All it does is put the pollution back to the power station
"All it does is put the pollution back to the power station" is quite a long-lived argument. When you look at the economic and environmental cost from the source to getting power to the road, there's a hell of a lot of mucking about.
With petrol, you've got to pump the oil out of the ground, forward it to a refinery, refine it and distribute it in tankers (first in ships, then on the road) to filling stations. Then there's delivering the power to the road, with the efficiency of the internal combustion engine running at 15-20% at best.
With electric, you've got to dig the coal out of the ground, transport it to the power station, where it is burned with around 85% efficiency. It's then distributed through the existing network (which isn't quite as bad as an earlier poster suggested) before charging the battery, where there are losses due to resistance. The power is delivered to the road with 85% efficiency. Trouble is, battery technology that is affordable, envinronmentally friendly and gives reasonable performance at the same time is only just starting to materialise.
With hydrogen, the hydrogen has to be extracted from some other source (such as water or gas). This is very inefficient and in practice may use more energy than is actually contained in the final product. If you create the hydrogen away from the filling station or home, there are inherent problems in transporting and managing it. Or indeed, getting a wide enough distribution network going in the first place. And the current fuel cell technology uses rare and environmentally unfriendly products in its manufacture.
Okay, with the electric option you could choose to buy from "green" sources, thus removing the reliance on fossil fuels and the inherent pollution but none of these is a particularly pretty or efficient way of doing things. The real answer is to eliminate the need for travel and transport...