I agree, but you can only stretch an analogy so far. Unplugging a bathtub is free, whereas capturing carbon currently is more costly than the energy used to capture it.
taken literally you seem to be saying that there are costs other than energy involved in atmospheric carbon capture, which is too obvious to be worth saying; your capex and non-energy opex costs can be low but they obviously can't be zero or negative
do you mean more costly than the energy obtained by burning it, because that's a small edit that converts your statement into an assertion that's at least coherent
if so, no, the cost is about an order of magnitude smaller; though coherent, your assertion is still wrong
do you mean more costly than the energy obtained by burning it, because that's a small edit that converts your statement into an assertion that's at least coherent
if so, no, the cost is about an order of magnitude smaller; though coherent, your assertion is still wrong