The problem with fusion is not technical (although we've not yet solved the technical challenges, which are considerable) but financial/economical.

Let's assume all the physics are sorted out later today. Now all we need is $100 billion to build a demo plant. Because we live in a real world, it will take 10 years before we can break ground.

Probably 5 more years of construction, testing, etc. So your $100b should start earning a return 15 years from now. If all goes well.

And returns should be pretty good. Assuming no great breakthroughs in storage tech between now and then.

Of course, returns will be seasonal, and mostly at night. We can expect solar to supply daytime demand. (Hey, solar is a form of fusion energy as well!)

So yeah, we need $100 billion now, perhaps more later as costs spiral, theres no prospect of a return anytime soon, actual returns are hard to forecast, and frankly life-span of the asset is hard to predict.

All of which is to say that it's unlikely to be privately funded. Govt maybe. Assuming the project survives multiple govt funding rounds. And, of course, being govt funded, timelines will drag and costs will overrun.

Unless of course, well, China. Cost is no object, experienced at getting major stuff built. Fewer delays. Money no object. But even there, why choose fusion when solar is so cheap? What strategic advantage does it hold?

Betting on fusion today means betting that it gets to production faster than storage. Indeed that it beats storage hy 30 years. And that's some bet to make.