Unless you need hydrogen for a capability that only hydrogen has it is much more efficient to use solar electricity either directly or to charge batteries.
For everything else, you need a way to store the energy that can be measured in weeks, not hours. You also need to transport it. And you need to stabilize the energy output not to be entirely dependent on whether the sun shines. That's why hydrogen might be a good energy reservoir.
My Tesla Model S does that pretty efficiently. And for static batteries there are plenty of alternatives that don't use difficult to source elements.
> You also need to transport it.
We have a grid to do that already, with HVDC interconnects we can even sell it to places where the sun is not shining.
So, that makes shipping or trucking around hydrogen spectacularly uneconomical. Most hydrogen produced today is used onsite. Mainly for things like fertilizer production. Moving hydrogen around at scale is an unsolved problem. Gas pipes (after they are re-enforced) could work of course. But some of it would leak. And hydrogen mixed with air is not a good thing to have in your house.
The same property also makes using hydrogen as a fuel in planes or shipping unpractical: most of your plane/ship would be taken up by the enormous volume of hydrogen you'd need to move it around.
Michael Liebreich's hydrogen ladder is a good reference here. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clean-hydrogen-ladder-v40-mic...
In it he organizes different use cases by their economical value. Things like road transport and domestic heating are at the bottom of the scale (i.e. you could do it but it would be very inefficient and costly). Near the top are some of the more realistic things, some of which are already being done.
Instead of moving hydrogen to where you implement those use cases (e.g. steel making), it would be more practical/logical to move the use case to where you can produce the hydrogen the cheapest. The bigger the energy need, the higher the savings. You basically compete on energy cost.