The article did say (rather deeply in) that the CO2 produced was pure enough to be directly sequestered without additional post processing effort. So while not

The article did say (rather deeply in) that the CO2 produced was pure enough to be directly sequestered without additional post processing effort. So while not the best, that saves on the energy consumption to post process normal plant output into pure enough CO2 for sequestering. That energy also has to come from somewhere. Also, if a 50% conversion efficiency is realistic, that is a benefit, because the same energy output could be produced with a reduction in waste byproducts, or more energy output could be achieved with the current levels of waste byproducts. Both are advantages. Not huge like a breakthrough in solar energy harvesting, but still advantages.