Are you trying to say that an internal combustion engine has blown up priceless works of art and the first time it was used it blew up a home? Because don't think you're making the important distinction between something that creates combustion on purpose in a controlled way and something that accidentally blows up.

This is his entirely fictional fuel source and in his narrative we learn from trusted characters to question the veracity of the fuel source and believe it to be too dangerous to use. We learn from the questionable characters that it's a fuel source to be used immediately. Who do you think is in the wrong in this situation? The murderous idiotic billionaire who blew up his house and the Mona Lisa because he wouldn't take the necessary cautionary steps or everyone who tried to stop him and his fuel source? You'd have to be an idiot to think that something that is literally shown blowing up a home and isn't tested beyond one single instance is something that could be considered a viable energy source.