So you think fusion reactors will be too expansive and hard to extract energy from to be economically competitive with coal?
Then why are people investing huge amounts of money in it?
"Beating coal" is not the goal because we can't burn enough coal to increase human energy consumption without sinking our coastal real estate.
What you have to beat is both current-day sources of carbon neutral energy and also emerging sources. For instance if you drill a hole down a few miles into bedrock you might be able to withdraw heat for a century or more, possible advanced nuclear fuel cycles involving plutonium and thorium, space solar energy, etc.
Much research in fusion energy is driven by national security or pride interests. For instance the laser fusion facilities run by the US let the US develop nuclear weapons without nuclear testing. Projects like ITER are cultural "stretch goals" like the International Space Station; a lot of risk is involved but maybe there is a reward in 20+ years. Some people have always thought they could make an end run to a fusion reactor but so far it has not panned out. That doesn't mean it won't for somebody.
What you have to beat is both current-day sources of carbon neutral energy and also emerging sources. For instance if you drill a hole down a few miles into bedrock you might be able to withdraw heat for a century or more, possible advanced nuclear fuel cycles involving plutonium and thorium, space solar energy, etc.
Much research in fusion energy is driven by national security or pride interests. For instance the laser fusion facilities run by the US let the US develop nuclear weapons without nuclear testing. Projects like ITER are cultural "stretch goals" like the International Space Station; a lot of risk is involved but maybe there is a reward in 20+ years. Some people have always thought they could make an end run to a fusion reactor but so far it has not panned out. That doesn't mean it won't for somebody.