Mmmm, all that charcoal will absorb toxins, plus the trace minerals in the ash content must be great! ;o)
Downside being, Fischer-Troph takes three tonnes of coal, burns one, and makes a bit over two tonnes of oil. It's not a very efficient process. Turning that into something edible like alcohol (ethanol is indeed a biological source of energy), acid (acetic acid is even more available, but don't forget energy-rich fatty acids, too) or sugar (???) would be even more steps processing, and could only be used to supplement the energy content of animal feed*.
Also, if cropland is zero-sum (notice it hasn't been; systems like this could continue the trend), ofsetting energy crops for actually delicious food crops is the same as eating coal, without the unpleasant aftertaste (or, lack of taste entirely).
*I suppose in a Soylent Green kind of future, the FDA might agree to supplement food squares with petroleum derivatives. At this time, I don't think there's any way to qualify something like that for human consumption? Example: industrial ethanol (i.e., petroleum derived) is more than pure enough (before denaturing, of course) to drink safely, but it's not FDA approved, so, no dice. AFAIK, anything sold as liquor can only be distilled from fermented mash, even if it's objectively more toxic (Fleischmann's vodka?) than such alternatives.Still other ideas... some day it would be fantastic to see a catalyst which can turn electricity into fuel, for example, electrolytically reducing CO2 to methanol (which can then be processed as a petroleum feedstock). The process already exists -- the efficiency stinks. Electricity is even more inefficient to generate, anyway (the best power plants are 60% I think?), so one might further hope for a photon-to-fuel catalyst. Plants do this, but again, are rather inefficient (supposedly the best energy crops are around 2%?).
Tim