We submit the enclosed and following as additional confirmation that the technology for liquefying coal is so well understood that even low-rank coals can be considered as appropriate feed stocks.
Herein is reported work undertaken jointly by Australia and Japan, which further demonstrates that fact.
The excerpt, with comment appended:
"Coal Liquefaction Technology for Low Rank Coal.
Author: Matsumura Tetsuo (Kobe University); Tamura Masaaki (Kobeseikosho Takasagoekikase(?))
Journal: Energy and Resources; 1999; Code: Z0986A; ISSN: 0285-0494; Vol. 20; No. 1; Pages 23-29
Abstract: This paper outlines the conceptual design demonstration plant of liquefaction of brown coal jointly developed by Japan and Australia and evaluation of economical efficiency. Improved BCL process which promotes catalytic reaction by first and second hydrogenation is adopted. Hydroxy iron oxide is used as a catalyst, and sulfur and nitrogen are removed by vapor-phase hydrogenation. Calculation results of product cost and energy efficiency are shown."
Be interesting to see those "calculation results of product cost and efficiency", wouldn't it?
Thing is: Here again, we have research focused on the liquefaction of coal, to produce substitutes for petroleum-based products, that isn't targeted on figuring out how to do it, but, on how to do it better.
And, they are doing it with "Low Rank" coals that, in terms of Btu and ash content, might compare to what we used to dump in waste piles in Appalachia.
Our point: If we can make the liquid fuels we need from our domestic reserves of coal, including low-rank coals, and even coal mine wastes, that option, even if it isn't yet absolutely perfect or completely optimized, has to be better than what we have now, with an uncontrolled flood of our money gushing out to various petroleum powers who don't really care for us - the US, the common people of the US - all that much, doesn't it?