How to practically introduce an H2 energy economy

The author of the January 2007 Scientific American article (I forgot to write down his name,) cited several problems with the renewability of Ethanol. I missed the article at first, but it was drawn to my attention by a letter to the editor in the May Issue. A really important objection to the renewability of Ethanol as a car fuel was overlooked: Where is the water going to come from to grow the Corn? Forget how many billions of gallons it will take for the distillation process, and the carbon-dioxide overhead in heating the corn mash, where is enough water going to come from to irrigate the land for corn? The great benefit that Corn ethanol gives is that it only produces approximately the same amount on carbon-dioxide when burnt that the corn absorbs during its growth process. While this is also true of bio-diesel, the oil based nature of the product makes it less corruptible by water damage, and the fact is that bio-diesel having no sulfur, compared to the sulfur content of natural diesel will burn in high efficiency engines only available in Europe until now (recently the diesel industry has had a new low sulfur standard legally imposed on them.) As such, bio-diesel is likely more energy friendly than ethanol. As we have seen in other Scientific American articles, clean coal strips out CO2 and S2 emissions for underground storage using ionic splitters, finally burning pure H2. If the only thing burnt in a clean coal plant was H2, there would be a lot of pure carbon left. Do we know if the resulting pure carbon would be suitable for nano-tubes or carbon fiber? The H2 having been syphoned off, instead of burnt, it could be stored in sodium-borohydride in a reversible process patented by Millennium Inc (held by Chrysler.) The key to this reversibility is a ruthenium catalyst, which is rare, but less expensive than the platinum in an "ordinary" catalytic converter. If this H2 was used in fuel cell cars, and the bio-diesel was reserved for agro-industrial vehicles and Mac trucks, we should see an improvement in the overall sustainability of the energy economy. Introducing fuel cell cars has long been a Catch-22. No cars no supply, no supply no cars. To bootstrap this operation, I have suggested (to Jeb Bush when he was governor of Florida,) that we replaced houses destroyed in hurricanes with houses having a fuel cell underneath the garage floor. Since the sodium-borohydride is inert, it could be trucked around like ozarka until such time as piping it became more practical. Houses represent a steady demand market for H2 fuel, and as their cars wear out, they should be quite happy to replace the gas car in the garage with a fuel cell car. Price is still an obstacle, but it doesn't stop me thinking, or I would have thrown up my hands at the fact the Corn subsidies make bio-diesel unlikely, and suggested draining the great lakes of fresh water, to irigate Iowa. I reason that a corn kernel uses less CO2 to grow that a Soy seed, and it takes more soy seeds to produce bio-diesel than corn kernels to produce ethanol. The main political obstacle is Corn subsidies. Soy subsidies would compensate.