i worked all my professional carrer in science and innovation, if you have a reference for that statement i'd be glad you share it. maybe i missed something.
As we reign in the gratuitous subsidies to the fossil fuel sector, the question then becomes can we provide the plant and operational costs to store electricity chemically for $30/MWh (or as fossil fuels get more difficult to extract, $60 or $100).
Given that it's a brand new industry and you can do it right now with hydrogen for $200, energy included, then we only need to price in a fraction of the externalities right now and airline operators are going to be looking pretty hard at various green fuel options.
If we had some ham, we could make ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.
"Highly economical fusion" is probably an oxymoron.
I agree we should do more trains, but they are limited to around 1500km per trip before flying is enough better that you look like a fool for suggesting it.
I'm not convinced trains are more efficient than planes at that distance either - I don't' know how to analyses it, but planes see much less wind resistance because of altitude.
the problem is that rail is "boring" and rarely get sufficient funding.
Then other things become more important, and drive choices.
It's wired vs wireless ethernet. Which do you have in your home?
Also electrifying entire trucking and car fleets will take decades.
This provides a means of producing an incredibly densely stored source of energy from abundant inputs, that is the same price as oil.
It can solve for the problem of net zero production and transportation of equipment used in renewable energy production, for example, using present day transportation technology.
There are no silver bullets, but all of these innovations add together in order to create a combined solution to the worlds energy problems.