This doesn’t make sense, hydrogen fuel cells are essentially batteries/an energy store, and it takes a large amount of electricity to produce the hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel cells are closer in relation to lithium ion batteries or gasoline, you still need a massive energy producer to extract the hydrogen (like wind, solar, hydro, fossil fuel, or nuclear). So hydrogen is not an alternative to nuclear, if it ever took off it will really increase demand for large energy producers like nuclear.

Advocating for hydrogen should be accompanied with an explanation of:

- how to generate the hydrogen carbon-neutral or better with less loss than alternative-energy+grid transmission.

- how to store and transport it to fueling stations

- how to build out the fueling infrastructure, since the grid already exists for BEVs

- how you will prevent people from simply using methane as a cheap alternative for H2 production, which the fossil fuel industry will very much want and will lobby to make viable

- how you will practically refuel cars

- how the cars will store the hydrogen

- why we should invest trillions in h2 infrastructure when it's all largely unproven at scale and BEVs seem to beat it economically at a midpoint of economies of scale growth

Nuclear has an entire other list of issues/challenges to maintain economic relevancy as Solar/Wind/Storage costs plummet. And I'm a serious fan of LFTR and believe ongoing research for modular MSRs should be funded even as we mostly focus on solar/wind/storage.

Hydrogen as a fuel is one of the biggest cases of successful astroturfing in modern times. It is not an ecologically friendly fuel, and currently the most popular source of hydrogen is crude oil.