patrick.net

"The process is still in the early stages of development, and far too inefficient yet to compete with conventional fossil fuels. There are efficiency problems at each stage, from capturing the carbon dioxide from air to combining it catalytically with hydrogen derived from water vapour to make Syngas, methanol and more complex hydrocarbons."

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-technology-that-goes-one-better-than-carbon-capture-could-be-crucial-in-fighting-climate-change-8217148.html

credible scienticians have long proven that burning massive amounts of oil is the only way to do anything.

Wouldn't it be easier just to use electrolysis to create to use on Hydrogen powered cars?

Great, now just go burn up all our air.

Barlowe says

The process uses electricity. But none of the articles I've found regarding this says how much is needed.

Yes, and I suspect that this is probably one of the most inefficient methods of energy production known to man.

There's no such thing as free energy. If it takes 100W of electricity to create petrol with 50W of stored chemical energy, I say it isn't worth it.

Sure, it may be inefficient right now to create gas from air using other sources, but as stated, gas has just about the highest energy density you can get, so gas is a great way to store and transport energy, not to mention all the infrastructure that already uses it.

So it's probably an important technology for that reason. The big question is how efficient it can theoretically be.

Raising your own food is dam inefficient too, until the stores are empty.

This whole CO2 shit is crazy. Doesn't fermentation create CO2 as a byproduct? Don't I have CO2 reactor bubbling into my aquarium right now for my plants?