Sure, you could put it like that. You're pretending like electricity is limitless, though. Which is only one of the flaws of your post.
The efficiency of the electrolysis process is high, but it's not 100%. (This PDF puts efficiency of most economically viable methods around 80%.) Taking into account the efficiency of the electricity production, that number plummets. Also keep in mind: about 50% of the United States' electricity is made in coal-fired plants. This Wikipedia article states:
Average share of electricity generated from coal in the US has dropped slightly, from 52.8% in 1997 to 49.0% in 2006. However, due to growth of the total demand for electricity, the net production of coal-generated electricity increased over the same period from 1.845 to 1.991 trillion kilowatt-hours per year in absolute terms.
The ways we're currently generating electricity are not at all limitless. Fossil fuels are still our primary source of electricity, and producing hydrogen uses a LOT of electricity. From this Wikipedia article:
In current market conditions, the 50 kWh of electricity consumed to manufacture one kilogram of compressed hydrogen is roughly as valuable as the hydrogen produced, assuming 8 cents/kWh.
A more relevant quote, though, also comes from the PDF I linked earlier:
At current market price, the cost of producing hydrogen from natural gas is about a third of the cost of electrolysis.
Which means people probably won't be using electricity, let alone solar/wind/hydro, to produce hydrogen. They'll use natural gas. Which, again, is not limitless.
And I haven't even mentioned CO2.