Regrettably , fusion reactors will cost MANY millions of $, sustained plasma generation (at the millions of degrees necessary) were (8 months ago) 2 sec., not even close to self-sustaining, and it's unlikely that's improved much, it took 10 years to get a modest increase in burn time. See for reasonably recent (2016/10) info
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/17/mit-nuclear-fusion-record-marks-latest-step-towards-unlimited-clean-energy
That places any commercially usable system another 30 years off. It's possible Lockheed-Martin will get an operational smaller device in another 10-15 (they'd steal everyone else's thunder, for certain.)
In common with all these systems are the high capital costs. Only large corporations and utilities will be able to afford one- given historic trends, there is zero chance that near-unlimited source of power will be available to us, the trash of the corporate world, at a price a free market would indicate as appropriate. The most powerful good hot fusion power will enable is somewhat reasonable space travel.
There are several alternatives due to roll out as commercial products in the next two years, proof-of-concept and prototyping having been completed- THESE will be what changes the world from the standpoint of energy supply. HF will still be a necessary development.
The calculation of materials cost for solar is always only viewed as capital costs, not ROI on lifetime cost, and use of organic materials and peroskite structures can shrink them an order of magnitude.
Were the truth EVER told in the mass media, as soon as environmental and health burdens are considered, solar was competitive with coal years ago, even when it's not produced with Chinese indentured labor.
Ultimately, though, PV can only reach 60% theorectical output efficiency for the footprint, and it's still NOT dirt cheap. Solar hot water (not CSP) is, but maintenance is something most people don't want to consider.
Wow, people are lazy. Who knew?