> Carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) refers to a chain of different technologies aimed at capturing waste carbon dioxide (CO2), usually from large point sources of pollution like power plants
or
> Another drawback of carbon capture, usage and storage, is the considerable amount of extra power it requires, which would increase the cost of electricity
Do give the distinct impression that they're talking about the production of energy (since 'increasing the cost of electricity' would be a weird way to phrase a pure increase in demand). If it was purely talking about processes that also happen to release CO2 then it doesn't make sense to solely talk about carbon capture vs. renewable energy like this article does as that's not an alternative.
Now carbon capture might still be necessary in a fossil fuel free world, but the article puts no real arguments forward why that would be the case.
For the second quote, I struggle to understand your point. It seems entirely relevant to me.
Otherwise it just increases the energy demand of the process, this makes the process more expensive, not energy. Perhaps it could drive up energy prices if it ended up being an immensely profitable use of energy, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
If you read the article, you'd see:
> Nowadays, Industrial production accounts for one-quarter of CO2 emissions from energy and industrial processes. With the demand for cement, steel and chemicals remaining strong to support a growing and increasingly urbanised global population, the future production of these materials will have to be more efficient and emit much less CO2 if governments want to meet their climate goals.
In other words, this technology is not targeted at capturing carbon that is burned for energy.