I think it's an okay fit for fleet vehicles where the headaches are closer to worth it, but the volatility + the difficulties in safely and reliably containing the compressed gas are the main issues.
This is the thing... there is no "one size fits all" but the nay sayers look at hydrogen and say "nah too hard for anything". They're wrong. Hydrogen will be huge in the NEAR future... it just wont be a silver bullet.
Is what fans of hydrogen have been arguing for 30 years.
The world finally has motivation to get out of that rut. Dominant powers will make hydrogen work for them because thats how a corrupt capitalist society works.
Well, H2 is an "also ran" at this point: it has lower energy efficiency (losing the majority of input energy in the cycle from electrolysis -> compression -> fuel cell -> electric), it requires more expensive and practically non-existent infrastructure, it's theoretical range advantages are negated by the need to have a small COPV bomb on board, forcing the longest range Hidrogen cars have less range than the equivalent electric, they are more expensive and complex, requiring expensive, platinum based catalysts, pushing the prices of H2 models into a multiple over the equivalent BEV. There is nothing that H2 can do that BEV can't do better, with the exception of fast refueling, which is becoming less and less of an issue.
For cars the race with BEV is irredeemably lost, and even for trucks the hydrogen industry needs to perform some technological miracle to stay in the game.
HN rate limits my replies you can read my sibling comment if you’d like more information.
granted, most of it is made via non-renewable dirty methods... but there is VAST sums of money pouring into Green Hydrogen. Its going to become dominant in very few years. 5-8 is my guess.