Synthetic fuels could eliminate entire US need for crude oil, create 'new economy'

November 28, 2012 by John Sullivan
Professor Christodoulos Floudas (center), along with graduate student Josephine Elia and Richard Baliban, who received his Ph.D. from Princeton in 2012, developed a comprehensive system for optimizing the production of synthetic liquid fuels as an economical replacement for petroleum-based fuels. Credit: Frank Wojciechowski

(—The United States could eliminate the need for crude oil by using a combination of coal, natural gas and non-food crops to make synthetic fuel, a team of Princeton researchers has found. 

Besides economic and national security benefits, the plan has potential environmental advantages. Because plants absorb carbon dioxide to grow, the could cut vehicle by as much as 50 percent in the next several decades using non- to create , the researchers said. 

would be an easy fit for the transportation system because they could be used directly in automobile engines and are almost identical to fuels refined from . That sets them apart from currently available biofuels, such as ethanol, which have to be mixed with gas or require special engines.

In a series of scholarly articles over the past year, a team led by Christodoulos Floudas, a professor of chemical and at Princeton, evaluated scenarios in which the United States could power its vehicles with synthetic fuels rather than relying on oil. Floudas' team also analyzed the impact that synthetic fuel plants were likely to have on local areas and identified locations that would not overtax regional or water supplies.

"The goal is to produce sufficient fuel and also to cut , or the equivalent, by 50 percent," said Floudas, the Stephen C. Macaleer '63 Professor in Engineering and . "The question was not only can it be done, but also can it be done in an economically attractive way. The answer is affirmative in both cases."

Accomplishing this would not be easy or quick, Floudas said. A realistic approach would call for a gradual implementation of synthetic fuel technology, and Floudas estimated it would take 30 to 40 years for the United States to fully adopt synthetic fuel. It also would not be cheap. He estimates the price tag at roughly $1.1 trillion for the entire system.

The research makes up an important part of a white paper recently produced by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), the nation's largest chemical engineering association. In the paper, the chemical engineers call for a greater integration of energy sources and urge policymakers to consider chemical conversion processes as a potential method to produce cleaner and cheaper fuels. 

"Right now we are going down so many energy paths," said June Wispelwey, the institute's director and a 1981 Princeton alumna. "There are ways for the system to be more integrated and much more efficient."

The paper was written by Vern Weekman, one of Floudas' co-researchers. Weekman, a lecturer at Princeton, is the former director of the Mobil Central Research Laboratories and a past president of AIChE.

Weekman said the main reason the industry has not embraced synthetic fuels has been cost. Although he said the economics are "still on the edge," Weekman noted that rising prices for crude oil and improvements in the efficiency of synthetic fuel production have made the process far more viable than before.

"The main reason we wrote the paper was to get the planning agencies—the national academies, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Defense Department—thinking about this," Weekman said. He added that it was important that the agencies consider "this key link of using chemical processes to produce conventional fuels."

In the Princeton research, Floudas' team found that synthetic fuel plants could produce gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels at competitive prices, depending on the price of crude oil and the type of feedstock used to create the synthetic fuel. About two-thirds of crude oil consumed by the United States is used for transportation fuel, according to the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA). The EIA said the United States imports about 45 percent of its annual crude oil consumption.

"Even including the capital costs, synthetic fuels can still be profitable," said Richard Baliban, a chemical and biological engineering graduate student who graduated in 2012 and was the lead author on several of the team's papers. "As long as crude oil is between $60 and $100 per barrel, these processes are competitive depending on the feedstock," he said.

The core of the plan is a technique that uses heat and chemistry to create gasoline and other liquid fuels from high-carbon feedstock ranging from coal to switchgrass, a native North American grass common to the Great Plains. The method, called the Fischer-Tropsch process, was developed in Germany in the 1920s as a way to convert coal to liquid fuels. 

The chemistry is complicated, but it basically takes the carbon and hydrogen from the feedstock and reassembles them into the complex chains that make up fuels like gasoline and diesel. Essentially, the feedstock material is heated to 1,000 to 1,300 degrees Celsius and converted to gas, and using the Fischer-Tropsch process, the gas is converted to chains of hydrocarbon molecules. These hydrocarbon chains are then processed over catalysts such as nickel or iron. The end products include fuels, waxes and lubricants normally made from crude oil.

The Princeton team's method adds a step to recycle CO2 through the process to reduce the amount of the gas vented by the plants. Baliban said there is a limit to how much CO2 can be economically recycled, although plants could also trap unused CO2 emissions for later storage.

Over the years, engineers have refined the original Fischer-Tropsch method to increase efficiency. But the high cost of building new synthetic fuel plants, coupled with the low price of crude oil, has made synthetic fuels too expensive for widespread acceptance.

As the price of oil has increased, however, synthetic fuels have become more practical. The U.S. government has undertaken a number of projects to look into the process; in particular, the Defense Department has studied synthetic fuels as a way to supply transportation fuel without depending on overseas suppliers.

