Nope! And most hydrogen is fossil fuel (methane) derived and horribly energy inefficient. At this point it's green washing at best.

Edit: adding data:
Steam-Methane Reforming (SMR) accounts for about 95% of all hydrogen production on earth. It uses a huge amount of heat, water, and methane to produce hydrogen.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SMR%2BWGS-1.png

For inputs:

• 6.2MWh of Heat
• 2.2 tons of Methane
• 4.9 tons of pure water

The outputs are:

• 6 tons of CO2
• 1.1 tons of H2

The overall energy in vs energy out is at most 85% efficient. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016236122001867

Hydrolysis, the main competing method, and the one most touted by hydrogen backers, accounts for about 4% of hydrogen production.
This method takes in only pure water and electricity, but it's efficiency is abysmal at some 52%. In every case, a modern kinetic, thermal, or chemical battery will exceed this efficiency.

Other methods are being looked into, but it's thermodynamically impossible for the resulting H2 to produce more energy than it takes to create the H2. So at best today we could use H2 as a crappy battery, one that takes a lot of methane to create.

Yes but hydrogen has storage problems in that it messes with storage containers making long term storage potentially hazardous. How much of that last part is bullshit I am not qualified to answer but it sounds fucky to me.