There you fell for the oldest trick in the fossil fuel vs hydrogen tricksters book, by not knowing much about hydrogen, you quoted something that you think looks very bad for hydrogen, without even linking to it, that actually means nothing without also pressure. Or maybe you know this, but it is you who is trying to pull the trick.
What matters is energy mass density, not comparisons of volume, recall it is power to weight ratio which is important in cases of propulsion, the volume of hydrogen can be as much or as little as you like depending on pressure, its extremely compressible, unlike liquid fossil fuels.
Its easy to check weight for weight the relative energy mass density of hydrogen vs fossil fuels.
Its also easy to calculate, if you know how the chemistry relates to mass energy density.
Hydrogen has the highest possible energy density of any chemistry, just because its the simplest.
It’s 3x higher than fossil fuel energy density when burned in an ICE, 2.5 times when used in fuel cells, because fuel cells can’t get the full energy content out of it. But even 2.5x is quite an improvement. An ICE car with a range of 500 miles, could in theory get 1500 miles from the same weight of hydrogen, as the tank full of fossil fuels.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage
The usual method of transporting hydrogen now is in liquid form. The truth is you will need 3x more tankers of liquid fossil fuels to give the same energy as one of liquid hydrogen.
On efficiency, we can’t talk about that meaningfully without mathematically signing it, another long story if you need to have the physics explained to you, but again it is somethig much abused by the fossil fuels industry, that they get away with, by not telling you the whole truth, and you can’t know the whole truth without the physics.
This is the kind of truth the fossil fuels industry, and actually the battery industry, probably wish wasn’t out there:
