Try to use electricity and nitrogen to create ammonia for fertilizer production. I'm sure you see the difficulties in that, as electricity is not an element and thus the only element you have is nitrogen. The element hydrogen is missing. Ammonia requires hydrogen and nitrogen.
Then, try to use electricity to create hydrogen from water (electrolysis) and use that hydrogen and nitrogen to create ammonia for fertilizers. Now you have all the elements you need to make the ammonia molecules.
Similarly, I'm sure that iron production from iron ore is far easier to be done with hydrogen (that takes the oxygen from the iron ore away and makes water as a byproduct) instead of direct electricity. I have heard about plans to make iron using hydrogen to replace coal-based iron production, but have never heard about plans to make iron using direct electricity. However, later on in the steel production chain you might need an electric arc furnace if you need high temperatures, and that actually uses direct electricity and not hydrogen.
Also hydrogen is very easy to store. Salt cavern storage costs about 50 euros per cubic meter. If you can cram hydrogen there at a pressure of 100 bar, it's 0.5 euros per natural cubic meter of hydrogen. A natural cubic meter weighs 0.08988 kg so at density if about 120 MJ/kg (using the lower heating value here) or 33.333 kWh/kg, a natural cubic meter stores approximately 3 kWh. So storage cost is 0.5 EUR / 3 kWh or 0.167 EUR / kWh. The current batteries cost 100 EUR / kWh, nearly three orders of magnitude difference. Even if you take into account that converting hydrogen back to electricity has 50% energy efficiency, hydrogen storage is still 300 times cheaper than lithium ion. Why is this important? Because if you live anywhere far away from the equator, solar power is heavily seasonal. You get lots of it during summer, and practically nothing at winter. Solar power (specifically, photovoltaics, as solar-thermal is very expensive and its cost is not falling exponentially) is projected to become the cheapest electricity production method. Hydrogen allows storing solar power created during summer for consumption during winter. Batteries are way too expensive for seasonal energy storage, although in areas near the equator batteries win for charging during every day and discharging during every night (because batteries have 99% efficiency compared to 75% for hydrogen production and 50% for converting back into electricity or 37.5% for the whole hydrogen chain).
And before you claim that hey let's transport solar power from equatorial deserts long distances, remember that electricity transportation has very large losses and is extremely expensive. Electricity has to be produced near where it's consumed. (Actually you could transport the power as hydrogen using very low losses, having far cheaper transmission pipelines than electricity transmission lines. The trouble is creating that hydrogen in the first place has high losses and converting that hydrogen back into electricity has high losses.)
I agree that whenever electricity is available, it should be consumed immediately. If electricity production all the time matches consumption, then you only use electricity immediately. But production using intermittent renewables never matches the consumption, and that's why you need storage. Batteries win for storage between days, hydrogen wins for storage between seasons.
So what you are missing is failing to realize that renewables are intermittent. If we could produce load-adjustable nuclear power plants cheaply enough then you'd be partially right, hydrogen would not be needed for anything apart from chemical reactions that require hydrogen.