Ok, I'll try to be objective about this.

Let's forget all the transportation, etc for a real life cycle analysis, and just focus on the three steps they're doing here and see if this even makes sense. I'm MORE than happy for someone to explain what I'm missing and why this is a good idea. I really am.

Until then....

Let's see, there are 14kWh of energy stored in the hydrogen in a gallon of water. A best THEORETICAL electrolysis would be about 70% efficient and it takes 17kWh or energy to get that hydrogen at 70% efficiency = about 24kWh.
Then they convert this and store the hydrogen as an "organic hydride". I don't have the slightest idea how efficient that conversion is, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's also 70% efficient so now we are so now we've spent a total of nearly 35kWh to get 14kWh of usable energy.
Now we have to use a "compact dehydrogenator" to get the hydrogen out again. (Here we again ignore all the problems with trying to store enough hydrogen in a car such as how expensive it is, how much space the tanks take up, how dangerous it is when this could actually explode, etc) and say that this last step is once again 70% efficient and now you have spent 50 kWh of energy to get this 14kWh of hydrogen into your car.

Wo now we took 50kWh and turned it into 14kWh...a total system efficiency of 28%.

When you can convert natural gas to hydrogen with 80% efficiency...why bother with all this mess?

Let's ignore whether or not you like hydrogen. When it comes to hydrogen, and some other dubious energy technologies, it seems that even intelligent people throw out common sense for some cool new way to play with technology. Who cares? I do because they are wasting real money that could be better spent on something else.

What am I missing here? Seriously, someone tell me what I'm missing in all of this? I just don't get this whole hydrogen mess anyway.

Storing the hydrogen as an "organic hydride" is like storing water in a sponge. It has an efficiency of almost 100%, it only takes a little energy to 'release' the hydrogen.
Everything depends on the price of the electricity. if green electricity is produced abundantly, it may make sense in some indications, like range-extender of an electric car.

Current best cheap materials electrolysis is 67% eff. The best current not so cheap materials methods are closer to 85%.

Thing is you convert cheapest power into fuel. So you take say 2 cents per kwh power and convert it into 7 buck per kilo fuel.. and it only costs you about 1 buck in power to do it.

The main cost of all current systems is the system itself not the power needed to power it. This is why making it more effiecent is only a part of what they are realy working on they are realy interested in bulking it out and making the SYSTEM cheaper per kilo made.

Early systems could only make .1 kilo a day and cost 10 million bucks...

Later systems could make 1-2 kilo a day and cost 2-3 million bucks.

Systems they have now can make 120 kilo a day and cost 250k.

They want the final system to cost less then something like 80k and make all the h2 a station needs.

Oh and during this time the cost of the h2 made has gone from something like 1000 bucks a kilo down to fairly cheap.. just power cost wise. But STILL today the main concern is cost of the system per kilo the system will ever make.

Because in the end they have cheap power they dont have a cheap system.. yet.