In its work, the Princeton team looked at a broader picture. In a July article in the AIChE Journal, the team found that the United States could meet its entire demand for transportation fuel by building 130 synthetic fuel plants across the country. The article, with Josephine Elia, a graduate student in chemical and biological engineering as the lead author, made its assessment using three feedstocks: coal, natural gas and biomass. To avoid switching farmland from food production to crops used for fuel production—which would hurt the food supply—the researchers only included non-edible crops such as perennial grasses, agricultural reside and forest residue. 

The plants modeled in their scenario were placed in proximity to both feedstock supplies and markets for fuels. The analysis factored in external costs such as water supplies and electricity to power the plants' machinery.

Ultimately, the team recommended construction of nine small, 74 medium and 47 large plants producing 1 percent, 28 percent and 71 percent of the fuel, respectively. Most of the plants would be clustered in the central part of the country and in the Southeast. The state with the highest level of fuel production would be Kansas, which would have 11 large synthetic fuel plants. Texas would have the largest number of plants, but because of the scattered nature of feedstock in that state, most of those plants would be medium-sized.

The researchers found that the largest contributor to the price of synthetic fuel would be the cost of building the plants, followed by the purchase of biomass and then electricity. They estimated that the nationwide average cost of producing the synthetic equivalent of a barrel of crude oil would be $95.11, although the cost varies regionally. The cost in Kansas, where most production would occur, would average $83.58 for the equivalent of a barrel of crude oil.

The cost could be much lower if plants eliminated biomass and used only coal and natural gas to run the process, Floudas said, but that would eliminate most of the environmental benefit.

"If you want to have a 50 percent reduction in emissions, you need to have the biomass," he said.

In many ways, synthetic fuels are cleaner than petroleum fuels. The heavy metal and sulfur contaminants of petroleum fuels can be captured in the synthetic plants before the fuel is shipped out. Synthetic fuels also can be used in gasoline and diesel engines with no need for modifications, unlike many biofuels. The biofuel ethanol, for example, is commonly mixed with gasoline, but high levels of ethanol require modifications to car engines and pose special challenges for starting at low temperatures. 

Floudas said that synthetic fuels also would allow carbon reduction with the fleet of cars currently on the road. Even if the country immediately converted to zero-emitting electric or fuel cell vehicles, millions of internal combustion vehicles would still be driving. By switching to synthetic fuels, he said, the country would have the opportunity to reduce those emissions, even if it they would not be completely eliminated.

"This is an opportunity to create a new economy," Floudas said. "The amount of petroleum the U.S. imports is very high. What is the price of that? What other resources to do we have? And what can we do about it?"

Explore further: British government to require biofuels

More information:

Related Stories

British government to require biofuels

November 7, 2005

The British government will reportedly soon require oil companies to blend a fixed proportion of biofuels into the gasoline and diesel fuel they produce.

Coal-to-liquids plant is considered

May 21, 2007

The U.S. Department of Energy has issued a feasibility study for a commercial 50,000-barrel-a-day coal-to-liquids facility in the Illinois coal basin.

'Green' gasoline on the horizon?

January 13, 2009

University of Oklahoma researchers believe newer, more environmentally friendly fuels produced from biomass could create alternative energy solutions and alleviate dependence on foreign oil without requiring changes to current ...

Research of synthetic fuels hopes to cut oil dependence

September 15, 2010

Researchers at Purdue University have developed a facility aimed at learning precisely how coal and biomass are broken down in reactors called gasifiers as part of a project to strengthen the scientific foundations of the ...

Caution needed with new greenhouse gas emission standards

July 13, 2012

Policy makers need to be cautious in setting new 'low-carbon' standards for greenhouse gas emissions for oil sands-derived fuels as well as fuels from conventional crude oils University of Calgary and University of Toronto ...

Recommended for you

Interactive tool lifts veil on the cost of nuclear energy

August 24, 2015

Despite the ever-changing landscape of energy economics, subject to the influence of new technologies and geopolitics, a new tool promises to root discussions about the cost of nuclear energy in hard evidence rather than ...

Smart home heating and cooling

August 28, 2015

Smart temperature-control devices—such as thermostats that learn and adjust to pre-programmed temperatures—are poised to increase comfort and save energy in homes.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2012
Given the rate at which world population will be increasing, wouldn't it make more sense to just make all that land for FOOD production, and use wind turbines and solar and pure electric for energy instead?

As population increases, food demand will increase.

It makes little sense to grow entire fields of crops just to burn it as fuel when you'll be depleting the soil of nutrients, and your energy source is still vulnerable to drought and pests.

Solar and Wind are not vulnerable to pests at all, and drought actually empowers solar due to lower cloud cover.

30 to 40 years just to implement a system that is essentially still "burning dead plants" doesn't seem like much of an improvement to me, and considering immigration rates, that would realistically make the U.S. just about break-even, producing about the same net CO2 as it does now, even if these idealistic numbers somehow came true.
2 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2012
That scientist chick is pretty bangin'.
5 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2012
Dogjaw: she's synthetic.
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2012
" United States could cut vehicle greenhouse emissions by as much as 50 percent in the next several decades using non-food crops to create liquid fuels, the researchers said."

