It seems your argument hinges rather heavily on the fact that there can only be one technology. I personally find this approach limiting, and prone to create unnecessary exclusions. I have, of course, seen the hydrogen ladder. Mr. Liebreich's scale is quite good, but as with anything, it may perhaps be misguided to dogmatically follow it. That there exist better uses for H2 is obvious, but this does not mean that we must focus exclusively on them.
The argument about there being too little renewable energy also stands on the assumption that energy production and initiatives will be the same in the future as they are today. Green energy will continue to grow, and we will be forced to produce more of it, The sources of this are in themselves a hot item of discussion, but whatever the result, it will eventually mean total or near-total green energy, which means no discernible environmental impact for H2 production.
Mr. Liebreich goes on to confirm that he is not "bullish at all about any use of hydrogen [in land transportation] in any but niche settings."
and, beyond the fueling system, goes on to explain his personal feelings about FCEV in the following paragraph:
Though these reasons can be debated (he seems to imply that we cannot simply place the hydrogen tank where the Battery in a BEV would go, for instance, being able to recharge in a lamppost is less of a plus when you remember the time it would take to refuel a FCEV and so on...) but if his ladder is based squarely on efficiency, these shouldn't even be mentioned.
As for the electric cars not getting "more and more traction", I guess I hallucinated Hyundai committing to having their entire commercial lineup with an FCEV option by 2028
, or BMW testing FCEV as it could “become an attractive alternative to battery-electric drive trains – especially for customers who do not have their own access to electric charging infrastructure or who frequently drive long distances.” and "When the future is zero emissions, we believe having two answers is better than one,"
or FCEV racecars making their way into LeMans in 2025
(developments there will certainly make their way into consumer products), or JLR pursuing it as part of their "Reimagine strategy"
It's not just Toyota and Honda and their silly little midsize with two stations in the UK and six in California anymore, so "more and more traction" seems accurate.
You evidently have a well formed and strong opinion about it what with "h2 bullshit". But from here, what I am seeing is the development of two technologies that will exist more or less simultaneously and will provide consumers with choice depending on how important a fast refueling is for them (whether actually or just perceived.) with little detriment (so far) in development on the initiatives that are further up the list of the H2 ladder. As such, I fail to see the problem, especially as Blue hydrogen is phased out over green.
My opinion is rather equally strong about there being space for both of them, and that space only getting bigger.