Yes, best of a bad lot, but still not good. Nuclear is relatively cheap when compared to CT and coal, not free. Is spending the huge amounts of energy required for electrolysis of water to produce h2 in the necessary quantity a good use for the resources? Remember, there isn't any reserve nuclear capacity now. The country's nuclear generating stations mostly run at capacity now because they are the cheapest units except for hydro. So either another 200 - 300 nuclear generating stations have to be built along with the industrial structure to produce and distribue H2 on a commercial scale (Couple of trillion $$$?), or you have to get the electricity for peaking units which burn fossil fuels already and make the conversion much more inefficient than the "reforming" from methane.
H2 as a practical vehicle fuel is a pipe dream for some politicians and Sierra club types who confuse science with science fiction. The politicians at least understand that H2 can cynically be used to transfer wealth from the already overexploited taxpayers to their buddies in the corporate world.
BTW you didn't answer whose money you wanted to spend to play with this concept.
You don't know that unless you know the costs of the alternatives to H2.
Fuel cell technology is no longer the question. They work and are clean, efficient, and reliable. The question is the fuel cycle with H2 being the best possible fuel. It's worth investigating. When you say "look at the money" as opposed to "look at the potential" you are self-limiting. Consider that in a few decades after the invention of the internal combustion engine, virtually every corner of the globe had developed the "hydrocarbon infrastructure" to support wide-spread use. That was an achievement that boggles the mind of a 'central planner' but it was accomplished with relatively little fuss. If the economics work, the infrastructure will follow.