Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 3 November 2011
Page: 8240

Senator HEFFERNAN (New South Wales) (19:28): I will just clarify a couple of things for you. I do know what I am talking about. Three MOUs for this technology have been signed with three major coal-fired power stations in Australia. There is later technology, Senator Milne. It is true that for a major coal-fired power station the process would require 2,500 acres at the present time. However, that has been overridden by highrise technology, which requires no sun to grow the algae. It is highrise, so it takes up very little area. Depending on the algae variety grown you can either go into a plastic outcome or into biofuel on the back of a feedstock for intensive livestock feed. Those are the two technologies. To make it clear, what I am asking, Minister, is: if that commercialises—and I emphasise that there are three major power stations in Australia that have signed up to this—why would they be included if they are turning what is now waste into an asset that then turns into a biofuel and a feedstock for livestock, which are excluded from the tax? Why wouldn't they be excluded from the carbon tax? They will have got rid of their emissions without the tax.