The cynic in me believes there are incentives for automakers not completely and immediately abandoning fossil fuels, but instead enabling a slow transition. Hydrogen allows for this while batteries do not. I'm not sure what these incentives might be, but a gradual transition off of fossil fuels always seems to come through in Toyota's marketing materials for hydrogen.
If current events are anything to go by, we shouldn't bet on energy resources of others. If we truly want a greener future, and the world itself to be in a better place, why should we make the same mistakes again?
I understand how common a "battery" is nowadays, and how great of a solution they might seem. After all, they are readily available.
But we shouldn't kid ourselves. Where do these materials come from? What conditions are those miners subject to? Is it really wise, to add that much weight to a body in motion, both in terms of safety, and energy efficiency? Wouldn't we enable authoritarian countries to strangle others again, by further rewarding favorable geographical locations? Or, further reward colonial powers, that have taken over Africa, again? I mean, Congo has 80% of cobalt resources (needed in high density batteries, LFH cobalt-free batteries have about 50% of the energy density found on their cobalt based counterparts, which means a low 0.16kWh/kg density) and China owns the majority of the mines there. Look up the Sicomines deal.
I know this post might sound cynical, and perverse. But really, I don't really think this is the way forward.
Honda is a bit more understandable since airplanes look to be going to hydrogen and they make airplanes too, but not that much more really. I assume they have some very good reasons.