> The authors likely didn't analyze it. That's my reading of the paper, yes. > It gives a value in eV, that can be extrapolated outwards though I am not exact

> The authors likely didn't analyze it. That's my reading of the paper, yes. > It gives a value in eV, that can be extrapolated outwards though I am not exactly sure how. It gives values in eV, yes, and 1 eV ~= 96 kJ/mol, if you're more familiar with those units. However, what they're looking at is peaks in the x-ray diffraction spectra, indicating presence of compounds with various specific binding energies. That doesn't really tell anything about the energy efficiency of the process as a whole. > It's possible to produce gasoline from CO2+extra+H and extreme heat and pressure. This seems more achievable. Such designs were, I think, using nuclear heat almost directly. There's a whole raft of different processes to produce hydrocarbons given CO2, H2, and some energy input. Fischer-Tropsch is perhaps the most famous. This could be yet another one, if they can make it work out. If it can be more cost effective than existing approaches, it's really really awesome, but won't "save the world" by itself of course.