Instead these are advertisements for "blue" hydrogen-- cracking natural gas and then injecting the CO2 back into the ground. It's a campaign by fossil fuel companies to preserve some of the value of their capital base, rather than just being shut down entirely. Blue hydrogen will be a lot cheaper, at the cost of fossil emissions from methane and CO2 that escape from the equipment or leak from the wellhead.
So it's basically just good old fashioned lies.
Hydrogen is directly useful in electrical synthethis of methane and ammonia, besides myriad current industrial uses, and, as LH2, is disruptive as an aviation fuel: LH2 aircraft will be impossible to compete with, wherever they are available.
Low density is also a big reason why using LH2 in the first stage of a rocket launch vehicle is a dumb idea.
In the meantime, we will need synthetic hydrocarbons, using captured carbon, for extant airframes. It will need to get (or be made, through carbon taxes) cheaper than the mined, refined, and transported stuff.
Having a big hydrogen synthesis infrastructure in place feeding hydrocarbon synthesis will then ease the transition off of hydrocarbons, as equipment that can use hydrogen directly comes online. Stationary uses will come first, displacing natural gas electric generation.
Hydrogen is basically just a really inefficient battery. Nice if you really need it for e.g. energy density reasons but basically sub-optimal for other things.
The challenge with hydrogen hydrogen is energy losses in producing it are about 3-4x (so use 4 kwh of electricity to produce 1kwh of hydrogen). And then you lose more actually burning it. And storing and transporting it add to those losses. Using the electricity directly for heating the iron/steel is much more efficient and potentially a lot more cost effective since you effectively use at least 3-4x less MWH. That's a lot of cost savings. And those can finance a lot of batteries and other solutions.