Charley, call it what you will: hydrogen is, in fact, a fossil fuel. Only fossil-free fuels are fuels of the future.

Is this still a serious question??

Is the house really divided?

Am I  missing something?

.. it’s hydrogen fuel cell electrics (FCEVs) that, at least on paper, appear to be the most sustainable form of mobility.

Who's paper might that be? That's certainly not a consensus view. And if one reads on in the linked article, it looks a lot like deliberate misinformation.

Hydrogen is stored on-board much like petrol is stored in an internal combustion car,  ..

No, nothing like petrol in an internal combustion car. Petrol is liquid at ambient temperatures, and a tank to safely hold 40 liters of it in a car weighs only a few kilos. The tank is compact, and can be tucked away within the body of the car in a way that doesn't intrude on passenger or cargo space. Hydrogen, on the other hand, is a super-light gas. It has to be compressed to 10,000 psi to store enough of it for a practical FCEV. The hydrogen tanks are high tech graphite wound composite pressure tanks weighing 18 times more than the maximum amount of compressed hydrogen they're rated to hold. Expensive and bulky, they leave little room for passengers or cargo in ordinary sedans. 

Range and efficiency

As things stand, the advantage lies with hydrogen-powered EVs.

Range, perhaps. (The new model Toyota Mirai has an advertised range of 402miles from its 122 liter, 87.5 kg set of three pressure tanks.) Efficiency, not by a long shot. It takes roughly 265 kWh of electricity to produce the 5 kg of hydrogen needed to achieve that 402 mile range. Then ~20% more to compress it to 10,000 psi. That works out to about 0.8 kWh per mile. Tesla's model S is a roomier and higher performance vehicle, but needs less than 0.3 kWh per mile.

Hydrogen provides hundreds of times as much energy per kilogram,

Stated without equivocation, as if that were the whole story. Ignores the factor of 20 for the weight of the pressure tanks compared to the hydrogen they hold, and the additional factor of two in conversion from the thermodynamic enthalpy of hydrogen to mechanical energy delivered to the wheels. Oh, and no ability of fuel cells to support regenerative braking.

I can't speak to the author's motives, but the egregious cherry-picking of technical facts, the authoritative voice employed throughout, and the complete failure to mention contravening facts or issues suggest a conscious intent to deceive.

For the record, I don't consider the issue of BEV's vs. FCEVs to be entirely settled. There are valid arguments that can be made for FCEVs. I've even written about some of them. Unfortunately, this article fails to mention any of them.