I believe the Germans made synfuels towards the end of WWII using Fischer Tropsch when they were running low on conventional fuels. What tech is new about this project, besides the energy source?
https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasifi...
Once you've got the coal sourced, most of the rest of the WWII process is directly applicable to modern carbon-capture methods.
I can imagine! Considering lots of the co2 in air has fossil fuel origin, not putting the co2 capturing at a high volume co2 source seems rather dim. Regulators gonna regulate!
Maybe site the direct air capture in the middle of a german industrial city with coal plants all around...
Say, an average price of base load electricity of 43.26EUR/MWh in Germany in 2018 (and that is a very pricey market - country which has a shitload of renewable power) - will result, at 50% efficiency, of energy feed costs of 3.07EUR per gallon of fuel. That's only 1.7x the actual cost of jet fuel in EU as per IATA (https://www.iata.org/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/Pag...).
You should add the capital cost of device itself, but if it's used round the clock, it shouldn't add so much. And if it's not, electricity can be almost free because a lot of the time, renewable power is in excess and can be purchased from the high voltage grid for very cheap (if we are speaking of high throughput industrial units which will probably have hundreds of megawatts connected, and will plug into high voltage grid directly).
All in all, it may get fuel 2x more expensive but it's not such a big deal.
But then, it's also arguable that PV hydrogen is itself a "carrier" for PV electricity. So then the alternative is batteries. As much as I love electricity, I doubt that battery technology will ever achieve the energy densities of hydrocarbon fuels.
Straigh molecular hydrogen is brutally difficult to work with. It is hard to store (high pressures and/or low temperatures), bulky, embrittles metals, and is violently explosive.
Synthetic analogues of fossil fuels (kerosene, petrol) are chemically virtually identical to what we've been using for the past century of powered flight (and should actually be cleaner/purer). There are few unknowns, safety is quite high, and the storage, handling, and combustion properties are well-understood and excellent for the application.
Powering FT fuel synthesis via photovoltaic or other solar processes could certainly work.
Is it planned that the plant will be able to take advantage of low spot prices?
After all, there isn't so much special about Jet A: I figure a PT-6 could run just fine on automotive diesel.
Aircraft, not so much. Liquid hydrocarbons have amazing energy density, both by weight and volume, and in aircraft that matters a lot.
Someone mentioned an efficiency of around 50% in a post here and resulting pricing, that's a fairly good estimate of the overall process and what is discussed as achievable cost for renewable synthetic fuels in general. The process is in this demonstration plant is Fischer-Tropsch. Using CO2 from an industrial point source is more efficient; however, it has potential legislative issues when it comes to certification of sustainable fuels, emission certificate trading... it's a fairly complicated topic. In addition, worldwide potential for lowest renewable energy costs does not correlate necessarily with existing CO2 point sources. That's why direct air capture makes a lot of sense.
Whether CCS is a better solution depends on renewable electricity pricing vs. the CCS costs, public acceptance and feasibility at the location of a plant. These vary strongly depending on where you are in the world. In many parts of Europe there is strong opposition to it as it may prolong the exploitation of fossil sources.