You do of course need to produce hydrogen to turn unwanted CO2 into valuable methanol, which can be used directly as a fuel or else as a precursor to other hydrocarbons like DME and polypropylene.

The advantage is that methanol and lightly compressed DME are both liquids and therefore much easier to store and distribute than hydrogen - especially for transportation applications. This is particularly relevant if the hydrogen is produced using renewable electricity from unpredictable sources, e.g. wind or solar.

However, it should be pointed out that methanol - aka wood alcohol - can also be produced directly from woody feedstocks. At this stage, there is perhaps more value in avoiding the use of fossil fuels than there is in the direct reduction of highly dilute atmospheric CO2.

Rafael-

I have no doubt that they are looking at flue gas as the source of CO2 gas.

Methanol was reformed to hydrogen on the early NECAR designs from Daimler -Chrysler. I thought that was a good way to go to get liquid fuels and fuel cells to be viable.

Rafael, the catalytic (or other) production of hydrogen may be an energy consuming first step in the production of synthetic liquid hydrocarbons that is unnecessary. Production of methane and/or methanol directly from CO2 and water has been accomplished before by Darby Makel for one (Microchannel Reactors for ISRU Applications). This single step process could avoid the costly hydrogen-handling infrastructure and the second costs associated with a two-part system.

Of course the real question is whether the synthetic hydrocarbon energy storage regime will be competitive with the battery market in the long term, or whether the sole benefit of hydrocarbon storage is climate related.

I hate people who play on others ignorance. CO2 into methanol and DME letting the energy ignorant person assume some reduction in CO2 emissions? Don't take everybody as stupid. You are stupid to take advantage of the ignorance of others.