Very nice overview, and yeah it's definitely important to keep in mind that this isn't going to help us get off the planet, it'll just help us go further once we're already up there. Being a bit of a geek about these things myself, I've got to point out one thing you didn't mention: Energy efficiency.
As the fuel efficiency goes up with a higher delta-v, energy efficiency does the opposite; while an exhaust velocity of near light speed is theoretically possible, you'd need to haul a nuclear power plant along for the ride to provide the juice to run the thing. I'm not sure of the exact numbers without looking it up, but the energy requirement increases exponentially with the delta-v, not linearly.
This is why current ion drives are run at a relatively modest delta-v (for that technology at least) of 20.000ish, as this can be achieved by more feasible means like radioisotope generators or even solar cells like on the SMART-1 probe.
So what this advance can do for us with the power options available to us today is probably not a massive increase in thrust, though certainly some will come from the greater efficiency over regular ion thrusters, but a massive increase in lifespan and reliability as it's not continually destroying itself while operating 
We can just hope that power generation will one day allow these drives to truely come into their own and provide both high thrust and massive lifespan, after which we can be off for the stars 
Ohh, and first post too! Such a geek am I it wasn't even in a freespace related topic 
Well, next time... next time
I'm afraid that you misunderstood the meaning of delta-v.
In space deployment, delta-v doesn't measures speed, it more like an equivalent of the distances we can cover.
If you substitute delta-v in your post though with c - specific impulse, it makes perfect sense.
With higher specific impulse fuel efficiency increases, though energy consumption goes through the rough....which is actually a good thing, as we take the most of the fuel.
The problem you mention isn't with the energy demand itself - it's once again an engineering problem - though truth be told IIRC NASA's new Jupite probe will have a fission reactor onboard.
You were definitly spot on though about lightspeed fast specific impulse - it's theoreticly possible, just not likely to happen due its engineering demands.
The bottomline is: the thing in constant critical demand on a rocket is always the propellant - hence the need to bring the most out of each gramm of it.
This translates to the need for high specific impulse engines.
The energy demand do is not that problematic, in Mars orbit and inside solarcells are sufficient while in deeper space mission isotope sources or maybe in the near future fission reactors can be used.
Nuclear engines are the other great stalwart in our search for better rockets. The basic technology is actually already researched and ready to deploy.
Their potential environment impact though prevents that, and they will most likely see their use only in pure-space missions.
There are several fission designs from the early solid core NERVA with realiably but short lifespan, through the numerous gas phased NERVA alteranatives, with a better long term usability, to exotic designs that use fissioning materail as their propellant.
The actual mechanics behind the nuclear engine are simple - swap out the reaction chamber and put in a reactor. Pass the propellant through the reactor and its heat will accelerate it just the same as an exotherm chemical reaction would.
Figuring out plamsa physics though could mean the end of the radioactive fission nightmare, as a fusion reactor could do the very same job, with a fraction of the nuclear concerns.
