You have achieve breakeven more broadly -- over the entire pulse, or over the electricity you pull from the grid, or perhaps most properly, including all of the material and labor costs as compared to just taking heat from the fusion reactor in the sky with wind turbines and solar collectors.<p>As for the simulation of bombs vs power, I think it depends on who you ask; scientists or DOE project managers?<p>It's interesting, after having left a PhD program in plasma physics (for fusion power,) I have a very different sense of the commercially plausible. All we're really using the fusion for is to create heat, and there are many ways to get heat inexpensively (solar, geothermal, coal, natural gas) that don't involve temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees, that don't require superconducting coils, liquid helium cooling systems, ultra-high precision machined tungsten tiles, structural materials that are vaguely defined, completely unsourced, untested at the correct neutron fluxes, and rely upon rare earth elements, liquid lithium systems from which we're supposed to do tritium recovery (lithium is really reactive, tritium bubbles up and is explosive and diffuses through walls and embrittles them), liquid lithium <i>walls</i> on the inside of the chamber; high vacuum vacuum pumps, giant particle beams and incredibly non-linear and poorly understood science. You're comparing that to coal and mirrors and holes drilled in the ground and wind, all of which ultimately go into some kind of turbine (which is half or most of the expense!) The benefit of fusion just doesn't seem worth it for anything other than military applications or interstellar spacecraft. And really, we've got a lot to worry about before then...