Enrique I like your article as it is a pretty good safe-play guideline, to just not burn anything. I agree with you in principle, give commercial companies an inch, by granting a concession to burn mixtures of things, and before we know it they will be taking a mile, and we will be back at square one, or worse, burning all kinds of stuff no-one has any idea the long term effects of. Keeping it simple is always good.

But there is one industry that probably still needs to burn something, that is aviation and aerospace, to get the ultimate power-to-weight ratios that make all the difference to them.

I don't see why hydrogen should not be used for that.

The statement you quoted of Hydrogen being "2.3 times more inefficient than a battery", is pretty crazy though. How can we even guess how that comparison and conclusion was proven? For sure it might apply to one particular experimental setup, but applying to all? I guess not :)

On the expenses of doing things less efficiently, we should remember that if the energy is for free, then it is also freely scaleable, and since the energy is interchangeable for money, then cost and efficiency (And even profit), no longer have the same meaning.

I share your suspicion of synthetic fuels, but admit I am heavily biased in favor of Hydrogen, just because it can be generated cleanly from solar. The God-signs are all over it, that it is the only way to go, by using the excess hydrogen of all communities using hydrogen backup, to power and fuel all transportation.

Wouldn't you like to be able to swap the toxic battery in yoiur EV for a reversible fuel cell, making it instantly refuellable in any community, as well as still electrically rechargeable?

I want my hydrogen converted Buggatti reward when this is all sorted out... :)