Don't forget Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI). I'm no fossil fuel proponent, but ethanol cannot even remotely compare to the energy density and efficiency of gasoline or natural gas.

@Shawno1972 Not surprising given it's low energy yield, high production time and land requirements, and of course energy losses from processing the fuel itself. The microbes that turn sugar into ethanol take a cut of your energy to do so, because they are digesting the sugar in the absence of oxygen in order to survive.

But the CO2 from Alcohol is not "New CO2" on the atmosphere, you are just returning the CO2 that was absorbed by the sugar cane (most efficient source), corn or the source you prefer.
So even if it is less efficient and release more Co2, the "Net" CO2 is zero.

We have to continue to release particulate matter into the atmosphere to slow global warming. The damage has already been done.

@Pedrohbds the CO2 released from fossil fuels isn't "new" either, it was from ancient plankton and forests that released O2 eons ago. There should be no O2 in the earth's atmosphere.

@ShawnHicks I have heard some conflicting reports on releasing particulate matter like this. Some studies have shown that it can actually exasperate the greenhouse effects because particulates can actually trap more heat on the earth's surface, and decrease the rates of photosynthesis reducing rates of carbon sequestration by plants and plankton.

Remember, CO2 is not the major contribute to the green house effect, it's water. CO2 gets all the flack because it is man made, and yes I totally agree with the video ( which has nothing to do with ethanol or particulate release, but whatever ) but what they miss is that it is possible to turn CO2 and water into sugar because this is what plants do every day. In fact, NASA has a competition for anyone who can create a commercially viable way to do this because this is a critical industry for surviving on mars.

@Happy_Killbot The relevant portion of the video are at 12-15min. His point was that in the long run (10-20 human generations), organic storage of CO2 is ineffective due to the volume of recovery and redistribution from decomposition.

@ShawnHicks No, his point is it isn't valid in bracelet form. If we could do that at massive scale, it would be effective. For example, if we could use CO2 to build complex molecules such as carbon nano tubes or as a base for certain chemical processes, it could be made into a commodity, and this would sequester carbon.

The arguments that arosols cool the earth's surface by increasing the earth's albedo is a valid one, but that might only be true on small scales. We have no idea what would happen if we scaled that up and did it intentionally. For example, if it lets UV light in but doesn't let infrared heat out, it would lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, this is what happened to Venus.

We already do, though.

@Shawno1972 Clearly not enough.

Well, not necessarily. Ethanol vs. methanol. Usually ethanol is used in combustion engines, and it's the same kind we drink when we swig a beer. As long as it's not the 85/15 ethanol/gasoline mix typically found at gas stations.