Battery electric has competition

Retail price to fill a hydrogen vehicle is $12 to $15 per gallon equivalent.
Electricity is often half the cost of gasoline per mile.

That is a long road to be cost effective.

Sorry folks it is not an "one team or the other" piece. The featured company builds battery electric machines now.

The questions/comments so far are addressed in the video.

All commercial FCEVs use lithium batteries to collect and store energy from regenerative braking.

Hydrogen has very low energy density and requires very high pressure tanks or super cold storage. Not at all sure that I would want to store hydrogen in my garage either.

Hydrogen might be well suited for trucks and trains but not cars at this time. You would probably need batteries anyway to smooth out the power demand and store power from regeneration.

Why pick a winner before the game is played? Look at the delivery cycle for electric/Hydrogen.

When demand is low, use the excess capacity at power plants to split water into hydrogen, replace natural gas with hydrogen, use it to cook, heat houses and fill up cars. At one point you could even buy a home compressor for your nat. gas car. Problems, hydrogen and carbon steel don't play well together. Big advantage, it can be stored like natural gas, electric's biggest problem is storage.

I'll give you one better. It can use either seawater or fresh, and you can draw in atmospheric carbon dioxide and make carbon monoxide from it. It is carbon neutral, while current electric and hydrogen not so much. The Nazi's fought a war with it and South Africa still runs an economy with it today. The Fischer–Tropsch process makes both gasoline and diesel fuel. You need air, water and electric. A very old process, and it can be added right into the fuels we use today. You don't have to build a billion new cars (the carbon dioxide payout on an EV is what 3 to 8 years depending on the electric source?), just run what you got. Replace the fuel, not the cars.

The US Navy will probably be first, since fire kills ships, not holes in the hull as most assume. From Wikipedia "the US Navy recently discovered a low-cost catalyst made of Molybdenum Carbide plus Potassium to enable synthesis of Jet Fuel/Diesel on board nuclear carriers, using seawater as the feed stock. If the price for solar energy continues to decline, in the near future it may actually become more economical to produce cleaner burning carbon neutral synthetic fuels than to pump and refine petroleum." With the nuclear teakettles on carriers they won't have to carry all that jet fuel, just make it as you need it.

Once again why pick a winner? Let carbon dioxide production, safety, cost with discounted cash flow rate of return be you guides.

I'll take thorium reactors with Fischer–Tropsch fuel production for those reasons. I'll swap over to fusion, if the physics boys and girls can ever get their act together.

To understand the Great Hydrogen Debate, one must understand that there is no free hydrogen anywhere on this planet. Although it is abundant, every bit of it is tied up in some compound or other, mostly in water, or various carbon compounds. To liberate it into the form necessary for energy production you must either burn carbon compounds OR add energy to extract it from something else. And the Laws of Thermodynamics clearly point out that the latter course will require more energy than can be gotten from the hydrogen thus liberated.

The upshot of all that is that on this planet, hydrogen cannot be a source of energy, only a method of transporting energy from point a to point b, or a method of storing energy derived from elsewhere. It is a water hose, not a wellspring.

There are possible uses for hydrogen, it is just not a fabulous magic solution to the energy issue.

There are home/business H2 generators but these will require electrical sources for electrolysis of water.

How does the H2 get transported? Most of the world supply comes from cracking natural gas. This is not green at all.