Prospects are often announced as "new" and "novel", despite extensive prior science and technology. In numerous cases, this is true not only of press and news releases, but of articles themselves ... as if, say, an evolutionary biology paper failed to credit Darwin and Wallace's original work. Much research has been by or associated with the US Navy, which has a considerable fuel-related logistical problem, especially with its aircraft-carrier-based force-projection capacity and supply-chain vulnerability. Other military branches have similar concerns, though have additional challenges with prospects of in situ fuel synthesis. For all branches, the cost of fuel delivered to combat and operational theatres is many times, often orders of magnitude greater, than the domestic "price at the pump". Given energy and feedstocks, synthesis is absolutely a credible option.
The chemistry works and is proven. Scale, operations, maintenance, logistics, and costs appear to remain hurdles.
I researched this topic fairly extensively in 2014 following release of a number of papers and articles over earlier USNRL studies and reports.
Early history is covered in a history of synthetic fuels roughly 1944--1960, "The Early Days of Coal Research: Wartime Needs Spur Interest in Coal-to-Oil Processes":
http://web.archive.org/web/20120111183405/http://fossil.ener...
1962 M. King Hubbert (peak-oil pioneer) mention as an alternative to petroleum fuel, using limestone and hydrolsis-generated hydrogen as feedstocks utilising nuclear power to create a non-carbon-neutral hydrocarbon synfuel: https://web.archive.org/web/20061030044204/www.hubbertpeak.c...
Meyer Steinberg at Brookhaven picked up research based on Hubbert's suggestion:
Steinberg, M., and Beller, M., "Liquid Fuel Synthesis Using Nuclear Power in a Mobile Energy Depot System," Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 8, pg 159, June 1965.
Steinberg, M. et. al., "Methanol as a Fuel in the Urban Energy Economy and Possible Source of Supply", BNL 17800, Brookhaven National Laboratory, April 1973.
Steinberg, M., and Dang, V.D., "Use of Controlled Thermonuclear Reactor Fusion Power for the Production of Synthetic Methanol Fuel from Air and Water", BNL 20016, Brookhaven National Laboratory, April 1975.
Steinberg, M., "Electrolytic Synthesis of Methanol from C02," United States Patent #3,959,059, May, 1976.
Steinberg, M., "Nuclear Power for the Production of Synthetic Fuels and Feedstocks," 11th International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, American Institute of Chemical Engineering, New York, 1976.
Steinberg, M., "Combined Coal and Nuclear Plants for Power, Heat, and Synthetic Fuels," Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 27, November, 1977.
Steinberg, M, Fillo, J.A., and Powell, J., "Synthetic Fuels and Fusion," Nuclear Engineering and Design. Vol. 63, No. 2, February, 1981.
Several Masters theses at M.I.T. listing Michael J. Driscoll as advisor also reported on the prospect, with at least three appearing in 1977, 1992, and 2012.
Robin Paul Bushore, "Synthetic Fuel Generation Capabilities of Nuclear Power Plants with Applications to Naval Ship Technology", 1977
https://calhoun.nps.edu/public/bitstream/handle/10945/18307/...
Kevin B. Terry, "Synthetic Fuels for Naval Applications Produced Using Shipboard Nuclear Power", 1995
https://archive.org/details/syntheticfuelsfo00terr
John Michael Galle-Bishop, "Nuclear Tanker Producing Liquid Fuels From Air and Water", 2011
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/76359
Terry's thesis includes multiple citations of Meyer Steinberg. Sadly none of these appear to be generally available online, though some (and a few other papers) appear in Google Scholar. I've listed these above.
US NRL research ran from 2010--2013 (it may have continued though I've seen no further announcements). Conspicuously, Willauer cited no research prior to the 1990s IIRC, an exceedingly misleading practice.
"The Feasibility and Current Estimated Capital Costs of Producing Jet Fuel at Sea Using Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen". Heather D. Willauer, Dennis R. Hardy, Frederick W. Williams. Navy Technology Center for Safety and Survivability, Chemistry Division. September 29, 2010. NRL/MRi6180--10-9300
https://web.archive.org/web/20131031050117/http://www.dtic.m...
"Extraction of Carbon Dioxide from Seawater by an Electrochemical Acidification Cell Part I--Initial Feasibility Studies". Felice DiMascio, Heather D. Willauer, Dennis R. Hardy, M. Kathleen Lewis, Frederick W. Williams. Navy Technology Center for Safety and Survivability, Chemistry Division. July 23, 2010. NRL/MR/6180--10-9274
https://web.archive.org/web/20201031083322/https://apps.dtic...
"Extraction of Carbon Dioxide from Seawater by an Electrochemical Acidification Cell Part II--Laboratory Scaling Studies eather D. Willauer". Heather D. Willauer, Felice DiMascio, Dennis R. Hardy, M. Kathleen Lewis, Frederick W. Williams. Navy Technology Center for Safety and Survivability, Chemistry Division. April 11, 2011. NRL/MR/6180--11-9329
https://web.archive.org/web/20140427044107/http://www.dtic.m...
"Extraction of Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen from Seawater by an Electrochemical Acidification Cell Part III: Scaled-up Mobile Unit Studies (Calendar Year 2011)". Heather D. Willauer, Dennis R. Hardy, Frederick W. Williams, Felice DiMascio. May 30, 2012. NRL/MR/6300--12-9414
https://web.archive.org/web/20140427044107/http://www.dtic.m...
"Extraction of Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen from Seawater by an Electrochemical Acidification Cell Part IV: Electrode Compartments of Cell Modified and Tested in Scaled-Up Mobile Unit". Heather D. Willauer, Dennis R. Hardy, Frederick W. Williams, Felice DiMascio. September 3, 2013. NRL/MR/6300--13-9463
https://web.archive.org/web/20140427001947/http://www.dtic.m...
These references and some additional discussion are noted here:
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28nqoz/electri...
And I've posted a number of additional items about related research which can be found through subreddit search:
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=fischer-tropsc...
Project Foghorn is noted here: https://x.company/projects/foghorn/
Again, the chemistry works, the economics do not. However that is due to a mis-pricing of fossil fuel resources that may well prove fatal to civilisation.
The principle problem with synfuel economics is that the process pays full energy costs of the actual creation of hydrocarbons. By contrast, petroleum and other fossil-fuel extraction supports present utilisation at millions of times the rate of initial formation. Whilst we often hear of carbon taxes and similar costs for the output consequences of this activity, economics is completely silent on the question of total resource input costs of hydrocarbons, which includes the time factor at a rate five million times current extraction. If I were to spend money at five million times my level of income ... I could live extravagently. For a short time. Geologically, this is precisely what the current fossil-fuel-powered economy has been doing for roughly 250 years. That gravy train will run out shortly (presuming we don't choke ourselves, or flood ourselves, or experience other as-yet-undetermined unanticipated consequences first).
An excellent analysis of the particulars of fossil fuel formation inputs (including also the very considerable biomass inputs) is Jeffrey S. Dukes, "Burning Buried Sunshine". I cannot recommend the PDF highly enough, despite its awkwardness on many mobile devices. There's a short HTML summary as well:
HTML summary: https://plus.maths.org/content/burning-buried-sunshine
Full PDF: https://www-legacy.dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_C...
(I believe I've checked all URLs and swapped in archive links where necessary, please comment if any are still missing or are misdirected.)