Don't worry, bro'! I hear it costs 1.29 barrels of oil per barrel of ethanol produced, and there's less energy per unit volume to boot. Not to mention the fact that ethanol/gas turns to goo in cans and small engines over time.
And, an organic carbohydrate economy slowly strip mines the soil, IMHO.
Coal is another story. I think that it could be the mainstay of non-nuclear electricity generation in fairly short order. We can afford the stack strubbers. In other places, like transportation, we need portable energy because we have a liquid fuel distribution system in place. So, for coal conversion versus tar sands as a petroleum source, I'm open minded and wondering how efficient the conversion was for the Germans, because I don't know..
Ethanol isn't too bad to produce from something like sugar beets, sugar cane, or anything not as starchy as corn. The problem is with a starch based process, you have so much inert matter to heat in the distillery, and THAT takes a lot of energy. Furthermore, the conversion of the starches to sugar to alcohol emits a ton of CO2. That's what puts a head on your beer, and ethanol from corn is nothing more than distilled beer. I hate to sound like a greenhouse gasser/global warmer, but if CO2 REALLy is a problem, this is the LAST sort of process that should be done.
Typical moonbat enviro thinking. They are more interested in trying to poke the eyes of existing capitalism than to actually find solutions. Ethanol can work out economically on the farm using waste wood for energy and sub food grade crops, but biodiesel using off-spec cottonseed/corn/peanut/etc. oils directly as a fuel makes much more sense.