WWII germany made the bulk of its gasoline from coal, using the high pressure Fischer-Tropsch process. later, in the 1960’s South Africa employed a varient of the process, and made its own gasoline for years (SASOL). my question; since we have plenty of coal, why are we dicking around with making ethanol from corn? that process is inefficient, and is already having a bad effect 9the price of corn-food for many of the world’s poor, has doubled). Why isn’t the USA goinf full steam ahead with a modified F-T gasoline synthesis process? The process is well known, yields a good product 9up to 100 octane gasoline), and as mentioned, we have plenty of coal. So why don’t we take a small fraction of the $400 billion we blow every year in iraq, and buy ourselves independence from the ME? 
Here in Pennsylvania every few months or so an article is in the paper about building a coal to liquids plant. Here is a link
http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=715&Month=4&Year=2005
Hope it gets built.
The Fischer Tropsch process requires energy, so merely from that point of view it is a net loss compared to simply burning petroleum. In terms of contributions to global warming, it is even worse. The energy required to produce synthetic fuels from coal, comes from burning more fossil fuels, as a result the use of synthetic fuels produces significantly more greenhouse gases.
Ethanol, on the otherhand, comes from biomass. The carbon in biomass comes from the CO[sub]2[/sub] in the air. As a result, ethanol is considered to be carbon-neutral (Energy required to grow the crops makes it in reality somewhat less so, but that’s why we need the research.)
Now, combining biomass into the Fischer-Tropsch process to produce synthetic fuels is a very interesting idea. What makes this even more interesting is that biomass could produce ethanol first, then the remaining mass could potentially be used in the Fischer-Tropsch process.
You can crack coal to make hydrogen, is that any better or is CO2 still produced in the process?
Cracking coal with water produces H[sub]2[/sub] and CO, but it takes energy to do it. Usually they burn coal to get that energy, since it is around.
Eh? I’m, I’ll admit, not completely up to speed on the F-T process’ intricacies, but does the energy for the process HAVE to come from burning fossil fuels? Nuclear reactors could provide power, as well. Or any number of other “cleaner” energy sources.
On the other hands, there’s also Thermal Depolymerization, which can convert waste hydrocarbons (like dead things, or plastic) into synthetic crude oil.
Since the F-T process presumes a source of coal, it is unlikely that anything else would be used for energy. That said, you are right that nuclear energy could bring down the greenhouse emisions to around that of gasoline.
Here is an interesting link on making methanol from coal. I do not know if it is using the Fischer=Tropsch process.
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.18976/article_detail.asp
“…So if we are to use alcohol fuels to achieve energy independence, a broader resource base is needed. This can be provided by methanol, which can come from both a broader array of biomass materials and also from coal and natural gas. Methanol production from coal is particularly important, since coal is America’s, and the world’s, cheapest and most prevalent energy resource. The United States could power its entire economy on coal for centuries, …”
An Energy Revolution
By Robert Zubrin
IIRC, the costs of the Fischer-Tropsch are pretty high, and it only becomes economical when the price of oil hits triple digits per barrel. Still, if we’re that desperate, we could always invade Canada and take their oil sands. 
Again…eh? Even if the F-T process presumes that you have enough coal to spare, it hardly seems automatic that coal is the only energy source you have to work with. I mean, we have plenty of sunlight and Uranium, too—but the whole point is getting the fuel source into a form that’s more practical to use with our infrastructure.
Even so, you still don’t get away from the fact that you are burning fossil fuels and therefore you are increasing the carbon in the biosphere. I’d be suprised if there were any fisher-tropsch plants that didn’t use coal as their primary source of energy. I expect that this is a really energy intensive process, due to the inherent decrease in entropy on going from several small molecules to one large one.
I don’t know of any reasonably economical way to oxidize coal without producing greenhouse gases. That includes fuel cells.
What, are we talking about decreasing our dependance on foreign sources of oil, or trying to save Gaia? If it’s the former, simply gaining a new source of oil brings us back on track—and if one method does it without dramatically increasing the amount of carbon released during fuel production itself, it may still admittedly be a regrettable enviromental outcome, but still a distinguishable one. (To coin a phrase.)
Well, if we aren’t worried about the cost of the gasoline we produce and we aren’t worried about the environmental impact then I’d say we have a great process.
And in a perfect world, we’d just outlaw gasoline, and switch to bicycles and horses until we can perfect helium fusion. In the meantime, we’re stuck with using the stuff—and if the least we can do it minimize our political vulnerability because of it until we can minimize or eliminate it’s enviromental liability, I say so be it.
From what i read, we’ve BLOWN over $450 billion in Iraq; if we had spent this money on F-T gasoline sysnthesis plants, could we be free of oil imports?