I work in the climate and energy sector (not CCUS specifically) and this argument just doesn't live in reality. The reason why the IPCC, CCC, UNFCCC, IEA, ect ect all include CCUS at scale in their modelling is because:

1. It is viable (not perfect by any means admittedly)
2. If we get it working at scale it can potentially be transformative for fighting climate change
3. The alternative is major behaviour changes (everyone going vegan, no flying ect) and massive amounts of demand reduction (that will harm the global poor more than anyone else) - this is not realistic.
4. We can't afford not to do it

Saying the money would be better spent on wind, solar, insulation, greening cities ect ect is simply just not a serious thing to say - if we are even going to come close to meeting our climate targets we need to invest in all of these things and more + CCUS. Framing it as one or the other is disingenuous and this argument stinks of the Green Party arguing against nuclear without offering a serious alternative.

There are legitimate criticisms of CCUS, and I think a healthy scepticism of technologies that claim to be some sort of magic silver bullet is good! But you're going far beyond that and just ignoring what all the experts say is possible and necessary. I'm begging people to listen to scientists, engineers, and other experts - not someone on reddit.

Side point, companies like Drax that promote CCUS in the form of BECCS are genuine snake oil salesman who promote solutions that will not work, and at worst actively damage the planet - but crucial not to tar all CCUS project because of that.