It is so sad and so bad for our planet that for instance Germany decided to spend billions of billions on renewable energy plants while spending the same amount on nuclear power plant would made Germany zero emission economy.
I also don't think that "but what about space requirements" is an argument with enough weight to dismiss the long list of advantages given by the GP. We have so much unused space on roofs. We could get rid of a few parking lots if you're concerned for ground.
[1] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/worlds-uranium...
The storage is limited only by tank size, and we already know how to store and use large quantities of hydrogen. The hydrogen produced from the process can be pumped elsewhere by pipeline and used as fuel for gas turbines to balance the grid, or combined with carbon dioxide or nitrogen from the atmosphere to produce zero net carbon methane and ammonia for use as denser fuel sources, or feedstock for industrial processes. You can even make zero net carbon synthetic jet fuel this way.
You're of course free to believe that countries will build 3 times the capacity of their energy production to compensate for that inefficiency.
* Currently a grid => hydrogen => grid round trip is 40-45% efficient.
* A grid => battery => grid round trip is 90-95% efficient.
You can recover 2x more energy by NOT using hydrogen. There is no competition. Unless the lost energy from green hydrogen production can be recovered somehow (co-generation)...
Many applications (transportation, industry...) can use it as such, without any way from hydrogen to electricity, and more and more probably will.
There are surprising new ways (offering an impressive efficiency), such as: https://www.slb.com/newsroom/press-release/2021/pr-2021-1118...
At a glance: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-el...
In-depth take: https://assets.siemens-energy.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:53...
But we won't need 3 times the amount - hydrogen will only be used to balance the grid. Most grid energy will come direct from renewables. Most of Europe would only need about 20 days' worth of hydrogen as insurance against a lack of wind or sun.
Green hydrogen has only become viable to replace hydrogen-from-fossils within the last few years as the cost of renewable energy has plummeted. That drop in renewable energy costs is what has changed recently and what has taken so many people by surprise.
Power generation is only a small part of Germany's emissions. Germany would still be a large CO2 source with full nuclear power generation, just like France is because of transportation, food, heating, industry, etc.