Why Renewable Power Alone Is Not Decarbonisation — and How Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) Completes the System

Why Renewable Power Alone Is Not Decarbonisation — and How Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) Completes the System Clean Energy and Water Technologies Pty Ltd (CEWT) ABN 61 691 320 028 | ACN 691 320 028 Purpose of this note This document clarifies a common misconception in energy-transition discussions — that renewable electricity alone constitutes full decarbonisation — and explains how Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) complements renewable power by addressing carbon already embedded in the economy. This is a conceptual explainer intended for policymakers, financiers, and stakeholders. It is non-technical, non-bankable, and contains no proprietary process detail. Renewable power reduces future operational emissions, but it does not remove carbon already embedded in the economy. Renewable electricity manages electrons, not carbon. Solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries all carry embedded CO₂ emissions from materials, manufacturing, transport, and construction. Most global emissions arise from fuels, steel, cement, chemicals, and high-temperature industrial processes. These systems already contain carbon and require direct carbon management. CRT treats CO₂ as an internal process intermediate, recycling carbon into Renewable Synthetic Methane Gas (RSMG) in a closed loop, achieving net-zero emissions without permanent storage. Renewable electricity reduces future emissions; CRT manages carbon already embedded in the system. Decarbonisation is not just about producing clean electricity. It is about managing carbon already embedded in the economy.

Hydrogen direct reduction of Iron ore to metalic Iron

Hydrogen Direct Reduction of Iron Ore: System-Level Realities This note summarises the practical, physical, and system-level considerations associated with the direct reduction of iron ore using green and blue hydrogen. While hydrogen-based DRI is often presented as a straightforward decarbonisation pathway, real-world deployment is constrained by energy intensity, reactor hydrodynamics, and system integration challenges. 1. Fundamental Physical Mismatch Hydrogen is the lightest gas (molecular weight 2 g/mol), while iron ore is among the heaviest industrial solids (bulk density ~2,000–3,500 kg/m³). Achieving effective gas–solid interaction between such mismatched phases is intrinsically difficult. Reduction success depends not only on chemical reactivity, but also on momentum transfer between gas and solid. 2. Gas–Solid Hydrodynamics Challenge Drag force in a shaft or fluidised reactor scales with gas density and velocity. Hydrogen’s very low density means that, compared to CO or syngas, substantially higher gas velocity, pressure, and temperature are required to deliver equivalent momentum. This leads to unavoidable design penalties. 3. Pressure Requirement Hydrogen-based DRI systems typically require operation at elevated pressures (5–10 bar) to increase gas density and avoid channelling and bypassing. Higher pressure increases: • Reactor wall thickness and capital cost • Compression energy demand • Operational complexity 4. Temperature and Sticking Risks Hydrogen reduction kinetics favour high temperatures (>800–900 °C). However, at these conditions: • Iron ore pellets soften • Metallic iron forms early • Sintering and sticking occur • Bed permeability collapses These effects are more severe with hydrogen than with CO-based systems, leading to defluidisation risks in fluidised beds and operability limits in shaft furnaces. 5. Gas Bypass and Non-Uniform Reduction Hydrogen’s low density and viscosity promote preferential flow paths, resulting in: • Channelling • Uneven reduction • Hot spots • Lower productivity Achieving uniform metallisation therefore requires careful pellet design, high recycle ratios, and precise control. 6. Energy Penalties Beyond Chemistry Hydrogen DRI imposes significant indirect energy loads: • Compression energy to reach operating pressure • Recirculation and blower power • Electrolyser electricity demand (~2.7–3.0 MWh per tonne of DRI) Even if direct emissions are near zero, total system energy demand remains very high unless firm, carbon-free power is available. 7. Green vs Blue Hydrogen Pathways Green hydrogen offers the lowest direct emissions but is constrained by electricity demand, intermittency, water use, and cost. Blue hydrogen provides industrial-scale continuity today but retains residual emissions and CBAM exposure. Neither pathway alone fully resolves the system challenge. 8. Core Insight Hydrogen is an excellent chemical reductant, but a poor momentum carrier. CO-based systems succeed not only due to chemistry, but because heavier molecules naturally stabilise gas–solid hydrodynamics. Decarbonising ironmaking therefore requires system redesign, not molecule substitution alone. 9. Strategic Implication Effective green iron production depends on: • Continuous, firm energy supply • Integrated hydrogen production • Carbon management at the system level • Avoidance of abrupt technology lock-in System-integrated approaches that stabilise energy supply and manage carbon flows are essential to make hydrogen-based ironmaking scalable, operable, and CBAM-robust.

