As an interest in synthetic fuel projects develops, allegations about the health and environmental risks associated with these projects increase. From process descriptions it is not always clear why...

As an interest in synthetic fuel projects develops, allegations about the health and environmental risks associated with these projects increase. From process descriptions it is not always clear why certain projects gain rapid acceptance whereas others do not. For example, coal gasification and liquefaction processes are cited as contributing to a “greenhouse effect” by releasing more CO2 to the atmosphere than oil or natural gas. On the other hand, the use of alcohol as a fuel is considered to be an acceptable CO2 release. A recent issue of Energy Resources & Technology describes plans for a 60,000 bbl/day ethanol plant for fuel production. The plant will consume 86,600 Btu of energy to produce 1 gal of ethyl alcohol, plus a cattle feed by-product having “an energy equivalent of 14,500 Btu.” Since combustion of 1 gal of alcohol yields 76,500 Btu, the total energy produced on burning the alcohol is 4400 Btu greater than that consumed in its production. Calculations show that this overall process yields 7500 Btu of energy per mole of CO2 produced. Efficient coal conversion processes produce 140,000 Btu for each mole of CO2 produced. This is almost 19 times the energy produced from alcohol at equivalent CO2 production. Is fuel production from alcohol attractive?