There may or may not be a subisdy on ethanol itself, i don't know. There is however a subsidy on its major feedstock- corn. That is, in effect, a subsidy on ethanol.
The reason why there is a reaction to this is that many of us understand economics and know that if this was so great, then it would not need subsidies in order to be profitable for people to produce it.
You think there's no subsidy of ethanol production? There is. Ever wonder why ADM is the sponsor of just about every PBS show with a news or politics focus, as well as a multitude of ads on newspaper editorial pages? Ethanol subsidies, and to coopt those sources so they don't oppose them. Ever. Also, the few politicians who have opposed ethanol subsidies always change their tune when they run for President -- that's due to the Iowa caucus.
"My current car used only ethanol.."
Actually you're probably using about 10% ethanol / 90% gasoline.
No subsidy?
When the feds tax regular gasoline a certain amount, and reduce that amount by over 50 cents per gallon for ethanol, that's a subsidy. It reduces tax revenue by about $1 billion per year, and that money goes to the ethanol producers. (And on the other side of the equation, corn subsidies also throw more money ADM's way.)
I don't think it's hatred for ethanol per se. It just a negative reaction to what appears to be a major scam. Ethanol is only economical if you include the huge agricultural subsidies and special tax breaks that other energy sources are denied. This mainly benefits Archer-Daniels-Midland, which pours plenty of money into buying off politicians promoting ethanol production and enacting regulations requiring its addition to gasoline.
The worst part of this scam is that there is a strong argument (which Cornell University scientist David Pimentel has advanced) that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than that ethanol contains. In other words, ethanol is a net energy loser. Obviously the ethanol industry has attempted to rebut Pimentel, and others have in turn attempted to rebut the rebuttal.
So it's hard to get excited about a method of turning ethanol into hydrogen. If ethanol itself is of questionable economic value, taking the addition step (and the additional expense) of converting it to hydrogen doesn't solve that underlying problem even if hydrogen can power a car more efficiently than ethanol.
Others have explained the ethanol racket, so I'll address the hydrogen absurdity. (And maybe someone else has already addressed this too, I haven't read the whole thread yet.)
If the goal is cheap hydrogen, using clean, economical production, the only method that makes sense is to crack H2O using nuclear plants.
But, that is politically incorrect. It's so doubleplusunpc that we'd apparently rather have the whole country collapse due to extortion from the oil sheikhs than to build a series of nuke plants to crack water into fuel -- and, for a nearly free bonus, desalinate seawater for municipal supplies and irrigation, taking care of another "issue" at the same time.
We can address another "issue" too (even if it's not a real issue), just by dumping the oxygen (left over after cracking the hydrogen out of the water) into the atmosphere. Put up some pretty billboards, "This Nuclear Plant Produces As Much Clean, Pure Oxygen as 500 Square Miles of Rainforest!"
Three simple words explain the problem: We are stupid.
Resolve that problem, and everything else becomes trivial.