hydrogen keeps status quo - big corporations supplying fuel stations. battery drives help with decentralisation - you can charge your car back at home from your own solar.
Whenever I see people use this phrase in a debate context, I give the argument less credit because it's meant to evoke an emotional response, but adds little to the discussion.
There are all sorts of companies , some big, some small, some more profit-driven, some less, some with more flexible ethics, etc. A company being big or small doesn't inherently make it bad, and small companies aren't inherently good.
It might also disrupt the status quo. Electrolysis (I assume this is where you're getting your hydrogen) just takes water and electric. People might even have home systems that can do it. That said, I still think hydrogen is, for the most part, silly, because of the electric requirement. Might as well use the electric as electric.
Status quo doesn't matter. Cost does.
Efficiency doesn't matter. Cost does.
Economics<-> Engineering <-> Science
Link the 3 and you will understand.
Economics: Rare earth metals are scare, expensive, and political. Hydrogen sourced from natural gas is abundant and 50% less pollution than oil and petrol. Hydrogen is operating expense(pay on usage), batteries(pay upfront).
Engineering: Storage is everything. Batteries have about the same Mega Joules overall as hydrogen storage in a car because the hydrogen has to be compressed. You can compare the range between Model 3 and Hydrogen fuel cell cars and see the ranges are similar.
MJ/kg is ultimately what determines cost and batteries have significantly worse MJ/kg than hydrogen tanks.
Science: Peak battery innovation will only be able to match current hydrogen fuel cells MJ/kg.
Hydrogen cars are both more expensive (both upfront and operational) AND less efficient than comparable electric cars while having less range, less convenient recharging (no home or work charging, can only fill in a few stations in California), and being slower.
So that batteries become both lighter and cheaper and the advantage grows?
I don't think time favors hydrogen cars. The underlying technology was available over 50 years ago (used on Gemini spacecraft as hydrogen fuel cells in the mid 1960s, and in stationary form in the early 1930s, first developed in the lab in the 1830s). Lithium chemistry has advanced dramatically in the time since it was first invented. There were no rechargeable lithium chemistry batteries 50 years ago, even in the lab. And they didn't enter practical use until the 1990s and significant yearly progress continues today.
Time favors lithium chemistry rechargeable batteries.
We will literally have silicon anodes batteries in 2-3 years, we will have pure lithium anodes in 4-5 years, after that we will have sulfer-lithium batteries within the decade.
With lithium annodes we are at a point where you can replace most air-travel with battery planes.
There is way more upside for improvement in batteries compared to fuel cells.
Fuel cells have no future in transportation unless there is some fundamental breakthrew that nobody can anticipate, nothing I have seen even in research improves fuel cell technology enough to make it viable.
I think for seasonal storage there are better options.
I also don't see how fuel cells beat ICE even a renewable produced carbon fuel like methanol or Dimethyl ether. I would prefer small nuclear reactors but I seem to be the only one.
Also, hydrogen has how much - 60% energy loss?