oming an increas­ingly attrac­tive alter­na­tive as a feed­stock to make a range of fuels. Now chemists have invented a new cat­alytic process that could increase the yield of a clean form of diesel made from coal.

The method, described in the cur­rent issue of the jour­nal Sci­ence, uses a pair of cat­a­lysts to improve the yield of diesel fuel from Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) syn­the­sis, a nearly century-old chem­i­cal tech­nique for react­ing car­bon monox­ide and hydro­gen to make hydro­car­bons. The mix­ture of gases is pro­duced by heat­ing coal. Although Ger­many used the process dur­ing World War II to con­vert coal to fuel for its mil­i­tary vehi­cles, F-T syn­the­sis has gen­er­ally been too expen­sive to com­pete with oil.

Part of the prob­lem with the F-T process is that it pro­duces a mix­ture of hydro­car­bons — many of which are not use­ful as fuel. But in the recent research, Alan Gold­man, pro­fes­sor of chem­istry and chem­i­cal biol­ogy at Rut­gers Uni­ver­sity, and Mau­rice Brookhart, pro­fes­sor of chem­istry at the Uni­ver­sity of North Car­olina at Chapel Hill, use cat­a­lysts to con­vert these unde­sir­able hydro­car­bons into diesel. The cat­a­lysts work by rear­rang­ing the car­bon atoms, trans­form­ing six-carbon atom hydro­car­bons, for exam­ple, into two– and ten-carbon atom hydro­car­bons. The ten-carbon ver­sion can power diesel engines. The first cat­a­lyst removes hydro­gen atoms, which allows the sec­ond cat­a­lyst to rearrange the car­bon atoms. Then the first cat­a­lyst restores the hydro­gen, to form fuel.

Diesel fuel pro­duced in this way has sev­eral poten­tial advan­tages. Ordi­nary diesel con­tains mol­e­cules, called aro­mat­ics, that, when com­busted, pro­duce par­tic­u­lates, Gold­man says. But the diesel formed by the new cat­a­lysts does not include aro­mat­ics, so it burns much cleaner, over­com­ing one of the major objec­tions to diesel fuel. This could lead to more vehi­cles using diesel engines, which are about 30 per­cent more effi­cient than gaso­line engines.

But the biggest advan­tage may be that the United States has huge amounts of coal: “We have as much energy in coal as the rest of the world has in oil. That’s enough to last us the next hun­dred years or so,” Gold­man says. Thus, a more effi­cient, and so less expen­sive method of con­vert­ing coal to diesel could sig­nif­i­cantly cut U.S. depen­dence on for­eign oil, and do so for a long time.

“When I saw this I thought it was really a ter­rific con­tri­bu­tion that could be very impor­tant,” says Richard Schrock, pro­fes­sor of chem­istry at MIT, who won the Nobel Prize in Chem­istry in 2005, with two other sci­en­tists, for dis­cov­er­ing the type of cat­a­lyst used in the sec­ond step. Com­bin­ing two cat­a­lysts this way “is pretty rare,” he says. “You can’t just throw any two things together and expect to get the results you anticipated.”

Accord­ing to Robert Grubbs, pro­fes­sor of chem­istry at Cal­tech, who shared the Nobel prize with Schrock, “The key is find­ing cat­a­lyst sys­tems that are com­pat­i­ble, and will oper­ate at the tem­per­a­tures where you can do both processes together.”

At this time, the new cat­alytic method is still a proof-of-concept, and not ready for com­mer­cial use. For exam­ple, the sec­ond cat­a­lyst tends to break down. But Schrock says this prob­lem should be solv­able: “It’s the­o­ret­i­cally pos­si­ble that this could become prac­ti­cal. I e-mailed Alan Gold­man and said, ‘Look, we’ve got a lot of cat­a­lysts, and I can think of some things that might be ther­mally more sta­ble.’ So I’m going to send him some cat­a­lysts, and he’s going to try them out.”

It also might be pos­si­ble to make cat­a­lysts that use prod­ucts from the first reac­tion to regen­er­ate them­selves. “Then the cat­a­lyst wouldn’t die, and you could in fact keep the reac­tion going,” says Schrock.