I have my doubts. No I am not saying it can;t be done the question is, how much energy needs to be put into the system versus energy output. Apparently the important paragraph is this on

he drawback, of course, is that the process of creating this synthetic fuel is quite energy intensive, so it doesn’t get nearly as far toward its goal of being carbon neutral if the electricity used to synthesize atmospheric carbon into gas comes from burning fossil fuel. It’s also expensive: the team only produced about five liters of their synthetic fuel, at a cost of about $1 million for the whole project. But that’s not the point, they say.
Likely input energy > output energy.

Years ago there was an experimenter who got fuel from water using RF. He would expose the water to an intense RF field causing the hydrogen/qxygen bonds to break and be liberated. This H2/O2 mix could then be burned as fuel and the combustion byproduct is water H2O which can be captured and broken down again. . Great... solves our energy problem... Wrong. To produce the RF to break the hydrogen/oxygen bonds required more energy input than output. Yeah, okay, in an ideal system input = output but there is the factor of efficiency such that input energy > output energy.