Daecrbonisation is not a technology problem- It is a System problem.

Decarbonisation Isn’t a Technology Problem — It’s a Systems Problem Across steel, glass, desalination, chemicals, and industrial power generation, the challenge is strikingly similar: • Continuous 24/7 operation • High-temperature, energy-intensive processes • Embedded, unavoidable CO₂ • Water and chemical intensity • A need for reliability that is bankable — not theoretical These are not problems that electrification alone can solve. What we are seeing globally is a convergence of constraints. Industries are discovering that treating energy, carbon, and water as separate optimisation exercises leads to fragmented and fragile solutions. The real bottleneck is no longer ambition — it is system architecture. Over the past few years, CEWT has taken a different approach: designing integrated platforms that address energy, carbon, and water together, rather than optimising one variable at the expense of the others. The focus is not on chasing a single technology, but on building systems that work continuously, at scale, under real operating conditions. This system-level thinking is now resonating across multiple sectors, including: • Gas-based iron and steelmaking • Continuous glass manufacturing • Seawater desalination and water infrastructure • Caustic soda, soda ash and chlor-alkali industries • Energy-intensive industrial power users In all of these sectors, the question has shifted. It is no longer “what technology should we choose?” but rather “how do we design an integrated system that delivers zero-emission outcomes without breaking industrial reliability?” The next phase of decarbonisation will not be driven by slogans, single molecules, or one-size-fits-all solutions. It will be driven by architecture — by platforms that recognise where electrons work best, where molecules are unavoidable, and how carbon and water must be managed inside the system boundary. For organisations facing these realities, the conversation is changing — from technologies to systems, from pilots to platforms, and from promises to performance.

System-level Perspective on DRI Green Steel

Clean Energy and Water Technologies Pty Ltd (CEWT) System-Level Perspectives on Hydrogen-Based DRI A Midrex-Aligned Engineering Framing Purpose This note presents a system-level engineering perspective on hydrogen-based direct reduction of iron (DRI), aligned with publicly stated Midrex design and safety considerations. It is intended to support constructive technical dialogue without challenging hydrogen decarbonisation objectives or proprietary process designs. Shared Starting Point The global steel industry is accelerating toward lower-carbon ironmaking. Hydrogen-based DRI is a critical pathway, and recent Midrex technical publications provide a transparent account of the engineering realities associated with high-hydrogen operation. CEWT fully aligns with this framing: the challenge is not ambition, but system realism at industrial scale. What the Engineering Evidence Shows Increasing hydrogen concentration introduces non-linear system effects, including hydrogen embrittlement and permeation, increased leakage risk due to low molecular weight, accelerated refractory degradation, compression penalties, higher gas flow requirements, and expanded safety controls. These effects are central to long-life, continuous industrial operation. Reframing the Core Challenge From a system perspective, the issue is not hydrogen as a reductant, but the interaction between very low-molecular-weight gases, dense iron ore solids, continuous high-temperature operation, and long-life materials constraints. A System-Architecture Insight Historically, hydrogen-rich syngas has succeeded in DRI as an engineering solution—balancing reducing strength with thermal stability, controllable flow behaviour, and materials robustness. CEWT’s work focuses on architectures that preserve hydrogen effectiveness while maintaining molecular balance and long-term operability. Complementary, Not Contradictory CEWT views its Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) platform as complementary to the Midrex roadmap. Both approaches respond to the same physical realities with the shared objective of delivering net-zero ironmaking solutions that are robust, scalable, and commercially durable. Clean Energy and Water Technologies Pty Ltd (CEWT) Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) – System-level architectures for continuous, net-zero industrial energy

Power is the missing piece in the climate debate!

Power Is the Missing Piece in the Climate Debate Clean Energy and Water Technologies Pty Ltd (CEWT) Re‑engineering power for a net‑zero future Much of today’s climate discussion focuses on end uses — electric vehicles, green steel, hydrogen, carbon removal. Yet one question remains surprisingly under-addressed: How do we decarbonise power generation itself — at scale, continuously, and reliably? Electricity is rapidly becoming the backbone of industry, transport, digital infrastructure, AI, desalination, and synthetic fuels. If power is not clean, nothing downstream truly is. The Constraint We Rarely Acknowledge Renewables are essential — but they are inherently variable. Batteries help — but they do not yet scale economically to cover long-duration, industrial-grade power needs. The challenge is not choosing renewables versus non-renewables. The real challenge is system design. A New Power Generation Paradigm Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) integrates renewable electricity, existing thermal power infrastructure, and captured carbon dioxide into a closed-loop power system in which carbon is recycled rather than emitted. Why This Matters Now As electricity demand accelerates, decarbonisation cannot succeed if power generation itself remains the blind spot. Power is the foundation. If we fix power, everything else becomes possible.

From CCUS to Carbon Recirculation Technology.

