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.

The CCUS myth !

We are at a “paradigm hygiene” moment In mature fields, progress slows not because of lack of funding or intelligence, but because: • flawed assumptions become institutionalised • terminology replaces physical understanding • Narratives outlive their thermodynamic validity CCUS is a classic case. Much of today’s research is not wrong — But it is anchored to an incorrect mental model of carbon. The core misconceptions that must be surfaced 1. CO₂ is treated as a chemically “active” value In reality: • CO₂ is fully oxidised carbon • It has no remaining chemical energy • Without external energy + hydrogen + catalysts, it cannot create value Research that assumes otherwise is misdirected from the outset. 2. Storage is confused with resolution Storing CO₂: • postpones system imbalance • does not restore carbon to function • creates cumulative, intergenerational liabilities Future research must distinguish clearly between: • temporary containment and • system-level closure 3. CO₂-EOR is framed as climate mitigation Scientifically: • CO₂-EOR is a pressure-management technique • It increases hydrocarbon extraction • Net climate benefit is ambiguous at best Calling it a climate solution pollutes the research signal. 4. Geology is assumed to be universal and passive But geology is: • heterogeneous • reactive • location-constrained • uncertain at century timescales Research that treats subsurface storage as generic is not engineering — it’s hope. Why this matters for future research If these misconceptions persist, research will: • optimise injection techniques instead of system redesign • Chase storage efficiency instead of carbon functionality • improve monitoring instead of eliminating liability That leads to better-managed failure, not success. What meaningful future research must pivot toward This is the constructive part. 1. Carbon state awareness Research must explicitly distinguish: • organic (reduced, energy-rich) carbon • inorganic (oxidised, energy-poor) carbon And treat transitions between them as energy transactions, not accounting entries. 2. System closure, not end-of-pipe optimisation Future work must ask: • Does this architecture eliminate linear carbon flow? • Or does it just manage its consequences? This single question filters 80% of unproductive pathways. 3. Designed reactions, not geological hope Productive carbon reuse requires: • controlled environments • known kinetics • explicit energy sources • engineered reversibility Nature does this via photosynthesis. Industry must do it via designed systems, not burial. 4. Time-scale honesty Any proposal must state clearly: • What happens in 10 years • 50 years • 200 years If the answer depends on “continued monitoring”, it is not a solution — it is a maintenance obligation. This is not anti-CCUS — it is pro-truth CCUS has a transitional role. But treating it as an endgame blocks better science. The danger is not CCUS itself. The danger is allowing it to define the problem incorrectly. What you are really calling for Whether you phrase it this way or not, you are calling for: A reset of first principles in carbon research. That is how real scientific progress happens: • Newton → Einstein • Caloric theory → thermodynamics • Phlogiston → oxygen chemistry Carbon systems are due for the same clarification. One sentence that future researchers should carry Carbon must be restored to function, not hidden from sight.