And my point is that it's never going to make sense to do fusion to replace any current energy generation method. There's always going to be a better way to spend your money than fusion.

This is inherent to the way fusion is even being developed. It's always assumed that the fusion part is going to be more expensive than the equipment to convert thermal energy to electricity, which is why it makes sense to make it as energy dense as possible, and therefore more cost efficient.

But from that very starting point, it's clear that there will always be better ways to generate electricity than fusion: solar and wind combined with batteries.

We have much more reason to be optimistic about the cost case of extraterrestrial solar than the cost case for fusion.

"But from that very starting point, it's clear that there will always be better ways to generate electricity than fusion: solar and wind combined with batteries."

I am 100% for renewable energies and would not wait for fusion - but I am very hesistant to use the word always here. If there is a breakthrough in handling the plasma - and recent developements indicate that this might be possible - it could make fusion very cheap. So when you have a cheap, compact and reliable energy source - most people would favor it over something unstable that takes a lot of space.