I am still to be persuaded that CCS makes sense on economic,...

I am still to be persuaded that CCS makes sense on economic, technical or environmental grounds. I understand from various sources that, where CCS is retrofitted to existing plant, the energy needed to capture CO2 and store it underground can be around 25% of the plant's output. Thus, for example, to apply CCS to Loy Yang A and B PS (6x 500 MW units), one of the units needs to run flat out to capture the CO2 of itself and the other units. That means finding 500MW from somewhere else to restore the energy supply status quo.

With the loss of Hazelwood PS, the inertia in the network is already reduced, so it is no good adding 500 MW of wind or solar or batteries - it needs to be gas or coal (or hydro). If fossil fueled, then the benefit of CCS is further diminished.

So adding CCS to an existing plant at significant cost reduces USEFUL output, which reduces dollars earned by the generator, while at the same time helping the environment, but then adding to emissions via the replacement plant. Meanwhile, the money spent on research and development could have been better used installing more generation or energy storage.

PLEASE TELL ME WHAT I AM MISSING! BETTER YET, GET THE FOSSILS ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE OF POLITICS TO "PLEASE EXPLAIN" WHY SUPPORTING COAL IS SUCH A GOOD IDEA.