It's utility depends on the user's objective. Is it to find a more EFFICIENT fuel? Hydrogen cracking isn't going to do that. Is the objective to find a CLEANER burning fuel? If so, and you're willing to pay the price for the inefficient conversion, then cracking is a viable option.
I never understand it when people say that it would be cleaner to add the conversion. Why not use the energy you are expending on the conversion as the primary energy source?
Because when you're commuting ten or fifteen miles each way to work or school that's an awfully long extension cord. That would also apply to a street bus.
A pressure tank full of hydrogen would probably be lighter than batteries capable of producing the same energy and wouldn't contain the toxic chemicals that are a consideration when many types of batteries are disposed of.
The problems are flammability if the hydrogen storage is damaged in an collision (I suspect either liquid hydrogen or gas would create an explosive cloud
much easier than with gasoline) and the expense of the fuel cell if you want an electric car/bus.
