Instead, loss of the fuel results in entropy, a concern of the second law of thermodynamics and this helps prove the impracticality of this fuel. Combine this with the size of the fuel tank necessary to power a car for many hundreds of miles, and hydrogen begins to look far worse as a real alternative to fuel conservation and replacing fossil fuels. Hydrogen seems like a good idea, and there are hydrogen vehicles in production and on the road. However, delivering hydrogen from the production plants to facilities also proves to be expensive, and it is expensive to build new hydrogen fuel centers, as well. Hydrogen can be dangerous, too. Liquid hydrogen can freeze air, and hydrogen can cause explosions, just like gasoline. If enough hydrogen leaks from a faulty valve or tank in a confined space, like a garage, it can explode, as well (McCarthy). That means that hydrogen could pose a potential danger, just like gasoline, that other types of fuels do not develop.

Hydrogen is expensive to develop and deploy, it is bulky compared to other fuels, it is difficult and expensive to transport, and it takes a lot of energy to create it. It will also require an entire new infrastructure to bring it to the consumer. Hydrogen may be the fuel of the future, but there are alternatives, such as electric and biofuels that are less costly to develop and get to the consumer, and it seems that hydrogen has too many minuses and too few pluses to be the right fuel for future.
References

McCarthy, John. "Hydrogen." Stanford University. 2008. 4 Dec. 2008. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/hydrogen.html

Rocheleau, Richard E. "Hydrogen." Hawaii Natural Energy Institute. 2008. 4 Dec. 2008. http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/hydrogen.asp