We submit the attached, very recent, article not only as further evidence that the technology to convert coal into liquid fuel is well-known and established, but that some ignorance concerning the facts, even among those somewhat educated about it, still exists.
Specifically, the researchers make the seemingly-required intellectual obeisant gesture to the false demon of Carbon Dioxide by noting, almost as an aside, that the gas should be captured and stored.
It should be captured and used.
However, they do note, importantly, that coal gasification can lead to multiple income streams.
The excerpts. without further comment:
""Synthetic Fuel Production By Indirect Coal Liquefaction"
Eric D. Larson(a) and Ren Tingjin(b)
a Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University Guyot Hall, Washington Road, Princeton, NJ 08544-1003, USA.
b Department of Thermal Engineering, Tsinghua University, 100084 Beijing, China
This paper reports detailed process designs and cost assessments for production of clean liquid fuels (methanol and dimethyl ether) by indirect coal liquefaction (ICL). Gasification of coal produces a synthesis gas that can be converted to liquid fuel by synthesis over appropriate catalysts. Recycling of unconverted synthesis gas back to the synthesis reactor enables a larger fraction of the coal energy to be converted to liquid fuel. Passing synthesis gas once over the synthesis catalyst, with unconverted synthesis gas used to generate electricity in a gas turbine combined cycle, leads to less liquid fuel production, but provides for a significant second revenue stream from sale of electricity. Recently-developed liquid-phase synthesis reactors are especially attractive for “once-through” processing. Both “recycle” and “once-through” plant configurations are evaluated in this paper. Because synthesis catalysts are poisoned by sulfur, essentially all sulfur must be removed upstream. Upstream removal of CO2 from the synthesis gas is also desirable to maximize synthesis productivity, and it provides an opportunity for partial decarbonization of the process, whereby the removed CO2 can be captured for underground storage. The analysis here suggests that co-capture and co-storage of CO2 and H2S (if this is proven technically feasible) could have important favorable impacts in some cases on liquid fuel production costs. Furthermore, the life-cycle CO2 emissions from production and use of fuels made by ICL would be lower than with production and use of petroleum-derived transportation fuels. If CO2 is not captured at ICL facilities, lifecycle CO2 emissions to the atmosphere would be considerably higher than lifecycle emissions with petroleum-derived fuels."