$10 of coal yes. But how much $$$ in equipment, manpower, and most significantly ENERGY to drive the conversion process? That's where the real cost comes in. And what fuel do you burn to generate the energy? More coal most likely, and it's not a super-clean fuel especially when you're using an older power plant. Power plants cost billions and take decades to break even, so we're not going to tear down all the older plants and build new high-tech green ones tomorrow.

Actually DARPA and the USAF are conducting test flights with a synthetic fuel, but I actually saw the contract info for the next phase of the project....it's pretty expensive right now. Currently the researchers estimate that their process (using natural gas now but hoping to move on to coal) could be cost-effective if oil stays above $50/bbl. Let's hedge their natural optimism and assume that $75/bbl is the break even point. The DoD will probably procede because they want to eliminate their dependence on foriegn oil in ten years...even if it costs a little more. For commercial applications, somebody who was going to invest billions in conversion plants would want to be pretty certain that oil prices will stay high...and that is not certain right now. Remember if OPEC sees something like that about to become large-scale reality they are likely to flood the market in an attempt to scare away investors. This tactic would almost certainly work in the short and mid-term.

But like I said before, the technology is close enough that it should be ready when we really need it, as determined by oil prices...so when demand actually exceeds all realistic supplies, the price will go up for sure.