Is it wise to make hydrogen by burning fossil fuel and sequestering the CO2?

Any CO2 that is released into greenhouses or used to carbonate water will then go into the atmosphere — its sequestration will be temporary. Anyway, if we already bottle enough CO2 to meet those demands, whatever CO2 is sequestered this way won't get used for that.

So why grasp at that straw to make this project look good? I have a feeling that someone is trying to underestimate the cost of storing all the unwanted CO2 that this process will produce. Perhaps to make this plant look more green than it would really be.

I suggest building more wind and solar generating capacity than the average electric demand can directly use, and using the surplus (when there is a surplus) to make hydrogen. When there is need for more electricity than the wind and solar facilities are producing, burn some hydrogen to make up the shortfall.