I'm always curious about the 'free energy' claim.
Even if it's not expensive, it won't be 'free', and if it is so perfect that it's free, what happens to the millions that work in the energy field today? I'm not suggesting that issue is in any way a reason to not go forward, just that it's an issue that must be dealt with in the eventuality that 'free' energy becomes reality.
They should hype it as possible 'cheap, efficient, clean energy', never 'free', imo.

Are there any reactors trying to use both methods....magnetic confinement/compression and laser compression combined? It seems like they could use much less powerful (and less power consuming) compression/heating devices if they used both together.

Who said it would be free?

It would be unlimited and therefore approaching a zero-cost, but it won't be free. As the video explains, fusion plants will cost a ridiculous amount of money to build.

But we either do it, or forget about a hi-tech (i.e. energy intensive) future.

I thought the narrator did, but listening again I didn't hear it.
I agree, it's a no brainer that we should try to do it.

Assuming he wasn't just pulling that ten billion dollar gamble number out of his ass then that would be a bargain. The United States has spent upwards of 4 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ten bil is chump change compared to that.

Fusion power has been 30 years for at least the last 30 years, and probably since the 1960s.

This article has a bit more detail on some of the subjects this video covered, and also the 30 year timeframe:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/03/23/nuclear-fusion-reactor-research/#.WCWhnuF97fA

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

My understanding is that the main barrier to achieving fusion sooner is funding. Unlike fission breeder reactors, there are few weapon applications - so military funding from the US doesn't go there.