There has been a whole lot of goal posts moved quite some distance by quite a few anti-EV hold outs over the last couple of years.
Now we’re down to fractionally reduced payload for long range trucks in certain markets.
Used to be «impossible for me and my suitcase to get from one city to another»
And the pro-EV groups continue to preach that their personal preference for the future of transportation as the singular "one size fits all" solution for everyone and everything simply because "they like it".
Fighting climate change and reducing our carbon footprint in road transportation is a very big thing to accomplish and road transportation comes in many different shoe sizes and there is a market for all kinds of different styles which at the end of the day, help achieve the same objective.
Instead of constantly arguing that everyone needs to wear Nike's, maybe if they EV pushers were just a bit more open minded and start suggesting people take a look at Adidas or Reeboks instead, more people would be more open minded when it comes to trading in their old Sketchers.
I agree that all avenues should be explored to reduce emissions.
The problem I see with hydrogen is that the investments needed are gigantic so a cost/benefit analysis must be done. If you spend 1 trillion on hydrogen and it leads to very few hydrogen vehicles, it's money that couldn't be used in other ways. The fact private companies don't seem too keen to spend their own money isn't too reassuring.
BEVs' current success are almost entirely down to one man, Elon Musk, who instead of just making a great electric car, also spent billions installing Tesla Superchargers all over the place. Other car manufacturers are much less keen to do the same, and for hydrogen, I don't see anything. Considering the hydrogen stations needed would be much more numerous, since there is no way to charge without them, so you need as many as gas pumps.