CRT applies the principle of a Circular Economy.

The circular economy is now well established for materials. We design systems to reuse metals, recycle plastics, recover water, and minimise virgin resource extraction. Industrial resilience increasingly depends on keeping materials in productive loops. But one major material still operates largely in a linear model: Carbon. Today, much of our energy system relies on extracting virgin geological carbon and releasing it into the active cycle. If circularity means reducing dependence on virgin inputs and operating within regenerative loops, then applying circular principles to carbon becomes the next logical step in industrial evolution. Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) is built around that idea — circulating carbon within the short-term cycle rather than relying on continuous geological extraction. Whether viewed through a climate lens or a resource-efficiency lens, the structural principle is the same: shift from extractive carbon flows to circular carbon systems. The circular economy conversation may now be ready to include carbon itself. #CircularEconomy #IndustrialSystems #CarbonCycle #EnergyTransition

CCUS vs CRT

We often use the term decarbonisation. But precision matters. There are three distinct concepts in climate strategy: 1️.Decarbonisation Reducing CO₂ emissions through efficiency, electrification, fuel switching, capture, or offsets. → Focus: Emission reduction. 2️. CCUS Capturing and storing or utilising CO₂ after fossil carbon has already entered the active carbon cycle. → Focus: Mitigation after extraction. 3️. Defossilisation Ending the transfer of geological carbon into the short-term carbon cycle. → Focus: Eliminating fossil carbon inputs at the source. Decarbonisation reduces emissions. CCUS captures emissions. Defossilisation removes fossil dependence. Carbon itself is not the issue. The structural imbalance arises when we move carbon from geological time into biological time. If climate action is about restoring long-term equilibrium, then addressing the source matters. #Defossilisation #Decarbonisation #CCUS #CarbonCycle #EnergyTransition #SystemsThinking

IEA Net Zero. vs System level Defossilisation.

IEA Net Zero vs. System-Level Defossilisation The IEA’s Net Zero by 2050 roadmap outlines a massive transformation: • Electricity demand more than doubles • Hydrogen production scales to unprecedented levels • CCUS becomes structurally embedded • Transmission expansion becomes critical It is a pathway built on electrification, hydrogen expansion and carbon capture at scale. But there is another way to frame the challenge. Decarbonisation reduces emissions intensity. Defossilisation eliminates new fossil carbon input. Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) approaches the system differently: • Carbon is not treated as waste — it is recycled inside the boundary • Renewable hydrogen supplies energy, not fossil feedstock • Firm baseload power is exported to the grid • No reliance on long-term geological storage Instead of: Fossil → Combustion → Capture → Store CRT operates as: CO₂ → Hydrogen → Renewable Gas → Power → CO₂ (closed loop) The distinction matters. One model depends on expanding grids, scaling storage and permanently storing carbon. The other internalises carbon within the energy architecture and eliminates fossil dependence at source. As capital markets move from climate narratives to infrastructure execution, the question becomes clearer: Are we optimising emissions intensity — or redesigning the system boundary itself? #Infrastructure #Defossilisation #NetZero #EnergyTransition #IndustrialDecarbonisation

CRT turns Green steel into emission free power house.

Green steel is usually framed as an emissions problem. But there’s a much bigger opportunity hiding in plain sight. Most decarbonisation pathways implicitly assume that steelmaking must become more intermittent, more electricity-dependent, and less aligned with how BF–BOF plants actually operate. CRT takes a different view. By closing the carbon loop, BF–BOF steelmaking can be decarbonised without giving up continuous operation. Process CO₂ is recycled back into fuel, allowing the plant to retain baseload characteristics rather than becoming a stop-start electricity consumer. The under-discussed outcome is this: A green steel plant can also function as a continuous, zero-emission baseload power asset. That changes the economics. Energy shifts from being a pure cost into an additional source of value. Uptime is preserved. Existing assets are upgraded rather than stranded. And green steel stops being just a compliance exercise — it becomes industrial infrastructure that produces both materials and firm power. In a world losing coal baseload while demand keeps rising, that system-level framing matters. Decarbonisation works best when it strengthens the energy system, not when it quietly depends on it. Green steel doesn’t have to be just low-carbon steel. It can be baseload industrial infrastructure.

CRT platform for Aluminium Decarbonisation.

Step-by-step platform logic (steel → aluminium → desal → chemicals) Step 1 — The shared constraint Baseload / firm power is the unlock. Steel, aluminium, desalination, and chemicals are continuous-process industries. They don’t just need energy; they need uninterrupted energy. If energy is intermittent, you either: • oversized storage (costly), or • curtail production (kills economics), or • fall back to fossil “insurance” (undermines decarbonisation). So the common logic is: Firm energy first. Everything else becomes possible. Step 2 — CRT’s role CRT functions as firm-energy infrastructure with embedded carbon control. That means CRT isn’t “a steel solution” or “an aluminium solution” — it’s the system that keeps an industrial site running without relying on fossil backup. Step 3 — Why aluminium + CAPZ + desal is a high-value cluster You’re right to highlight aluminium as the best “platform proof” because the value stack is naturally integrated: 1. Alumina/aluminium needs large, continuous electricity (electrolysis load). 2. It also needs caustic liquor (NaOH) in the Bayer process (upstream alumina refining). 3. A CAPZ-style precinct can co-locate: o firm power supply o caustic/soda chemistry loops (where applicable) o desalination to secure process water o shared utilities and carbon management infrastructure So the message becomes: In an aluminium precinct, CRT doesn’t just supply firm power — it supports the entire operating ecosystem (power + water + process chemistry), improving reliability and lowering system cost. Step 4 — Desalination and chemicals fit without stretching They fit because they share the same requirement: • 24/7 operation • high energy intensity • high penalty for interruption Desalination and chemicals are not “adjacent markets”; they are the same problem class: continuous industrial loads that require firm energy and stable utilities. Baseload power is the key that unlocks decarbonisation across multiple industrial sectors. Steel, aluminium, desalination and chemicals are continuous processes — they require uninterrupted energy, not just low-carbon energy. CRT is positioned as enabling infrastructure: it provides firm, dispatchable power with carbon control so industries can decarbonise without sacrificing throughput or relying on fossil backup. In aluminium precincts, the platform value increases further when combined with CAPZ and desalination, because aluminium and alumina operations are both power-intensive and dependent on stable process utilities (including caustic liquor and water). CEWT can address these as an integrated system rather than isolated technologies.