[londons_explore]

The whole "electrical energy directly so no steam generators necessary" part of the discussion is fairly irrelevant.

Steam generators might have fairly low efficiency, but if hydrogen fusion works at all it'll use so little fuel and have such a low marginal cost that we can just do more of it to make up for any efficiency losses.

[DennisP]

It's not so much about efficiency as capital cost.

[londons_explore]

Except steam generators are pretty cheap - they're off the shelf, and will be a drop in the ocean compared to the total costs of the first fusion plants.

[DennisP]

Well, that depends. ITER is tens of billions. The most expensive part of this reactor would probably be the petawatt laser, which is tens of millions for one-off experimental devices. A turbine and generator is about a million dollars per megawatt, so it could be a significant percentage of total reactor cost, especially in mass production.

[steve19]

The waste heat from the inefficieny is an environmental issue if cooling with sea, lake or river water.

The article talks about the advantage of not needing steam cooling apparatus. The stations could be located in urban areas.