> Since commercially competitive fusion power is already known not to be possible
I missed that law of physics which says commercial fusion power is impossible.
You also somehow missed the word "competitive".
Massively subsidized commercial (I should qualify, here, hot-neutron) fusion power seems technically possible, and could even happen, given enough corruption. But total cost to the public will necessarily be overwhelmingly more than long mature (by then) alternatives.
It starts out many tens of $billions in the hole, before the first watt-hour comes out. And taxpayers are already paying for that, today.
Okay, the word you’re looking for is “feasible,” not “possible.” There is no law of physics that says it’s not possible to be commercially competitive, without subsidies or whatever. Words have meaning, and hyperbole should not be rewarded.
Feasible and possible are, in this instance, identical. We are out of the domain of physics, and in the domain of economics. Physics does not get exclusive claim to the word "possible".
Mealy-mouthed wishy-washiness should not be rewarded.
The same process occurs anywhere billions of public dollars/euros are involved, and it is not easy to track what they are supposed to buy, or how quickly results should be expected.
Since commercially competitive fusion power is already known not to be possible, no actually-useful result need ever be achieved. The longer it takes to get to the ultimate failure, the better it is for everybody actually involved. Taxpayers excepted, of course.