Clean Energy and Water Technologies Pty Ltd (CEWT) From CCUS to Circular Carbon: Why Closed-Loop Systems Are the Endgame for Net-Zero Infrastructure Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) has played a valuable transitional role in reducing emissions from existing fossil-based systems. However, as decarbonization efforts shift from short-term mitigation to long-duration infrastructure transformation, the structural limitations of CCUS become increasingly material. CCUS operates as a linear model: carbon is captured after fuel use and transferred to storage, creating cumulative volumes that require permanent geological capacity, long-term monitoring, and enduring institutional responsibility. Over multi-decade asset lives, these factors translate into rising lifecycle costs, regulatory complexity, and balance-sheet liabilities. In contrast, closed-loop carbon systems are designed to eliminate linear carbon liabilities by architecture. Rather than treating carbon as waste requiring disposal, these systems recycle carbon as a functional component within the energy system. By converting captured CO2 into a reusable molecular carrier, closed-loop systems decouple energy delivery from continuous fossil fuel input and progressively reduce exposure to fuel price volatility. This shift transforms carbon management from a cost center into a value-generating system attribute, particularly as carbon prices and regulatory stringency increase over time. This architectural distinction has direct implications for the future energy system. Rapid growth in digital infrastructure, data centers, green steel, aluminum, and other energy-intensive industries is driving sustained demand for firm, dispatchable baseload power. These sectors require solutions that deliver reliability, scalability, and credible emissions reduction simultaneously. Linear CCUS-based systems remain constrained by fuel dependency and storage scalability, whereas closed-loop carbon systems are inherently aligned with long-duration baseload requirements and infrastructure-grade investment horizons. Dimension CCUS Closed-Loop Carbon Systems Carbon Architecture Linear capture and storage Circular reuse and recycling Carbon End-State Permanent disposal Continuous reuse Fuel Dependency Persistent Progressively reduced Fuel Price Exposure High Structurally lowered Carbon Price Impact Compliance cost Revenue upside Long-Term Liability Storage and monitoring No storage liability Baseload Suitability Constrained Designed for baseload Role in Net-Zero Transitional Terminal architecture As decarbonization policy, capital allocation, and industrial demand converge around long-term system integrity, the focus is shifting from end-of-pipe mitigation toward circular system design. CCUS will continue to play a bridging role in the transition; however, the future of net-zero infrastructure will favour closed-loop carbon systems that eliminate perpetual storage liabilities, reduce fuel exposure, and embed carbon management directly into the energy architecture. This transition is essential to meeting the energy security, economic resilience, and emissions objectives of the digital and industrial economy.

Why Carbon is not the enemy ?

WHY CARBON IS NOT THE ENEMY — AND HOW CRT HANDLES BOTH ORGANIC AND INORGANIC CARBON The global climate debate often treats carbon itself as the problem. This framing is understandable — but it is fundamentally incorrect. Carbon is not the enemy. Linear carbon systems are. To understand why, we must distinguish between organic carbon and inorganic carbon, and then see how Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) reunifies them into a single, closed system. ORGANIC CARBON Organic carbon is carbon bound within living or once-living matter. It includes biomass, biogenic fuels, organic waste streams, and biogenic CO₂ released through respiration or decay. Organic carbon is formed by life using energy (primarily photosynthesis). It stores energy temporarily in complex molecular bonds. INORGANIC CARBON Inorganic carbon exists outside biological structures. It includes carbon dioxide (CO₂), bicarbonate and carbonate in water, and carbonate minerals. Inorganic carbon is carbon in its oxidised, low-energy state — the end point of oxidation. THE NATURAL RELATIONSHIP In nature, carbon constantly moves between these two forms. Photosynthesis converts inorganic carbon to organic carbon, while respiration, decay, and combustion convert organic carbon back to inorganic carbon. This continuous cycling maintains Earth’s stability. THE REAL PROBLEM Modern industrial systems extract ancient carbon, use it once, release it as CO₂, and fail to return it to a productive loop. This is not a chemistry failure, but a system design failure. CRT’S CORE INSIGHT Carbon Recycling Technology does not fight carbon. It restores carbon to its natural role as a reusable carrier. CRT is agnostic to carbon origin — organic or inorganic, biogenic or fossil-derived. It requires only that carbon remain in a closed loop. HOW CRT UNITES ORGANIC AND INORGANIC CARBON Before entering CRT, organic carbon may be oxidised to CO₂, while inorganic carbon may already exist as CO₂. Once inside CRT, the distinction disappears. CO₂ combined with renewable hydrogen forms a synthetic fuel, releases energy when used, and returns as CO₂ to be recycled again. Hydrogen provides the energy. Carbon provides the molecular structure. WHY THIS MATTERS The real world contains mixed carbon streams, variable feedstock quality, and legacy emissions. CRT accommodates all of them without moral sorting or parallel infrastructure. Its only requirement is circularity. CONCLUSION CRT handles both organic and inorganic carbon by restoring carbon to a closed, reusable energy loop, preventing net atmospheric accumulation while enabling reliable, scalable energy systems.