Hydrogen Direct Reduction of Iron Ore

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 metallization, 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.

Carbon- before decarbonisation

Carbon, Before Decarbonisation: A Reflection on Nature, Embedded Carbon, and the Myth of Removal A reflective essay for contemplation, not advocacy Carbon existed long before the word “decarbonisation” ever entered human language. It was present before economies, before industry, before fuels, and even before life itself. Carbon was forged in stars, scattered across the universe, and gathered into planets. Life did not invent carbon; life emerged because of it. Yet in modern discourse, carbon is often spoken of as if it were an error — something added to the world by mistake, something to be eliminated, erased, or buried away. This framing reveals a deeper misconception: the belief that the climate challenge is about the existence of carbon, rather than our relationship with it. What we call “decarbonisation” today is largely an exercise in managing electrons. Renewable electricity, solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries reduce operational emissions from power generation. This is valuable and necessary work. But it is not, by itself, decarbonisation of the economy. It does not address carbon already embedded in materials, infrastructure, fuels, and industrial systems. Every solar panel, wind turbine, transmission line, and battery begins its life with embedded carbon — released during mining, processing, manufacturing, transport, and construction. These emissions are front-loaded in time, emitted before a single unit of clean electricity is produced. Over years or decades, they may be offset by avoided emissions, but they are never undone. Embedded carbon quietly exposes the myth at the heart of simplistic decarbonisation narratives. It reminds us that carbon cannot be wished away through accounting conventions or linguistic shortcuts. Matter obeys conservation laws, not policy slogans. Nature has never attempted to eliminate carbon. Instead, Nature recycles it. Photosynthesis captures carbon temporarily. Respiration releases it. Biomass stores it. Oceans absorb and emit it. Carbon moves continuously through closed loops, guided by energy flows and thermodynamic balance. The industrial age broke this loop. Fossil fuels represent carbon taken out of geological time and released rapidly into the atmosphere without a corresponding return pathway. The problem is not carbon itself; the problem is a one-way flow. Seen from this perspective, the true task before humanity is not “decarbonisation” in the literal sense, but carbon rebalancing. It is the restoration of closed carbon cycles within human systems, analogous to those that exist in Nature. Any serious attempt to decarbonise an existing fossil-based economy must therefore confront an uncomfortable truth: carbon already exists inside the system. It cannot be eliminated without dismantling civilisation itself. It must be managed, controlled, transformed, and returned to circulation. This is why purely electrical solutions, however elegant, are incomplete. Electrons can move energy, but they cannot erase matter. Batteries can shift energy in time, but they cannot address carbon embedded in fuels, steel, cement, chemicals, and infrastructure. High- temperature processes, material production, and dense energy uses remain bound to carbon chemistry. The insistence on avoiding all forms of carbon capture, even temporary control within a system, reflects a moral reaction rather than a physical one. It confuses permanent burial with carbon management, and in doing so, denies the very mechanisms Nature uses to maintain balance. Temporary carbon containment is not a failure; it is a prerequisite for redirection. Carbon must be held before it can be transformed. Even in Nature, carbon is never instantly neutralised — it is always in transit. The deeper truth revealed by embedded carbon is humbling: carbon is not the enemy. Carbon is older than our technologies, older than our institutions, and older than our narratives. Any system that attempts to work against this reality will eventually collapse under its own contradictions. Systems aligned with Nature, by contrast, do not need constant justification. They rely on balance, closure, and patience. They accept that progress is measured not by purity of language, but by fidelity to physical law. Perhaps the most profound insight is this: Nature does not need to be convinced. Nature does not negotiate. It simply responds. Those who design systems in harmony with Nature may move slowly, face resistance, and appear out of step with prevailing narratives. But they are carried forward by something more durable than consensus — reality itself. In the end, the question is not whether we can eliminate carbon. We cannot. The question is whether we can learn, once again, how to live within its cycle. That is not a technological challenge alone. It is a civilisational one.

GO/Product- GO Alignment- Renewable Synthetic Methane gas

Annex X: GO / Product-GO Alignment – Renewable Synthetic Methane (RSMG) Purpose This annex outlines how Renewable Synthetic Methane (RSMG) produced via Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) aligns with the objectives of Australia’s Guarantee of Origin (GO) and Product-GO frameworks, as applied by Clean Energy Finance Corporation and Australian Renewable Energy Agency. Molecule equivalence and infrastructure compatibility RSMG is chemically identical to fossil methane (CH₄) and biomethane. It is fully compatible with existing gas infrastructure, turbines, engines, and industrial end-uses, with no additional safety or materials risks. As with biomethane, acceptability is determined by carbon origin and lifecycle emissions, not molecule type. Carbon origin and circularity RSMG is produced by combining captured CO₂ with renewable hydrogen, creating a closed carbon loop. Carbon atoms are recycled rather than extracted from new fossil sources. This satisfies non-fossil carbon sourcing principles and is consistent with circular carbon treatment already accepted for biomethane. Lifecycle emissions accounting Under CRT, CO₂ released at end-use is recaptured and recycled within the system boundary. No new fossil carbon is introduced. Lifecycle emissions are therefore governed by renewable energy inputs, not combustion chemistry. This aligns with GO/Product-GO intent to assess emissions on a system basis, avoiding double counting of end-use CO₂. Traceability and verification RSMG pathways enable robust verification through metered renewable electricity and hydrogen inputs, measurable carbon mass balances, and auditable records. The pathway is compatible with physical segregation or book-and-claim approaches under Product-GO, supporting credible Scope 1, 2, and avoided Scope 3 reporting. Alignment conclusion RSMG produced via CRT is consistent with GO and Product-GO objectives as it: • Uses recycled, non-fossil carbon • Achieves lifecycle-based emissions neutrality • Maintains full infrastructure compatibility • Enables transparent, auditable provenance RSMG therefore represents a natural extension of existing renewable gas certification principles applicable to biomethane, with greater controllability and auditability.

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.