Once again, you need to look at the energy throughput. Hydrogen is not an energy source.
The reason it isn't an energy source is because it is not freely available. You have to use energy to obtain it, for example, by hydrolysis of water using electricity. Whatever process is used provides potential energy in the form of atomic hydrogen. This can then be reacted with oxygen to provide heat. But you could have used the electricity you used to create the atomic hydrogen to provide heat more efficiently (no process is 100% efficient)
The Hydrogen Economy hasn't exploded into fruition when crude oil prices have quadrupled over the last decade precisely because of this. And the same applies to all the other alternatives that we know about.
Some environmentalists, such as George Monbiot, James Lovelock, and Mark Lynas, argue that a particular form of nuclear power known as PRISM reactors can provide a significant fraction of our energy needs without many of the dangers inherent in other forms of fission based power production. I'm keeping an open mind on this at the moment.
So I have to disagree that it's all some big money making scheme by big business/the state. Until the last couple of years, the price of fuel, adjusted for inflation, remained pretty much stable for several decades, as This Graph shows.