...or flying with fairy wings

We can make anything up. Why not stick to the facts, as we know them, and reasonable projections?

There is no reasonable projection for any fuel other than fossil fuel to maintain the sort of flying we do now.

We weren't talking about warp drives here. Certain types of aircraft are seem to be not that far off. 50 years is a ling time.

Unless you are deeply involved in battery technology, your prediction seems overly pessimistic.

Not suggesting the article below is in any way conclusive but just one of many that turn up on a basic google search.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/passenger-electric-planes-be...

> and fly up to 500 miles without having to stop to recharge

500 miles is nothing. The median flight distance for a commercial flight is ~2000 miles. And this is a concept plane. Certification of a plane is ~5-9 years so let's assume on the longer side since electric planes aren't really a thing. So 20% of your time budget has been spent building a replacement for a puddle jumper. There's a lot of them but the real fuel consumption happens by the large commercial jets.

This isn't a fantasy. Real airplanes have flown using synthetic kerosene manufactured using renewable energy sources. This isn't magic, it's just chemical engineering. Currently that fuel is significantly more expensive than fossil fuel but the cost differential will narrow over time.

> eal airplanes have flown using synthetic kerosene manufactured using renewable energy sources

That is a fantasy

The cost of doing that at a scle approaching what we use now rules it out except for niche uses

Are these synthetic fuels not GHG producers?

The assumption is they create Carbon that is recycled in the short term from the atmosphere, without digging up carbon that was sequestered millions of years ago.