And there are at least two things that stand out for me, the first is that he goes out of his way to craft a narrative that is negative, and the second he doesn't mention the half dozen or so fusion efforts that are on going beside the NIF and ITER projects.
The interesting thing about the narrative is that it takes 'positive' things and puts them in a negative context. For example it takes power to run a fusion reactor, and while the reactor can generate that power it lowers the net output. At the same time, if there is a problem and the reactor turns off, and there is no 'cool down' problem like there is in a fission reactor. No steaming pile of intermediate fission products decaying to generate way too much heat long after you turned the off switch to off. You can portray that as "gee it has to waste a huge chunk of energy just keeping itself running." but that seems trivial given that things like cars have the same issue. Part of the engine power goes into run the fuel pump, or the alternator.
This sort of thing recurs in the article and is perhaps most egregious in characterizing the neutron flux as a proliferation hazard. While it is absolutely true you could design a fusion reactor whose purpose was to create fissile material for bombs, that design would look nothing like a power reactor, nor could you easily (maybe even possibly), actually 'convert' a design that had been built and deployed to generate power into one that could create fissile material. So what is the goal of combining the 'facts' that high neutron fluxes of low energy neutrons can weaponize U238, and that fusion power generation can generate high neutron fluxes, without also explaining that a fusion reactor designed to make power couldn't possibly be co-opted to make bombs? Why leave the inconvenient fact off unless you're attempting to mislead the reader? And what is the point of misleading them?
And that really makes me wonder, what exactly is Dr. Jassby trying to say here? I could completely understand an article that says "Hey, while fusion has some desirable properties, it is going to be expensive, and from where I sit it is going to be more expensive than the power it generates is worth." That is a perfectly reasonable discussion to have and one that should be had with people looking at building fusion devices.
It also makes me wonder why he doesn't mention some of the other groups who are designing and building much simpler and perhaps more efficient systems (in terms of net energy production). Does he not keep up with the field or does he omit them because they don't add to the generally negative tone? All in all this article left me with more questions than insights.