Hydrogen can be transported much more safely than fossil fuels. An article in Scientific American a few months back discussed a "Superpipeline" which would carry both electricity and hydrogen, which would double as a coolant. See: This report from IEEE for details.
Hydrogen can be created more easily than any other fuel and more cleanly too. For those of you naysayers who obviously missed that day in Chem 101, Water + energy = Hydrogen. Hydrogen + air = energy + cleaner air than you put in. Hydrogen-burning engines are MINUS EMISSIONS VEHICLES. To quote The American Hydrogen Association
To improve air quality some states have set zero emission standards for cars. A vehicle converted to operate on hydrogen easily meets this standard and can actually improve upon it by cleaning the air through which it travels by reducing atmospheric concentrations of carbon monoxide, diesel soot, tire particles and unburned hydrocarbons and converting these pollutants into carbon dioxide and water. This air cleaning capability provides a Minus Emissions Vehicle (MEV).
This quote refers to hydrogen combustion. In fact, this same association had a book published in 1982 (I forget the title) which claimed a then-modern car could be converted to run on hydrogen/gasoline or pure hydrogen fuel for $500 per car, get 80 miles to the gallon, and when running on pure hydrogen, emit cleaner air than it took in. They had several proof-of-concept vehicles. Needless to say, those claims are pretty wild, but if there was even a kernel of truth to them, why didn't we hear about it? Oil lobbyists anyone?
Hydrogen could be created by solar panels on your roof, stored in a tank by your house, and pumped into your car as needed. You could sell your excess to others. Infrastructure is nice, but not strictly necessary. If you could spend $10,000 on equipment and never buy gasoline again, and help the environment, and potentially have some spare hydrogen to sell, wouldn't you?