I'm hoping that everyone realized I (and others) were joking. If Lockheed can actually get a 100MW reactor down to the size of a semi-trailer, or even a rail boxcar, then its energy output per volume will be about 2x-4x higher than a grid-scale combustion turbine. To give you a sense of scale, 500 such units would power all of California. Way, way bigger than anything you'd use personally.
Your guess is as good as mine. I don't see any relevant patent listings that provide more clues than what's in the article linked above.
If the electricity is that much cheaper, it will be that much cheaper to charge an EV. Hydrogen will still have a higher cost because distribution is more difficult. It might drive the price down enough to beat gas, but it won't drive it down enough to beat batteries. Sure, a clean and safe hydrogen system is fine, I just don't see it being economically viable even with fusion making electricity even cheaper.
I am an EE and worked on various control systems and designed custom instrumentation. I got to deal with systems as high as 200,000 volts, and 500,000 amps (not at the same time). Lots of weird things happen at those extremes. At these high current levels the magnetic forces often tore really heavy wires off their connections. Spent much of my time with something called Neutral Beam Injection which was one of the many methods used to heat the plasma to light off the fusion reaction (that plus lasers, strong RF and microwave). For the main tokamak energy was stored in 100+ ton flywheels spun up over several minutes with all the energy pulled out within a few seconds to run the pulse for the experiment. Without the mechanical energy storage the lab would dim the lights from NY to Philadelphia. The lab is still operating today but with more smaller experiments to work the physics, the older large machines are decommissioned. The big Tokamak multi national lab, ITER, is now in Cadarache, southern France.
