You can look at hydrogen almost as a propane replacement as well.
Nuclear to hydrogen is workable and the way I'm imagining it going. There's also options to create hydrocarbons from air using the heat of a reactor.
And claiming that hydrogen doesnt need much development is an insane claim given the money put in and the total lack of success.
Not everything is a consumer car and truck. Being a battery maximalist prolongs the time everything else runs on dead dinosaurs.
Emergency vehicles of most types don't need that however. And in many of the cases you mention swappable battery packs are an option as well.
But we have to realize that compared to all consumer and fleet cars, 99% of all trucking is the vast majority of fuel use in transportation.
Extreme long range trucking is the exception.
In most cases you would make the hydrogen into methanol and you can keep mostly the same engines.
It makes indeed more sense to just use renewable gasoline, e.g. using the Fischer-Tropsch process like VW's eFuel.
Yep, BEV are great for commuting, but very difficult to use if you need to travel long distances in remote areas or tow a caravan or trailer.
Long distances are no problem unless you you are traversing unpopulated area free of infrastructure, and that is likely 0.000001% of all driving.
Not much development except for developing generation capacity that doesn't exist (and electrolysis is wildly inefficient, by the way), a distribution chain that doesn't exist, familiarizing everyone from consumers to service staff with a fuel system unlike anything they've used before (CNG only ever took off in mass transit, and only to a limited degree), and oh by the way, it's centered around a gas that is so prone to leaking it leaks through metals and embrittles them in the process.
I can plug in an EV into the wall in my garage and charge it every night without a single change to my house. An L2 charger installation is an hour or two's work for an electrician.
That's exactly it, but maybe not in the way you meant.
Industries want to push hydrogen because the most economical way to produce it is by using fossil fuels. So they can pretend they are 'green' while keeping business as usual.
This is not the case, at least over here in Australia. Whenever hydrogen is mentioned as a fuel, it is implicitly Green Hydrogen. It only became necessary to explicitly start saying Green Hydrogen after the fossil fuel spokespeople were using existing production to belittle green initiatives and pilots.
The actual reason hydrogen is being pushed here is because of what happens when you shut down large, centralized coal power plants and shut down coal mining capacity. You end up with rural towns with no jobs, or in the eyes of a politician an electoral district who isn't going to vote for them. Hydrogen means big solar and wind farms connected to hydrogen plants and jobs and votes linked to those jobs, and you can guess where they are going to be built. The elephant in the room is who is going to buy all this hydrogen when in most cases it seems batteries are the better choice for consumers.