Will, that's a case of what's called bad thinking. Now you probably read that feldercarb somewhere, and thought well that makes sense, but does it really? No, and here's why.
What you are employing is the current method for the production of H2 to meet the current market for H2, and trying to apply it to an H2 economy. Well thats just not even practical when you have millions of vehicles on the road, so it's a totally pointless way to develop a solution. This sort of thing is only thought of by the folks that are opponents of H2 who like to make ridiculous conclusions about why it's not a viable solution. Those folks are either idiots, or evil bastards making up bullshit.
If mankind harnesses enough natural sources such as solar, wind, thermal, tidal, etc., so that a sufficient amount of electricity is being produced it almost doesn't matter how much is required to produce the H2. And considering that there is nearly no damage to the environment it's actually over-all less expensive than the power we employ now.
You mentioned electrolysis. This would be a fine way to produce H2 given the above paragraph. However, as you know scientists don't just sit on their hands. Last year a paper was published introducing a new method of production employing nickel that drastically reduced the production costs. You can read the white paper on the technology if you'd like here.
And yeah the whole argument about batteries being more efficient, blah blah blah, bite me. Sure so what, so are trains over cars, but the trains don't solve the same problems that cars do, and batteries don't solve the same problems that H2 does, thus rendering such assertions pointless.
The message to take home here is that once developed H2 will provide humanity with a clean, viable power source for our future needs. There are already examples of these technologies in place.