I think that with current technology it's more efficient to store that energy in a battery than in the form of hydrogen (hydrogen is just a storage mechanism).
But it's a storage mechanism with the huge downside of being available from natural gas, so with widespread use of hydrogen we be equivalent to widespread continuous pumping of huge amounts of CO2 into oceans and the atmosphere. Something which most people consider foolish[1].
Of course it's more efficient to use batteries, these are all entry level arguments. Perhaps I misread the audience.
The infrastructure cost is totally different. Electrolysis and immobile storage of hydrogen is very cheap.
We don't have a lot of places where for a significant portion of time when there is excess power from renewables, but we will, in the future.
Edit:
To clarify: if you want to produce say 40% of your yearly energy needs from wind and solar, you have to oversize the production since there are many days they produce very little. That then means there are days when they produce more than is consumed. The excess energy could be used for electrolyzing hydrogen from water.
Note no carbon involved. Also the low efficiency doesn't matter, as the energy is "free". Low cost of energy storage method is much more important in this case.
Any other reasons than "batteries are more efficient" for downvoting?
Where did you get this idea? You have to keep liquid hydrogen extremely chilled, under extreme pressure, and it inevitably leaks out. Compare to pumped water energy storage, which is at ambient temperature and pressure and has similar efficiency to the electrolysis -> fuel-cell cycle.
Stored in any way, it's cheap compared to batteries.
Also many places don't have reservoirs and mountains for pumped storage.
I'm not a big believer in the hydrogen economy, but at least incorrect notions should be corrected ("no source of hydrogen besides natural gas to be seen").
How much additional cost is incurred by converting the hydrogen to methane (combining with atmospheric CO2), then utilizing existing gas infrastructure?
Many of the places that work well for solar panels are far away from the people who use electricity. Hydrogen is a good energy storage solution, to the point that eg. Australia and Saudi Arabia are contemplating commercial operations, nicknamed "solar fuels": http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/abe-visit-may-hasten-solar-f...
Most people you know maybe. Most people I know are quite foolish themselves and repeat whatever their favorite TV station has brainwashed them to believe about the global warming.
But it's a storage mechanism with the huge downside of being available from natural gas, so with widespread use of hydrogen we be equivalent to widespread continuous pumping of huge amounts of CO2 into oceans and the atmosphere. Something which most people consider foolish[1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming