If I were ever even considering storing something like hydrogen on site, it’d be in an underground tank. Last thing you want is a risk that something ignites it and you have an explosion with tank shrapnel sailing through the yard. Battery storage is safer (not perfectly safe, but safer) and works great in the event of a power outage if you’re in an area with unreliable service. If not, there’s no need for storage. The grid itself becomes a form of storage.
That hydrogen will need a generator burning it and a system to feed it. Between that and the hydrolizer, there’s a lot of expensive and complicated components that can break. And I’m not sure what that’s really buying you. For the grid at large, nuclear power for base load makes the most sense and enables us to use whatever power we actually need rather than having to turn off every light bulb that isn’t absolutely necessary.
Out where I live in a fairly rural suburb there are many people 10 miles from me living in houses fueled by large propane tanks sitting out in their yard. So large that when they need more fuel it's delivered in a large truck (and pumped into the tank). Nothing every happens with them. It's very rare I've heard of an explosion or fire with propane tanks in my lifetime. And that's with propane not being light enough to rise up harmlessly away from everybody if there's a leak like hydrogen does.
Just like solar, that won't work for everybody. But for many of us libertarian minded folks who move way out of the cities to get away from control-freak libs, it's an option I'm researching. Especially with the control-freak libs using global warming as excuse to take over more and more control of our energy consumption.