Nope, You’d get no mileage at all.
Burning the carbon is responsible for at least half the energy: putting that back would require extra energy (think a 300 hp motor to bring the burnt carbon from a 100hp engine back).
Fighting the laws of thermodynamics is no fun.
Monsanto and Syngenta are already ahead of you.
It’s worse than no fun; it is literally futile. Part of the problem is that the idea fuel would just be a hydrogen carrier, and combustion would just result in an exhaust that is primarily H[SUB]2[/SUB]O, with trace amounts of OH, NO, NO[SUB]2[/SUB]. Unfortunately, the most density-rich sources of available hydrogen are hydrocarbon petrochemicals and alcohols which use a carbon backbone to bond and carry the otherwise highly reactive hydrogen in a relatively stable form. (Relatively because such ‘volatiles’ will still break down even at ambient temperature producing the characteristic aroma of petrochemicals or alcohol), and when these carriers are burned they also form carbon-oxygen compounds, which releases a lot of energy (as The Librarian says, it is roughly half of the yield) but produces greenhouse-amplifying gases that persist in the atmosphere.
Point-of-source sequestration is one method for capturing atmospheric carbon, but it is really only practical for large installations and primarily coal-fired plants (one aspect of so-called “clean coal”) but the effort and energy required for such a system makes it questionable to implement in practice versus other lower carbon footprint fuels (e.g. natural gas). Such methods require filtering or absorption/adhesion systems that necessitate regular maintenance and would not work for transportation applications. Direct air capture (pulling carbon dioxide out of the air away from point-of-source release) is nearly futile; it just isn’t possible to force enough air through ground-based systems to make a difference even if they liberally covered every land surface. Ocean-based systems–which can pull the denser concentrations of carbon dioxide from air dissolved in the ocean–and upper atmospheric systems might be more effective but that technology is just conceptual at this point.
One of the leading authorities in the field of carbon sequestration is Jennifer Wilcox, and her book Carbon Capture is the standard reference in the field. Wilcox is far more optimistic about carbon capture than many other energy technology analysts but even she admits it has significant limitations and can mainly serve to mitigate the worst effects of global climate change while we transition away from hydrocarbon fuel sources. However, it also has to be borne in mind that it requires even more energy to run such systems, which if not drawn from sustainable non-carbon-producing sources will still add back to total carbon production.
Stranger
There’s another problem with carbon monoxide aside from breathing it and the pesky thermodynamics. It’s both, a very weak greenhouse gas itself and more importantly has implications on other greenhouse gases. It might still be a benefit from a warming standpoint but it’s related to warming too.