If you're living in an economic system where investment is primarily determined by rate of profit, then you need to identify a solution where everyone involved is making more money than they would be without you. So it's very important they're competing with oil on economic terms while increasing demand for solar.
The other part you're missing is that this decouples fuel production from locations with large fossil fuel sources (often run by governments with authoritarian rulers who use their exports as leverage). This means that you can spread production to anywhere the sun shines which means highly decentralized, local production of electrofuels.
The third part you're missing is how this increases demand for solar panels and carbon sequestration technology which has an amazing feedback loop that makes these cheaper and more efficient over the decades, meaning that as hydrocarbon demand declines over time as other technologies take over (e.g., electric cars reducing demand from the transportation sector), this built up intellectual capital and infrastructure can be used to just sequester carbon for long-term storage, which would be net negative instead of just carbon neutral.
There's probably more you're missing but I'd just recommend reading more of the blog where he explains everything.
You are aware of the situation in western Europe, yes?
Methane has some significant advantages over electricity: it's storable over time and can be used to fuel vehicles. About a third of the vehicles in this country are methane-fueled, in fact. A CNG tank is a hell of a lot cheaper than a car-sized lithium battery. If you go further and make the methane into kerosene you can fly airplanes with it. Airplanes can't fly while they're plugged into the grid.
Because it’s not clear how fast we can get absolutely massive amounts of grid storage or nuclear deployed, finding ways to make effectively carbon-neutral natural gas/petroleum is a good step in the right direction, where we can continue to use some hydrocarbons without a net increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and oceans.
It’s also not clear if we will be able to replace all of our current petroleum reliant industrial processes with non-carbonized alternatives, and in those cases, this will be the absolute best case for us.
There may be billions of vehicles on the road, but as soon as the system fails to be able to upkeep all the deployed capital required to maintain them in operating condition (road resurfacing, parts manufacture, refinement and transportation of fuel, maintaining the value of currency in order to motivate the workers to participate in all of the necessary steps, security from hostilities, roads not being flooded/melted, and so on). In such eventualities sizeable portions of the fleet may be rendered inoperable quite quickly and cars will be displaced, out of necessity, by walking.
What you're making is a different point, it's not that we can't displace hydrocarbons, it's that we can't displace them with something equivalent-or-better. We can probably displace cars with walking, concrete structures with ad-hoc shelters, and hospitals with prayer. That is all not just very achievable, but has actually been increasing in inevitability during our prior decades of "inaction" (obviously you can't really call it inaction when we're taking positives steps to hasten these outcomes)
