There are some strong assumptions behind this article, it chooses the following scenario: Wind + Solar + H2 for seasonal storage. And then proceeds to dismantle it. But nobody said this has to be the scenario.
I think it's far more likely something like: Wind + Solar + hopefully clean base load (e.g. Nuclear) + Hydro + Hydro storage + Lithium storage + H2 storage for transport (planes, trains, ships) + H2 storage for seasonal purposes
Fact of the matter is, there is no clean alternative to H2 (at the moment) for large transport vehicles (i.e. cargo shipping, planes, trucks) so unless you are willing to keep using carbon based fuels for these purposes you are stuck with H2.
The point of running off hydrogen or electric is so that you can figure out the problem of generating the source at scale.
My understanding is that synthetic fuels tend to be some form of hydrocarbon, which means they need a source of carbon. Either you make the synthetic fuel at the exhaust stack of a fossil fuel plant (so you still have to burn fossil fuels) or you spend huge amounts of energy collecting CO2 from the air (is that even a proven process yet?)
Hydrogen has a straightforward and well understood process to make it from water. What's the hydrocarbon equivalent?
Is there a better way to make synthetic fuels?
Sure it does:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190327-the-tiny-islands...
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/13/business/orkney-hydrogen-...
