I believe that the issue is that the plasma loses stability and the self-sustaining state is lost.

Think of it like a top that runs on fuel but needs outside intervention to get moving. As long as the top's rotation is stable and has fuel supplied, it can theoretically run forever, but if it loses stability and starts to wobble then it needs an immense outside intervention to retain stability or just tumble until it settles.

Eh? Wasn't that the one where his tentacles had that AI, and the fusion power broke it's control chip so it f-ed with Doc Oc's head? That wasn't his plan, that was the plan derailing. The characters fixed (or tried to fix) it in one of the newer movies, the one that established the Sony Spider-Man stuff as canon to the MCU's multiverse.

Tesla's death ray concept was both scary and crazy awesome-looking, I'll give you that. I can understand why "shiny donut filled with PURE ENERGY" can be mistaken for a Tesla coil, and that it's been revealed Tesla was a Eugenicist rather than the perfect old-fashioned science hero of the Industrial Revolution, but fortunately that and the reputation of the danger of nuclear power are severely overstated.

A fusion torus, essentially, is a wine glass. The plasma is the wine. Sure, it contains ethyl alcohol which is flammable (chefs use it in "au Flambe" dishes") and so people assume that because alcohol burns when you light it on fire to cook fancy food, but if you drop a wine glass, what happens?

It shatters. Except, even better, this wine glass is made with safety glass so that when it shatters, cleanup won't mean sweeping up glass shards and treating cuts. What's a little spilled wine compared to having a house named Wormwood (Chernobyl) burn down? This isn't just a revolution in energy generation, it's a revolution in the safety of energy generation. Hundreds of thousands die every year, mining coal. Tens of thousands have died for oil. Even renewables, while mostly non-fatal, have a higher ratio of deaths per unit of electricity than the "worst" case scenario of a fusion torus. Nobody has died from the worst case failure of a fusion torus, and that worst case failure has happened countless times before we got a stable fusion reaction.

I understand the pessimism on a political level, but if we survive this the way we survived WWII, fusion will mean a cold war of Mutually-Assured Destruction will be unlikely because now the only reason to have nuclear reactors is to produce compounds needed for medical purposes, which means no more meltdowns (such reactors aren't for power generation and thus built to use its' nuclear material in a not-meltdown-able way) thanks to replacing them with fusion.

Now, I know you're thinking this could turn out to not be scalable or even too expensive to operate, like Concorde was to airplanes. Yes, that is a possibility. The good thing is, we've been holding back on redeveloping nuclear power plants because we wanted to at least hear "Oops, guess you were right, fusion is awesome but impractical" from the people trying to get it to work before we made any commitments.

Now we know it is possible. Now, there's no excuse to not upgrade our electrical grids and use other safe nuclear plants like Thorium reactors or 4th Generation reactors (meltdown-proof thanks to a mechanism which relies on gravity to cool down the fuel, not mechanical "failsafes") if fusion really is a pipe dream.

If you doubt that last one, imagine an electromagnet is holding a flange closed while the power plant is powered. The fuel is in a spherical shape, submerged in heavy water that boils from the radiation. Suddenly OH NO there's an earthquake and tsunami and now the power plant is completely unpowered.

The spherical fuel pods not only can power the plant's own systems, if that fails due to complete catastrophe, the flange that is on the bottom of the pipe at a 90-degree bend loses it's electromagnetic fastener... and the spheres all plop into an underground chamber filled with more than enough water to keep them cool and thus prevent them from, you know, literally melting their way towards the center of the earth.

It's not foolproof but unless the lead-lined cooling tank is breached, probability of meltdowns are outside the realm of reasonable doubt. Now think about what fusion offers. Not just "outside the realm of reasonable doubt", it offers no chance of a meltdown, ever.

This isn't a weapon. This is a tool that could have saved the Fallout universe (fusion-powered Corvega cars, but in that world America banned their export and also they exploded in mini-nuclear mushroom clouds when damaged, go figure) from weapons, and it can still help save ours from weapons. The worst this will do is make the use of renewables an undeniable way forward, the best could - if we're lucky - push us permanently into a post-scarcity society.

Smartphones and computers, like the fediverse's instances, still need electricity. Until now, most electricity has needed to be partly powered in blood. Let's change that.

Hell March Intensifies

What we need is robust decentralized multimodal energy production fit for the local area where it is installed and contributing to a well maintained distributed grid with multiple redundancies and sufficient storage so that incidental costs are minimized and uptime is effectively 100%. Energy is a tool and its generation is a category of tools, whining about people developing a better screwdriver rather than only using hammers is counterproductive when we're trying to build a house for as many people as possible that doesn't fucking kill everyone.

This is why it's always decades away. However, I doubt China is being as cavalier about it.

watch it rot in nationalist silos

"ITER includes China, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the United States. Members share costs and experimental results."

That's quite the wide "nationalist silos", no?

Look, I agree that more open = more better, but I think you made it sound a bit as if it's just France (implied) that's gaining from this, where it's really an international effort.