Here in Europe, there’s a massively pro hydrogen lobby. Whenever the Hydrogen high priest or disciples publish articles they’re routinely highly bias, showing no desire to waste words describing the difficult technical issues. So in order to provide some balance, here’s a really difficult issue for hydrogen, atmospheric leakage, indeed its Hydrogen’s dirty little secret ;-
It goes like this;- Hydrogen is the smallest molecule so will diffuse through metal and even glass. A high pressure hydrogen tank will bleed to empty in a little over a week if unused. Hence about 6-12% (depending on storage time) is inherently leaked into the atmosphere.
Now here’s the dirty part;- H2 vented into the atmosphere has a global warming potential (GWP) of 5.8;- that’s one ton of H2 in the atmosphere has the same impact as 5.8 tons of CO2. So assuming 12% inherent leakage into atmosphere will come from every ton of hydrogen produced, even if it’s end use turns it 100% into water, just using it will have the same effect of releasing 0.7tons of CO2 (for reference;- one ton of kerosene will produce 2.7 tons of CO2). In order to give some idea of an existing example, the Space Shuttle used only 56% of the hydrogen supplied in total to the program.
By simple examination any claims of hydrogen being zero emissions is deception.
I wouldn't recommend it. E85 is mostly ethanol, most manufacturers offer separate models optimized for E85. E85 has a lower energy content than petrol, so you have to inject more of it. Fuel injection systems not designed for E85 will not detect the different fuel composition and I suspect they'll run the engine too lean.