Mainly jet fuel. Cars and trucks will do just fine on batteries.

The point with carbon capture is that the captured carbon still comes from fossil fuels. You burn it, you capture it, make fuel, and then you burn it again. So, it's slightly less worse than burning it only once but 100% of it still ends up in the atmosphere.

Synthetic fuels made with biomass are more sustainable but only if the biomass is produced sustainably. Which it often isn't. Dumping a lot of CO2 in the air to produce corn and then turn it into ethanol would be the classic example here of something a lot of countries do at scale that isn't really all that green.

> The point with carbon capture is that the captured carbon still comes from fossil fuels

That's not a property of carbon capture, it's a property of the fuel coming in on the other side of the (stationary) process. We certainly won't be seeing carbon capture of jet fuel any time soon, so the fuel preceeding the capture will definitely not be the one produced. Think waste incineration, think bioplastics (don't waste that precious energy on some pointless biodegradation!), think single use paper, think moving the part of the natural carbon cycle that happens in bushfires and the like into a controlled environment.

Actually jet fuel is already being synthesized from a mix of biomass and captured carbon.

A lot of the carbon capture schemes propose capturing carbon from coal plants or similar sources where massive amounts of fossil fuels are being burned.

But you are right that there are clean sources as well. But mostly with carbon capture, the source is fossil fuel.

It turns out one place in the US where CO2 capture is actually already being done on a large scale is in bioenergy. As I understand it, 25% of the CO2 produced by ethanol production in the US is captured. I think it's mostly being used for enhanced oil production, but it is being used.

Fossil burning plants that capture carbon do it for the greenwashing, not because there might be some use for the concentrated CO2. Renewable burning plants have little incentive to greenwash. Renewable burning does exist, and I suppose that group is much bigger than the tiny subset of fossil burning plants that actually do capture. If we include waste incineration plants in the renewable group (the true multifuel specialists) then the conclusion is that capacity is already abundant, and some of those might actually be considering capture (but their greenwashing pressure isn't remotely as big as in e.g. the coal business, where the greenwashing is nothing less than an existential last ditch hail mary attempt)

> Renewable burning plants have little incentive to greenwash.

That just reflects lack of sufficient CO2 price. Make that high enough and it would become profitable for the CO2 to be sequestered rather than released, assuming the CO2 tax applies to negative CO2 emission.