You don't get them cheaper by never building them; the energy density of fusion is far higher than fission and doesn't have any danger of runaway chain reactions.
The batteries in Tesla cars use neither metallic lithium nor lithium hydride.
There's a wide variety of storage options for renewable energy with varying cost and efficiency characteristics. The ultimate solution will likely be some combination of these, along with overprovisioning, dispatchable demand, and transmission.
Not having nuclear meltdowns, and taking advantage of a reaction which produces significantly higher energy output aren't advantages? Welcome to opposite land.
Tinkerbell engineering which has increased confinement time during its period of research faster than Moores law increased transistors on a chip.
It's not like we haven't achieved nuclear fusion from MCF. We have. So maybe you are trying hard to believe it's not possible when already proven.
Energy that is too difficult and expensive to capture is useless. You might as well argue for power from H-bombs. They concentrate energy even more densely than a Tokamak.
What matters most, always, is cost. Things that cost more lose. Renewables, here, win.
Fusion reactors make nuclear power plants marginally smaller.
Dispatch and transmission costs are still a thing.