Because your cites are pie in the sky hopes, and none address the monstrous cost and logistical issue of replacing hundreds of millions of vehicles of one kind -- with the fueling, repairing, and parts infrastructure -- with another, entirely different, kind of vehicle.

None addresses engineering concerns: safety (above and beyond making sweeping claims), longevity, repair issues, reliability -- and all these factors not just of the vehicles but the whole support structure.

Not to mention that the process of MAKING the H2 itself is inefficient and costly, energy-wise, thus dictating a LOT more nuclear plants to be made. I'm in favor of nuclear power, but that's a lot of plant management, waste disposal and other issues going completely unaddressed. And solar isn't a facile answer here.

Switching an advanced civilization from one fuel source to another is a huge undertaking, and all the risks and details are being ignored and handwaved away.

And the entire basis for the argument is that a handful of prototypes are being made. But technological difficulties are due to the scale. Anything can be made to work, briefly, in laboratories and in demo units. The real engineering and manufacturing difficulties emerge when you have to make, support, repair, fuel, and maintain a hundred million units. Those issues come with scale. History is replete with prototypes that exist for decades before they become economical to deploy.

These are basic engineering concerns, and as long as your puff piece articles ignore or pooh-pooh those concerns, they can be dismissed out of hand as frivolous.