Powering your home isn't stationary?? See discussion upthread about the NJ engineer who gets all his energy from solar hydrogen. His "one-off" system cost ~$500K, but most of that was engineering. His estimate for cost to reproduce his system was on the order of $50K. And that was years ago.
"Hydrogen generation requires some other form of energy to make hydrogen. The hydrogen then has less energy than you started with at the same location. Why not just use what you started with as your energy source?"
Because batteries are expensive for the amount of energy required to run a whole house.
"Perhaps for energy storage for something like wind or solar. But then you are talking about a rather significant amount energy storage and the efficiencies and volumes ecome a significant restriction like in transportation.
Sorry, but no. The storage volume density requirement for home power is MUCH MUCH less than for transport usage.
"Compressed air or water lift provide as good or better efficiencies and storage constraints."
Again, no. Compressed air is much less efficient (energy lost as heat during compression). And the likelihood of your house being next to a suitably tall hill for "pumped storage" is nil.
I don't believe the economics are above the options.
You need to look at the low specific gravity of hydrogen and how much waste heat is generated to compress it down to a usable volume.
I don't mean to dismiss it as unfeasible. But I do not see numbers to support it as a better option.
I do keep looking at systems like this for my personal use. I have some remote property we will be developing and I will have to extend the power line over a mile to reach it and it will not be a straight path.
But economics are the deciding factor.