Hydrogen vs. Battery Electric Cars

So the sponsor of this is Toyota, notorious for being against battery electric.

Hydrogens primary source is hydrocarbons, not to mention it has all the logistical difficulties of transmitting petrol, only thing is it's an incredibly dangerous item to transport (The danger and proclivity to escaping enclosure was not touched on enough). I feel like there are some pain points of hydrogen and positive points of B.E.V.s that you could have touched on more. 

The degradation of B.E.V.s has been grossly over exaggerated. LiFePO4 has a deep discharge cycle life of 2000 to several thousand, if you drive a Tesla Model Y 50 miles to work and back every weekday that's 65.178572 Shallow cycles a year. You'll see a 10% reduction in capacity in 30 years, the best part of that degradation is that it's logarithmic across all lithium cells apart from maybe Li-polymer. The other thing about LiFePO4 is that it's cheap. Lithium Titanite does even better but is cost prohibitive.

The statement 'If you took all 15 million electric cars in California and plugged them in at the same time, the grid would fail', is pretty sensationalist. I get it but if we all turned on our kettles and washing machines at the same time, all the grids would fail, yet here we are. Luckily the people that built the grid knew there would be surges and built around that with the ability to call on more energy resources during peak hours.

We live on a planet where every square meter of earth get's around 1,300 watts of energy. Yet we don't upgrade and barely maintain our grid, we play politics with how we connect our grid in Texas. We look at the todays 1020 HP Tesla's that check pretty much every 'what if' and then we find a new hypothetical that it doesn't. 

I'm not saying there's no place for Hydrogen, trucks, ships sure. Hydrogen, forgive the oversimplification, is crude oil again with extra steps.