YES, good comment man. The video got a lot either outright wrong, or was at least very misleading. Like you said, the "more energy out than in" is ONLY when looking just at the energy of the laser pulse, and the energy evoked. It does not include the energy required to construct all of the facility and apparatus, nor the energy required to make the tritium (tritium is not naturally occurring, it is a byproduct of fission reactors, and is not a hugely abundant resource, we barely have enough to run the experiments we want.) It is also looking at the raw energy out. This is not useful electricity. Even if we were able to scale this process up, and the energy balance was such that the total energy cost was less than was released by the reaction, that still has to be captured, probably by heating water, to turn a turbine, to generate electricity, and that has an efficiency loss, every step of conversion from one form of energy to another does. And that's assuming we could use this same process to create a sustained reaction that can be captured by water (or some other method of making electricity. And all of that is COMPLETELY ignoring the financial costs. Fission power plants are currently not being built in the US in any significant amount, and it's entirely because it's too expensive and has too long a "time to profitability". It was too expensive 5 years ago before interest rates started going up, and it's WAY too expensive now. We are still a LOOOOOOOONG LONG way off from viable civil fusion power.

Our portfolio company Rwazi, provides Global 1000 companies with rich, reliable market data to help expand their businesses in Africa’s fast-growing consumer market. You can learn more about Rwazi and how they are revolutionizing market intelligence on a global scale, here: www.av.vc/blog/one-startup-to-know-rwazi.