This is step 1 of very, very many steps before we get near to producing useful power from fusion. Not that you would know this from the breathless media reportage. It will still be decades before it comes to fruition, even if everything goes to plan.
Meanwhile, we continue to burn huge quantities of gas and other fossil fuels instead of using existing and proven fission technology to produce our energy. Safety isn't an issue with modern fission designs, the waste is less of an issue than the anti-Nuke crowd would have you believe, proliferation an absolute non-starter and it is only over-regulation which has led to sky-rocketing costs. Despite this, I'd argue that the cost issue is worth bearing if we're going to keep climate change in check.
I don't disagree with the efforts being made to develop fusion technology, incidentally, I just think we should go all-in with fission now. Alongside build out of renewables, of course, and continued development of energy storage technology.
We're in the middle of a cold snap here in the UK. Not super cold as in some countries, but cold enough that we're burning a lot of gas to stay warm and produce electricity - due to the weather conditions, generation from wind is very low at present. I'd be a lot happier if the baseload was provided by fission rather than gas, that's for sure. It would require a massive investment in power fission power stations, renewables and, as most UK housing is heated by gas, a massive retro-fit of housing with better insulation and heatpumps, but in the longer-term, it would be better for everyone, both as a climate mitigation and leaving us less at the mercy of the market for gas.