As usual, those energy calculations are highly biased, and the way you can tell is that they don't have any error bars on those energy/expense ratios. They also don't include the costs relative to fossil fuel import and refining costs, another indication that it's not an honest analysis. E.g. long-distance transport in rural areas is probably going to be at least as cheap with hydrocarbon fuels as with EVs, while the opposite will be true in cities with robust electricity supplies, and so on.
Additionally, synthetic fuel allows balancing of production and demand of electricity, a major issue when you're relying primarily on sunlight and wind, i.e. exceess PV in the summer months can be converted to hydrocarbon fuels for use in the winter months. See also:
"Synthetic fuels in the German industry sector depending on climate protection level (2021)"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266695522...
Of course, if Germany builds such a project out at scale, it'll greatly reduce demand for both Russian Siberian pipeline gas and fracked US LNG tanker gas, which probably accounts for CNN's negative view and biased presentation, as their top shareholders have major holdings in Exxon, Chevron and so on. I doubt Putin is thrilled about the idea, either.