A few points on that article...
1. The power station where the carbon capture project is planned is the Callide A station in Queensland. This is a relatively small (120 MW) plant which consists of 4x30MW units all black coal-fired. The plan is to fit the technology to one of those units as a trial. The other Callide power stations are not involved at this stage.
As a relatively high cost plant in a well supplied market (Queensland being the only state in that position) Callide A is idle at present. Production from the plant with carbon capture is primarily to test and demonstrate the technology although running one 30 MW unit constantly would, after allowing for maintenance, generate about 0.5% of Queensland's electricity or 0.1% of national electricity. As I said, the point is to demonstrate the technology rather than achieve large scale emissions reductions at this stage.
If successful, there is no reason (apart from cost) why the technology could not be fitted to other Australian power stations within reasonably close distance of somewhere suitable to store the carbon. The brown coal power stations in the Latrobe Valley (Vic) are the most obvious place to start given their close proximity to depleted offshore oil and gas fields and baseload (constant 24/7) operation although there are plenty of opportunities elsewhere too.
From a practical perspective, it wouldn't be possible to take more than one large generating unit in each state offline at a time and the conversion would likely take a year or two for each unit. (The time is speculation at this stage however since it's untested in practice.) So over a number of years it would be possible to gradually convert existing power stations to a zero-emissions operation doing it one unit at a time.
Given the need to reduce oil and gas use for power generation as other demands for those fuels increase and supplies tighten, it's just dreaming to think that coal is about to disappear as a power source in Australia or internationally. Coal generates about 40% of world electricity now whilst there is a need to replace much of the combined 42% from oil, gas and ageing nuclear plants. Only the 18% that is renewable (mostly hydro) is sustainable without rebuilding and non-carbon emitting in ongoing operation. So, in total, 82% of the world's electricity is from sources that are running out (oil and gas), emit lots of carbon (coal) or are in most cases ageing (nuclear). A huge demand for new capacity in the next 50 years that renewables alone simply will not, can not, meet. So coal and/or nuclear MUST have a future at least for the next half century - a point that even many conservationists acknowledge despite their concerns over the impacts.
2. Regarding the photo of Hazelwood power station in the article, it is somewhat misleading IMO. The visible emissions from the stacks are NOT greenhouse gasses (carbon dioxide is invisible to the human eye). It is mostly condensed water vapour (literally steam) due to the roughly two thirds water content in the coal from the Morwell mine burnt at the plant. The remaining visible emissions are fine ash particles which are now almost completely removed (so it looks like an old photo circa 1970's).
I have my own photos of the plant with 4 units running and 4 offline. I'll scan and post it if I can get access to a scanner and I challenge anyone to tell me which units are idle and which are active in the photo. Clear blue sky is all you'll see. Point here being don't believe the media when they show pictures of polluting industry - carbon dioxide is invisible. If the media is showing pictures of it then you're looking at steam or particles, not carbon dioxide.