Stupidest idéa I've heard. In 40 years it's going to be far far too late to do anything. Even if it's a small incremental
adjustment. We need a non poluting easy to use enegry source.

2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2012
This is idiotic. Using farmland to produce fuel is a disaster and I don't know if anyone has been listening, but, the obnaminator has declared war on coal mining.
2.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2012
This is idiotic. Using farmland to produce fuel is a disaster and I don't know if anyone has been listening, but, the obnaminator has declared war on coal mining.

Your first statement is intelligent, while your second statement/phrase is annoying, because it's technically true, but you don't think it's the right thing to do, obviously, but it probably is.

Without some sort of government prodding, the energy sector and the American public simply will not change their behavior.

How much coal, natural gas, and oil do you want to burn?

Just because it exists doesn't mean it's safe to burn it.

It's been calculated already that if we keep doing business as usual it's going to poison the oceans during the next 30 to 50 years and start killing off shellfish and planktons, and it's also been calculated that the air itself would become toxic to humans if we burned all fossil fuels (not even thinking about AGW).

So the whole, "it's there let's burn it!" mentality must stop soon...
5 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2012
Horrible ideal. Fischer-Tropsch process by its nature generates lots of CO2 because its primary energy generation reaction is
C H2O-->CO2 H2. In fact South-Africa's synthetic fuel plant that uses coal to generate synthetic fuel is the world largest CO2 producer, which is quite remarkable. So what is the objective of all this - generate more CO2, but with far more cost??
5 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2012
At a cost of $1.1 trillion that's almost as much as a third of an Iraq War!
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2012
Hmmm... Well they could use the output CO2 from this to feed that system another set of scientist came up with to make fuel out of just the gases in the air and the total output should make more fuel and put out less CO2 then. Just a thought..... We shouldn't use food crops to make fuel at all either way though.
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2012
Seems to me many commentators here miss the point that the main "feedstocks" would be coal and natural gas. While "the researchers only included non-edible crops such as perennial grasses, agricultural reside and forest residue" so as not to convert food crop land to fuel production.

It's nice to know that when/if the oil runs out, there's an alternative.
2 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2012
anything but hemp, anything but hemp. coz we're scared of our own shadow.
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2012
At a cost of $1.1 trillion that's almost as much as a third of an Iraq War!

Heh heh.

Last year, total consumption of petroleum in the US was 18.84 million barrels per day. Times 365. times (pretty sure its)124(gallons per barrel) = about 854 billion gallons of petroleum per year. That's all vehicle fuel types(farm equipment possibly excepted), so let's just say at a raw average of 4USD per gallon. roughly 3.4 trillion USD.

100 percent conversion to this supply would cost about the same as 4 months of US petro sales at retail.

That is messed up.
Standing Bear
1 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2012
Lotsa commenters, how about this. This process has the power to make us independent of foreign sources for a vital strategic material, petrol! Our luddite fellow travelers and their foreign agent provocateurs made sure that nuclear tech that would have solved our fuel problem years ago was not going to be available. Solar is just now cost effective to come on line, so this could create the electric to run this process, and there you have the environmental benefit without converting farmland or any land for that matter to fuel production. If you cut so many acres of field grass, then so many animals do not get fed, wild or domestic, and you speed erosion of soil, one of our greatest natural gifts from God.

The alternative is for all of us being forced to convert to Islam. That is what happens to weak people in the world who have to depend on others....gettin conquered! Your wimmen becomin whores for sultans, etc. Ahhhlllms fer Ahhhllllah any one?
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2012
Mass produced fission cores are the only realistic way to get 100% off fossil fuels. Of course, solar and wind are in there, but shouldn't really get above 20% of generation. Even 20% is dedicating tons of land area for power harvesting (versus generation w/fission).

A core the size of a VW bug can power an aircraft carrier for 30 years without refueling. Or millions of homes.

The amount of energy that is able to be achieved is exponentially greater than oil, and does not emit C02. "Waste" can be reprocessed so that it remains radioactive for hundreds not millions of years. It's possible that particle reactors could make this process go even faster.

Imagine, if we have exponentially more power available we could use this fischer-tropsch process using the c02 from the air alone! Not to mention desalinate enough water to provide stable croplands for the entire world.

Of course, this all assumes this is an engineering problem. Sadly, humans will likely bungle it up.
not rated yet Dec 02, 2012
At a cost of $1.1 trillion that's almost as much as a third of an Iraq War!

Heh heh.

Last year, total consumption of petroleum in the US was 18.84 million barrels per day. Times 365. times (pretty sure its)124(gallons per barrel) = about 854 billion gallons of petroleum per year. That's all vehicle fuel types(farm equipment possibly excepted), so let's just say at a raw average of 4USD per gallon. roughly 3.4 trillion USD.

100 percent conversion to this supply would cost about the same as 4 months of US petro sales at retail.

That is messed up.

Oops --42 gallons per barrel, so one year of US petro cosumption, roughly, to equal the conversion cost.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.