Ack, I know of those. Isn't that the same thing as carbon capture? It also uses more energy to capture the carbon than the fuel will produce after burning. Just that the output is usable fuel (yay put it back in the atmosphere ^^' but better burning circular than burning fossil fuels) rather than rocks like Climeworks and Olivine output.

I never actually saw anyone compare the options. Anyone know if it's cheaper (or less energy-intensive) per ton of CO2 to turn atmospheric CO2 into rock and continue using fossil fuels for another century until oil really starts playing hard to get, or if it's cheaper (or less energy-intensive) to use this air-to-fuel technology?