gain", they also don't  mention Q factor when talking to the public. They purposely are as vague as they can be to NOT tell the truth. If they said "we are happy to anounce that the Q factor we achieved was 0.5" that's ok. Anyone can google what a Q factor is and what it really means. But they dont do that. They say, literally (that's what ITER president of operation said to US Congress / Senate) "we put X amount of energy into the system and we got Y out of it" - and the number Y was higher than number X for that matter in this hearing...  And that is a LIE. It's not a matter of semantics, definitions and nomenclature. Scientists are lying to people. And it's really ugly to watch that