New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Turning Coal to Liquid Fuel

The U.S.--and the world--has an abundant supply of coal. So does it make sense to turn it into a replacement for oil? David Biello reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]

Coal is everywhere. It can be dirty and dangerous to wrest from the ground, but we're probably not going to run out of it anytime soon. And, unlike oil, the U.S. has a large domestic supply.

As a result, some have suggested that for "energy security" transforming coal into a liquid fuel alternative for cars might make sense. To do that, coal is mixed with oxygen and steam at high temperatures and pressure to produce a gas. This gas is then reacted in the presence of a catalyst to produce a synthetic oil.  


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Already, several industrial conversion plants exist, and the U.S. Air Force, for one, has used the resulting fuel to fly planes.  

But there are two flaws with turning coal into oil, beyond its cost. First, it takes a lot of energy to loosen up the carbon bonds in coal. Second, all that energy use results in the emission of a lot of carbon dioxide—the most ubiquitous greenhouse gas causing climate change.  

In the journal Science this week, chemical engineers suggest that incorporating hydrogen produced from solar, wind or nuclear-derived electricity into the process could eliminate this problem. Of course, it would take billions of dollars to do that and there might be a few better uses for that money, electricity or even hydrogen: advanced biofuels, electric cars or fuel cell vehicles.

After all, electric cars running on juice from coal-fired power plants use no foreign oil, less coal and even emit less CO2 overall than cars burning gasoline.

—David Biello

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe