You don't need to transport hydrogen - you can generate it on-site from water at the fuel station. Although this will require upgrading the electrical grid. Hy

You don't need to transport hydrogen - you can generate it on-site from water at the fuel station. Although this will require upgrading the electrical grid. Hydrogen is already in use in e.g. forklifts that need to operate 24/7 (because recharging is slow), so while the logistical problem could be solved, I don't think it's worth doing so in all cases. Hydrogen has it's niche. (tl;dr below: there's stuff that hydrogen is bad at but batteries literally cannot do, so if we prioritize ditching oil then hydrogen wins by default in those specific niches.) IMO hydrogen also makes sense for large vehicles that need a long range - planes flying the New York to London trip will need to either be synthfuel or hydrogen, and we haven't figured out how to make synthfuel at scale yet. So while synthfuel will eventually be better than hydrogen, it might not be available in time for our climate deadline. Similarly, hydrogen might be a better option for multi-man trucks on a long haul (i.e. a truck with a bed in the back and a second (or even third) driver, so they can drive for two 10-hour shifts without stopping for a break) through low-infrastructure areas. Yes, that is a bit niche. Also, cargo ships could use hydrogen right now with only a 1-5% loss in cargo capacity. Batteries wouldn't get 100KM let alone across the pacific and synthfuel doesn't exist. In theory biofuels are also a drop-in solution, but modern farming is very heavily reliant on oil, so biofuels are mostly just fossil fuels with extra steps (and speaking of which: tractors need high uptime, you can't be constantly charging the tractor batteries on harvest day so once again, hydrogen tractors win by default). Also, unnecessarily straining our food supply is really dumb.