Not it's not stupid.
Science and engineering normally move incrementally, not in huge "Eureka!!!" leaps forward. This is both because the trivially solvable problems have mostly been done centuries, and because the more required breakthroughs you pack into a project the more likely you are to have at least one blocker that massively blows the budget or kills the project entirely. (See numerous DoD/Nasa development projects for examples.)...
It's a massively stupid idea because they've created a power plant design that they can easily "capture" all of its output of CO2. But, and this is a *big* one, they don't know what to do with the CO2 once they've "captured" it.
It's a bit like catching a tiger by its tail. Now WTF do I do with the tiger?
"What's the difference between a gas or steam turbine and a CO2 turbine? -- in its operations, it fits somewhere in between a gas and steam turbine. It works at a higher temperature than a steam turbine and at a lower temperature than a gas turbine. It works at a higher pressure than a gas turbine but at a lower pressure than a steam turbine."
I dub thee the Goldilocks plant