> Electric trucks are very efficient and cheaper to operate. They can do a majority of all trucking routes just fine.

Agree.

Yet, currently of the daily 800,000 trucks (> 7.5 t) which are transporting goods in Germany, less than 500 are BEVs (including hybrids). BEV trucks cost ~ 3x as much as an ordinary diesel truck.

So right now, they're basically irrelevant.

> In Europe, a large potential market for Hydrogen trucks, the way the regulations are in terms of rest, that covers electric trucks weaknesses.

Agree, mandatory resting time for the drivers automatically gives much time for charging. But not all stops are hours long.
According to my source, there's currently not one mega charger in Germany that allows trucks to charge enough during a 45 min break, so that they can actually drive on.

According to the same source, several companies that tried to build a charging infrastructure with such mega chargers were turned down by the power utilities because the distribution network apparently isn't capable of handling that much load. Upgrading the grid accordingly is said to take 5-10 years.

I think countries with relatively high BEV share of passenger vehicle fleet will already face a decent challenge with getting the grid to charge these cars. Charging hundreds of thousands of semis will be an even greater challenge.

This is where fuels like H2/methanol/ammonia will have their place I think, as refuelling with these scales much easier than recharging BEVs.

> Another issue with your theory is that the truck stop that trucks would use are not really the same in form and function as what normal traveling people use for the most part.

Many truck stops along highways offer both, areas for trucks as well as cars. I see no reason, why they wouldn't be combined in many cases.

A hydrogen refuelling station for trucks that just opened can also be used by cars:
https://www.now-gmbh.de/en/news/pressreleases/opening-of-a-h...

> And its yet to be shown that anybody is actually willing to make the massive investments in hydrogen trucking station, and that there will be hydrogen distribution available. Local generation is very unlikely for a truck stop.

Local generation doesn't exist right now. But as renewable share of electricity grows larger and as more and more old power plants (coal/gas) go offline, they offer perfect sites to (relatively) locally produce hydrogen from excess renewable electricity.

> And even if, we somehow had hydrogen fuel stations. In practice they are simply worse cars then electric cars. They are far, far more complex to build, and thus cost more to build. They have far far more failure points. For the majority of people who can charge at home, or at work, its just a far worse experience. For long distance travel, supercharging is already really good and its getting better rapidly. Most people make longer breaks then necessary for charging already.

Again, I (partially) agree. Yes, hydrogen/derivatives add complexity compared to a BEV.
Supercharging works, yes. But the question is, whether it will be practical to scale it to a vehicle fleet with a majority of BEV. I doubt it.

> I think seasonal storage makes little sense economically. If your hydrogen production relies on intermittent power availability its going to have really bad uptime and is gone be really bad economically.

Well, if there's sustained renewable electricty generation surpluses over say a week then that is already a magnitude that cannot be met with pumped hydro or batteries (EV/home).
Take an average grid throughput of 70 GW in Germany. Over 7 days that's 11,760 GWh. Now let's say due to renewables generating massively, you have a surplus of just 20 %. That's 2,352 GWh. You'd need ~ 30,000,000 BEV cars with a 80 kWh battery each to store all this amount of electricity, and they'd all need to be charged 100 %. Storing all/most of that in batteries doesn't sound feasible in the near future to me.

I think the way this may develop is: when the electricity cannot be consumed otherwise locally and the grid doesn't allow for all of it to be transmitted to neighbouring countries (power lines are regularly maxed out already and more capacity is being added rather slowly), then the price of a KWh will drop to zero or negative in the price zone where it's being generated. At some point, prices will be low enough to make even intermittent electrolysis economically feasible, I think. Just a matter of time.
What else are you going to do with lots of PV in summer when all cars and home batteries are charged and the home aircon is drawing its 2 kW and there's 15 kW of PV on the roof of millions of homes? Just switch off the PV?

> Importing energy threw high voltage DC lines makes more sense then transporting hydrogen derivatives. Its far cheaper unless you are going across an ocean.

It may be cheaper to transport electricity via HVDC per km per kWh, but with an additional HVDC line connecting two distant points you get additional constraints (because demand + charging always has to equal supply + discharching) and increased strain on the grid portions surrounding these points.
Transporting electricity/energy between the same points by generating H2/ammonia/methanol, then shipping it over the ocean and then using it at the destination on the other hand does _not_ lead to another coupling of demand and supply. Instead it creates a buffer.
And I think this buffering feature which isn't taken into account in the simple $/km*kWh is a feature that is only going to get more valuable over time, at least over the coming decades.

> I absolutely do not believe in the vision that hydrogen (derivatives) will be like oil where a few regions have a shit-ton of production and then we ship it all over the world.

There are actually many such projects being built/devoloped right now. If you search for hydrogen/electrolysis projects on the web, you'll find that many projects have ammonia generation as a component.

https://www.world-energy.org/article/14732.html ("Gigawatt-Scale: the World's 13 Largest Green-Hydrogen Projects")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Renewable_Energy_Hub

https://www.rwe.com/en/press/rwe-ag/2022-03-18-import-of-gre...

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/abu-dhabis-kizad-a...

https://www.yara.com/corporate-releases/the-worlds-first-cle...

While obviously many companies that are tied to fossil fuel and the "legacy" non-renewable chemical industry are pushing such projects to keep their feet in the door that is in my opinion just one factor. The other being that chemical storage/transport of energy simply has its technical benefits compared to energy transport/storage via grid/batteries.

> Most nations have enough energy option to figure out their own grid and balance out with their immediate neighbour.

With lots of fossil generation that might be true now, but with increased renewable share there will be a growing need for storage/buffering, just a fact.