One is about an order a magnitude, the other about a sign.
The first one: if you burn 1kg of pure Carbon, you get 3.67 kg of CO2 and 32.8 MegaJoules [1], which is the same as 32800 kJ or, 32800/3600 kWh. That's 9.11 kWh for each 3.67 kg of CO2, or 2.4848 kWh/kg. That's quite close to 2500 kWh/ton.
They are claiming it takes them 230 kWh/ton to reverse this reaction. You can see this is an order of magnitude wrong. Let's say they meant to say 2300 kWh/ton. If you divide that by 2500 kWh/ton you get exactly 92% that they claim.
But here's the second mistake: you need to put more, not less energy to split CO2, otherwise you'd get energy for free. 2300 kWh/ton is simply impossible. You need to use more than that, and actually more than 2500 kWh/ton if you don't want to violate the first principle of thermodynamics.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion#Heat_of_com...
I don’t think that’s a claim in the article. If the carbon product was pure in the sense it could be burned again then it wouldn’t work out. But that’s not claimed. It’s not reduced to carbon!
"The reactions break the carbon dioxide into oxygen gas, as well as carbonaceous sheets which ‘float’ to the surface of the container due to differences in density and can therefore be easily extracted."
and
"According to the research team, the process showed 92% efficiency in converting a tonne of CO2, using just 230kWh of energy."
I wish I could read the source to verify, but unfortunately it's behind an academic publisher paywall.
