This is a bit misleading, and you're saying so yourself later in the article. Energy density by mass doesn't really help if I need pressurized and cooled containers to keep it at an acceptable volume.
When it comes to alternative uses for hydrogen, I do agree. However, changing from fossil fuels to hydrogen is not really a radical transition. Why? Hydrogen provides us with a system that we are used to: A fuel that needs to be centrally produced and stored, that needs a pipeline system to be distributed, and can be replenished by "fuelling up". But little of the necessary infrastructure actually exists, so a huge effort will be necessary to recreate a system that we are used to. In a sense, the hydrogen economy is a linear extrapolation of the current state to the future.
Electricity is a much more radical departure from our current model -- potential for decentral generation, grid node storage, almost instantaneous transmission. But on top of all of that: more than 100 years of engineering experience and existing infrastructure.
With the exception of the necessary investment to build the infrastructure, these are of course no real arguments against hydrogen. The question that is raised here is: does it make sense to invest in hydrogen, or are we going to lock ourselves into another expensive, centralized energy storage and distribution model that mimics the old one, just because we lack the creativity to go forward and develop electricity to its full potential?