Hydrogen combustion limitations and CRT

TECHNICAL NOTE — Hydrogen Combustion Limitations and CRT Global Significance Clean Energy and Water Technologies (CEWT) 1) Hydrogen Combustion Limitations Hydrogen is often regarded as the ultimate clean fuel, but it poses significant challenges for continuous, large-scale power generation. Because hydrogen has a very low volumetric energy density, turbines sized for pure H₂ require larger footprints and specialised components. Even leading OEMs (e.g., GE and Siemens) continue to refine burner designs (diffusion/lean systems) to ensure stable flame propagation and avoid flashback under high-H₂ operation. The cost of renewable hydrogen is inherently tied to the intermittency of renewable electricity and the need for large-scale storage. Gas turbines, however, are designed for 24×7 operation, creating a mismatch between hydrogen availability and grid reliability. Additionally, hydrogen combustion emits water vapour (H₂O), which is a potent greenhouse gas at altitude; atmospheric research (e.g., NASA studies) highlights that increased highaltitude H₂O can amplify warming effects. 2) The CRT Advantage Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) integrates captured CO₂ with renewable hydrogen to produce Renewable Methane (RNG) via methanation. RNG enables stable turbine combustion, continuous baseload output, and a closed carbon loop with zero fossil input (except start-up). By converting variable renewable inputs into a storable, grid-compatible fuel, CRT delivers firm, dispatchable, zero-emission power while recycling carbon instead of storing it. 3) Practical Limitation of Hydrogen Pathways and Global Planning Theoretical feasibility does not guarantee practical viability. Even if OEMs deploy 100% hydrogen turbines, the true cost of renewable hydrogen plus storage will depend on global deployment density and the break-even capacity achieved across many installations. Because renewable hydrogen production is intermittent, the levelised cost of continuous 24×7 hydrogen supply will remain uncertain for years. Without a clear, stable hydrogen cost base, countries cannot reliably plan or commit to specific CO₂-reduction percentages by 2035/2040/2050 through hydrogen pathways alone. This is precisely where CRT becomes indispensable. By converting CO₂ and renewable H₂ into RNG, CRT creates a stable, dispatchable, and circular energy cycle. It offers a realistic, measurable pathway for nations to achieve net zero — not through promises, but through engineering. Perpetual Carbon Loop — Powering the Clean Energy Future.

Policy and Capital Alignment Narrative- CEWT/Carbon recycling Technology

Policy and Capital Alignment Narrative – CEWT / Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) Australia’s energy transition has entered a new phase in which delivery, not aspiration, is the defining test. Policymakers increasingly recognise that achieving net-zero objectives at scale cannot be realised through public funding or policy instruments alone, but requires the systematic mobilisation of private capital into bankable, confidence-preserving infrastructure. This shift is reflected in contemporary sustainable-finance thinking, where private capital is now explicitly integrated into policy frameworks as a critical enabler of transition delivery, alongside the need for partnership models that maintain market confidence and international competitiveness . In this context, governments are no longer seeking isolated technology pilots or intermittent solutions, but commercially investable systems capable of underpinning long-term industrial, electricity, and export competitiveness. Clean Energy and Water Technologies Pty Ltd (CEWT)’s Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) is directly aligned with this policy evolution. CRT is designed as infrastructure-grade, zero-emission energy capacity, not as an offset mechanism, voluntary abatement project, or subsidy-dependent concept. By combining proven combined-cycle power generation, carbon capture, and closed-loop carbon conversion using renewable hydrogen, CRT delivers dispatchable, baseload electricity and renewable fuels while progressively eliminating fossil-carbon dependency from the system. Critically, CRT is structured to meet the requirements of private capital participation: • Long-life assets using established industrial equipment • Predictable revenue streams from firm power and fuel substitution • Clear system boundaries that enable credible carbon accounting • Compatibility with blended finance models involving concessional public capital and commercial debt and equity In this way, CRT does not rely on policy support to substitute for market discipline; rather, it operationalises policy intent by translating climate objectives into bankable infrastructure capable of attracting institutional capital at scale. Public funding, where applied, acts as a catalyst for risk reduction, not as the primary driver of project viability. Accordingly, CEWT’s CRT projects represent the class of transition investments now explicitly recognised by policymakers as essential: projects that preserve energy security, maintain competitiveness, and enable private capital to participate confidently in the delivery of net-zero outcomes.

Carbon Credit

CEWT Policy Note CRT-Specific Article 6 Authorisation Roadmap Purpose This policy note sets out a Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT)–specific roadmap for engagement under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, aligned with the Article 6.4 Guidance (2025). The roadmap is designed to support host-country decision making, protect Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) ambition, and enable progressive monetisation of high-integrity mitigation outcomes. Core Principle CRT is positioned as conditional-NDC infrastructure delivering baseload zero-emission energy through closed-loop carbon recycling. It is introduced through a staged authorisation pathway that prioritises national integrity, learning, and system confidence before international transfer. Phase 0 – National Positioning CRT is framed as a structural decarbonisation system rather than an offset activity. It supports conditional NDC achievement, long-term net-zero strategies, and energy security, without drawing on unconditional NDC targets. Phase 1 – Article 6.4 Activity Approval The host country approves CRT as an Article 6.4 activity under the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism. At this stage, no international transfer occurs and no corresponding adjustments apply. Phase 2 – Mitigation Contribution Units (MCUs) CRT-generated mitigation outcomes are issued as MCUs for domestic use, voluntary cancellation, or results-based climate finance. This phase enables early value creation while remaining NDC-neutral. Phase 3 – Partial Authorisation of A6.4ERs Following verified performance and demonstrated fossil fuel displacement, the host country may authorise a limited volume of A6.4ERs for specific international purposes. Corresponding adjustments apply only to the authorised share. Phase 4 – Full A6.4ER Authorisation CRT is recognised as conditional-NDC infrastructure, enabling full authorisation of A6.4ERs for international transfer as ITMOs, supporting buyer NDCs and compliance mechanisms such as CORSIA. Phase 5 – Policy and Sectoral Scaling CRT becomes eligible for inclusion in positive lists, sectoral or policy crediting approaches, supporting national-scale baseload decarbonisation. Conclusion This staged roadmap aligns with Article 6.4 best practice by avoiding overselling, safeguarding environmental integrity, and enabling host countries to progressively unlock international value from transformative infrastructure.