Because there is no fucking natural source of molecular hydrogen on our planet!!! (physics and chemistry 101) All molecular hydrogen comes from electrochemical, or chemical, processes, all of which require more energy than is achieved by burning the resulting product (thermodynamics 101)
And again, I am not saying that hydrogen isn't useful. It decidedly is, specifically that it doesn't contribute to global warming, and that it may be the most efficient energy storage medium. But a source of energy it is not, because it takes more energy to make it than it releases. Plus there's this problem that the Earth rotates and 1/2 of it doesn't have the Sun shining on it to generate all that free energy. A great solution is to use the energy to make molecular hydrogen -- did I mention that there is no better source on Earth?
You can store the hydrogen and use it during night, when the sun has set, or you can use in automobiles, or in airplanes, neither of which are likely to go all solar.
Again, since there is zero natural hydrogen on Earth, it requires more energy to make it than it generates by burning it.
For the naive who think I am arguing against hydrogen power, read very carefully my posts here. I am doing no such thing. Instead, I am trying to put into perspective where hydrogen stands in the energy economy and why hydrogen alone is not a solution.
I think hydrogen energy is essential for our future, but only as a storage medium. There are no molecular hydrogen sources on Earth that don't require more energy input. NONE!