Longer into the future, we will have jet planes using liquid hydrogen for fuel, that will be much lighter than existing jet fuel and the planes thus will be built with smaller wings, smaller engines, smaller landing gears and will be far more energy efficient than existing jet planes.
At the same time, high-speed electric train capable of 230 mph can serve high-density routes profitably, and can use RE directly without conversion to a fuel, which should boost efficiency of traveling significantly.
So, conversion of H2 into liquid hydrocarbon fuel will be only a transitional step and will be phased out, to be replaced by H2 and RE directly.

Airbus published an artist's concept of a hydrogen airliner some time back.  The hydrogen tank was huge, much too big to go inside the wings like kerosene tanks are.  It was located in the top of the fuselage so that the much denser people and cargo could go below.  The plane looked like it had a bad case of hydrocephalus; just how practical it could be is an open question.

Hypedrogen is a solution in search of a problem.

@EP--You have to design a LH2 plane with a clean-sheet approach in order to appreciate the lightness of LH2. Keep in mind that the latest jet engines are far more fuel -efficient than the low-bypass engines of several decades ago.
Look in Wikipedia for the specs of the Boeing 787-9:
Max Takeoff Wt (MTOW): 560,500 lbs with a max fuel load of 223,378 lbs. This means that the fuel weight is almost HALF of the MTOW, with Max payload of 116,000 lbs only, with range of 7,635 nmi.

Now, with LH2 weighing a third that of jet fuel, your fuel load will be only 74,000 lbs, giving you additional 148,000 lbs of pay load on top of the 116,000 lb payload, we can increase the pay load almost 2.5 times. But we can't, because we don't have the room for additional passengers. So, we will design the plane with smaller wings and tail planes, smaller engines, and smaller landing gears...and these components weigh about ~ 2/3 the empty weight of the plane. The weight of the empty 787-9 is around 221,000 lbs, and 2/3 of this weight would be 147,000 lbs. Take this and divided by 2 ( due to 50%- reduction in MTOW) = 73,000 lbs.

So, the MTOW of the new 787-9 using LH2 would be fuselage weight of 73,000 lbs + Wings tail engine LG wt of 73,000 lbs + fuel weight of 37,000 lbs + payload of 116,000 lbs = 299,000 lbs...or a little more than HALF of the MTOW of the jetfuelled version.
So, now we are able to reduce the LH2 fuel weight to ~ HALF of the previous 74,000-lb fuel load due to a complete clean-sheet design approach. Density of LH2 = 70 kg per M^3. Total fuel weight is 37,000 lbs or 16,818 kg would take up a volume of 240 M^3.
Cabin width of 5.5 m and cabin length of ~50 m, would give you a volume of V = pi x r^2 x length = 1187 M^3.

Passenger floor of this plane would take space 1/2 way up the height of the fuselage, thus taking up only 1/2 of the total internal space of the fuselage, which is around 600 M^3, giving space of almost 600 M^3 underneath the seating floor for fuel and cargo, of which, the LH2 fuel only takes up around 240 M^3 of space. Entirely doable!

@EP--You're a good aero-engineer to consider the weight distribution of the fuel in an aircraft. Yes, the concentrated weight in the fuselage can increase the wing's structural weight, but since the fuel only weighs merely 12% of MTOW, the increase in wing's structural weight won't be much .
NASA has used low-density polyurethane foam as insulation for H2-containing sphere with success. A spherical container of 1 foot diameter and 1 inch-thick polyurethane foam can hold LH2 for about 10 hrs. If we would extrapolate this to the vast size of a jumbo-jet's fuselage with much higher volume-to-surface ratio, then we won't need more than 1-inch thick polyurethane foam as insulation, which is very light and can also confer structural strength as well. So, a modern carbon-fiber composite aircraft fuselage can have an 1-inch thick foam in between two layers of carbon-fiber composite skin for both strength and insulation. So, the aircraft fuselage skin can serve as LH2 tank as well, with the internal bulkheads of the fuselage will serve as the transverse walls of the LH2 tanks.

When the LH2-plane is on the ground, the on-board fuel cell can use the LH2 boil-off to produce electricity to serve the air-conditioning an lighting requirement of the cabin, and can be plugged-in the power grid to release any excess electricity not needed by the cabin. In this way, there will be no waste of energy, and no H2 released in the atmosphere.

Indeed, the SABRE engine has illustrated the concept of using LH2 for cooling intake air, thus achieving higher engine performance and even higher fuel efficiency due to lower compression work and higher pressure ratio possible. I would predict thermal efficiency increase from 50% of current core-turbine to go up to 65% efficiency as the result of pre-cooling, and this would further reduce the mass and volume of LH2 required. Thus, an LH2 plane can achieve 2.5 times the fuel efficiency per lb of payload in comparison the current jets. So, if jet fuel now costs $2.25 per gallon, then we can tolerate LH2 costing $5.6 per kg.

From Wikipedia "Hydrogen economy", "As of 2002, most hydrogen is produced on site and the cost is approximately $0.70/kg and, if not produced on site, the cost of liquid hydrogen is about $2.20/kg to $3.08/kg.[33]" So, even adjusting to today's $, it is not too far-fetch to produce LH2 profitably at $5 per kg using Solar or Wind electricity at $0.02-$0.03 per kWh. Producing LH2 from electrolysis requires about 60 kWh per kg, so at 3 cents per kWh electricity, the electricity cost will be $1.80. Adding other costs and we can achieve a cost of $4 per kg, and adding $1 of profit on top of that will give us $5 /kg for LH2 at the airport gate.