You can assume that they're talking about the total generated. They call this the "scientific gain" whereas the "engineering gain" would include all the inefficiencies of the particle beam injectors that put power into the tokamak, and the inefficiency of the steam turbine that makes electrical power from the fusion heat exhaust, and the auxilliary power to run all the pumps, etc. It's generally thought that the "engineering gain" needs to be at least 5, and the "scientific gain" at least 30, for a working reactor. ITER's supposed to hit scientific gain of something like 10-20, which is close.

The amount of this we can realistically put to use is, always and forever, exactly zero.

The only useful outcome of any of this work is a generation of plasma-fluid physicists with practical experience. Pray we can find them something useful to do when the whole enterprise finally collapses.

You keep making these assertions, failing to back them up with anything other than hand-waving in the direction of entirely unrelated programs. You then respond to requests for citations, or even just an elaboration, with the near-verbatim ‘do your own research.’

Chiefly, how does that further the conversation? More pointedly, why should we listen to you?

Credentialism in this arena is valid, and what I currently see are multiple subject matter experts, albeit with a bias/incentive towards believing in themselves, versus you. Please substantiate your claims, or word them more carefully as to reflect them being conjecture.

Huh, I heard the same (tinfoil) argument about climate change, that all scientist make up the crisis to keep their jobs/funding.

Scientists are not the ones making the big bucks on fusion demonstrator construction. But, obviously, somebody is. Are. Every cent of overrun goes into a pocket. None of it evaporates.