Possibly, but I am not sure how bad it would be with a car company actually applying engineering to it. After all, if a quarantined Russian can do that in his garage...
That's not the same thing at all.
(Near) Atmospheric pressure hydrogen is essentially useless for a vehicle. For a hydrogen vehicle, the thing needed is a way to consume energy when it is cheap or convenient to produce hydrogen (the thing your video covers), and then a way to compress the hydrogen to use later, at a place where another energy source is not available, in a useful quantity. The compression requires 10,000 to 20,000 PSI to have a reasonable and worthwhile energy density to justify the time, expense, and inefficient conversion process. Those plastic hoses are not "high" pressure to any degree necessary.
The video you presented has no meaningful compression and is instead just a way to waste electricity by turning it into some useful energy plus around 40+% wasted heat. It doesn't store it in any meaningful quantity, and therefore provides no benefit to outweigh its inefficient drawbacks. If you have the power there, it is better to just use the power there in a more efficient way. The only time an inefficient process should be used is when it provides some other benefit, or as a toy.
Please see video I posted a couple of pages ago. He demonstrated why it would be better to hook that motorcycle battery directly up to an electric motor instead of draining 40+% of the battery for no useful purpose. The range is less after doing all this energy conversion, and the weight is greater.
The thing to remember is that the hydrogen is being used as an energy storage medium. When you "produce" hydrogen, you don't create energy, you just convert existing energy into less energy of a different form. The battery example in your bike video is a very simple one to consider critically, because it keeps all the energy inputs and outputs in one system. Ignore the appropriateness of the unit of energy, it doesn't matter: Let's say you have 10,000 joules of energy stored in a battery which was obtained from some other source. You then use that 10,000 joules to create 8,000 joules of hydrogen. Then you "burn" that 8,000 joules of hydrogen either in a fuel cell or in a combustion engine, and create 2,000 to 4,800 joules of motion. Again, the units are wrong, but you can convert them, if you care. The end result is the same. You wasted a lot of battery in order to do a little work. And those numbers are best-case. In reality, you have to compress hydrogen to make a product that has any practical use, and that makes the efficiency numbers even worse. It is much better to just hook that battery up to an electric motor, since that battery is already mobile. If the energy source isn't mobile, then hydrogen can be an option to store energy, but only in some circumstances when the scale is large enough to make it worthwhile and other options don't exist for some reason. Currently there are almost always better options. At the moment, the only time hydrogen seems to make sense is when it is for political or environmental reasons. Or for some scam investor reason. If batteries are too bad politically or ecologically, and the hydrogen production's energy source is better than the fossil fuel alternative, good! But that is pretty much never the case at the moment. Only 5% of hydrogen is produced by green energy, and that completely kills it as an option. Everything else is just an additional reason why hydrogen is a bad option.
Fact: you do less environmental damage by just burning gas in your car, instead of burning hydrogen in your car. That's why hydrogen vehicles are absurd at the moment. Using hydrogen in your car, you burn more fossil fuel for the consumer to dream that they are reducing fossil fuel reliance.
