If there were realistic competitors for fossil fuels, we wouldn't be worrying about a climate crisis in the first place. Nothing is going to compete with pumping fuel out of the ground, and it never will.
Any realistic scenario starts with some kind of regulation on carbon extraction and then worries about the economics of replacements. And technologies like this one that claim to be within a factor of two seem very worth investigating.
But all these renewable energy sources are already competing with fossil fuels and sometimes even winning! And even with these sources you can't make synthetic gasoline economically viable.
That leads to the question: if one can sell synthetic gasoline at profit, they must have a really cheap source of energy, in which case why go through the trouble of gasoline instead of selling the energy directly?
Imagine a remote military outpost-- the only supply chain access is limited & expensive.
Having vehicles that can go from empty to full in seconds by fuel you pulled out of the air yourself with solar panels last week could be much more valuable than using those same solar panels to charge an electric vehicle (or a battery bank and then later a vehicle).
Certain types of municipal or commercial fleets also have quick-refuel requirements. There are likely a few other limitations to current electrics that ICE engines don't have, as well.
Pumping oil has some big advantages, but procuring & distributing refined gasoline, propane, etc from crude is not exactly trivial or free.
There might be political advantages to having a proven process with proven cost. $40/ton carbon tax is awfully arbitrary... Until carbon can be captured for $40/ton.
Any realistic scenario starts with some kind of regulation on carbon extraction and then worries about the economics of replacements. And technologies like this one that claim to be within a factor of two seem very worth investigating.
Whether it works or not, who knows.