Ammonia fuel cells have a comparable weight proposition to hydrogen at small sizes because the tank is so much lighter. I think that has legs (or wheels?). For stationary storage, the ammonia-CO2 adduct is a solid, which is nice.
It is not a serious problem unless you are trying to keep warm, gaseous hydrogen under high pressure. So, don't. Furthermore, aluminum is quite resistant to embrittlement.
Of possibly greater moment is that it leaks, and has ~200x GHG over CO2 (including secondary effects). Leaks are not dangerous in the open, or in confined places with positive airflow, but punishment for neglect is visited on all bystanders. LN2 storage is better, where you can afford the insulation and refrigeration.
[1] https://www.greenbiz.com/article/inside-misconception-hydrog...
It leaks very readily, it ignites very readily, it burns with a wide range of air:fuel proportions, it burns with a high flame speed, and it burns hot.
Hydrogen is ... not a good choice for something to reticulate widely around the world.
Edit: That's leaving aside its low energy density. You need three times the volume of hydrogen as natural gas for the same quantity of heat, so existing pipe networks are unlikely to be useful.
Global warming potential is off to the side of all this.
There is nothing special about the volumetric energy density of NG. H2 has to move faster, if carried in the same pipe for the same use. Its lower viscosity means it can.
Municipal gas networks used to carry "lamp gas", a mix of CO and H2, in cast-iron pipes.
Which of course nobody would do? Unfortunately, those are the circumstances in which H2 is made from fossil fuels and likewise the circumstances under which it is combusted in turbines. You can't just handwave materials compatibility away.
0: Take a guess as to what those look like inside.