First think if the following items will go up in price if you do this.
Coal, a combustible organic rock composed primarily of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Coal is burned to produce energy and is used to manufacture steel. It is also an important source of chemicals used to make medicine, fertilizers, pesticides, and other products. Coal comes from ancient plants buried over millions of years in Earth's crust, its outermost layer. Coal, petroleum, natural gas, and oil shale are all known as fossil fuels because they come from the remains of ancient life buried deep in the crust. Then per Scientific American Magazine on line . The conversion technology is well established (the Germans used it during World War II), and liquid coal can power conventional diesel cars and trucks as well as jet engines and ships. Coal industry executives contend that it can compete against gasoline if oil prices are $50 a barrel or higher. But liquid coal comes with substantial environmental and economic negatives. On the environmental side, the polluting properties of coal-starting with mining and lasting long after burning-and the large amounts of energy required to liquefy it mean that liquid coal produces more than twice the global warming emissions as regular gasoline and almost double those of ordinary diesel. As pundits have pointed out, driving a Prius on liquid coal makes it as dirty as a Hummer on regular gasoline. One ton of coal produces only two barrels of fuel. In addition to the carbon dioxide emitted while using the fuel, the production process creates almost a ton of carbon dioxide for every barrel of liquid fuel. Which is to say, one ton of coal in, more than two tons of carbon dioxide out. Congressional and industry proponents of coal-to-liquid plants argue that the same technologies that may someday capture and store emissions from coal-fired plants will also be available to coal-to-liquid plants. But even if the carbon released during production were somehow captured and sequestered-a technology that remains unproven at any meaningful scale-some studies indicate that liquid coal would still release 4 to 8 percent more global warming pollution than regular gasoline. Liquid coal is also a bad economic choice. Lawmakers from coal states are proposing that U.S. taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big purchases by the government for the next 25 years. Their mantra is that coal-based fuels are more American than gasoline. But no operating coal-to-liquid plants exist in the U.S., and researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimate it will cost $70 billion to build enough plants to replace 10 percent of American gasoline consumption. Some energy experts worry that the scale of the incentives could lead to a repeat of the disastrous effort 30 years ago to underwrite a synthetic fuels industry. The country would be spending billions in loans, tax incentives and price guarantees to lock in a technology that produces more greenhouse gases than gasoline does. This is unacceptable at a time when leading scientists from all over the world are warning that greenhouse gases must be cut by at least 60 percent over the next half a century to avert the worst consequences of global warming. Instead of spending billions to subsidize a massively polluting industry, we should be investing in efficiency and in renewable energy technologies that can help us constrain global warming today. Another thing which ISNT being done.... You can make petroleum out of COAL for about $40 a barrel. Screw ethanol and making diesel out of soybeans! There's a LOT of coal out there - why are we being raped at the gas pump
