The theoretical problem with fusion energy isn't neutron activation; if you could generate electricity you could easily amortize the cost of disposal of any induced radioactivity over the lifetime of the plan. But no known projected fusion reactor is anywhere close to even being financial viable with todays technology. Iter won't demonstrate actual D-T fusion until 2035 and it is too small to project what the economics of a takomak power plant would look like.

To make fusion viable you have to generate a substantial surplus of power that can be converted into usable energy. Nothing in that video touches on that subject at all. The most he can say is that it is possible D-He3 can reach scientific breakeven, which of course, is no where close to net power generation.

It is strange to see claims about Q > 10 using D-T fusion being possible and then immediately pivot to talking about being excited about Q > 1 using D-He3. If you can build a fusion reactor that could produce Q > 10 why would you bother pursuing Q > 1? The 'benefits' of direct electrical generation from D-He3 are not relevant if you can't even produce net positive energy in the first place. Electrical generation is a solved problem; if you can produce net energy you can produce heat that can power a turbine.

If the most you can do is talk about how Q > 1 is possible it seems unlikely you are going to start producing electricity any time soon.