Net Zero Accounting and System reality

Net Zero: Accounting vs System Reality • Why the next phase of decarbonisation requires system redesign • CEWT – Carbon Recycling Technology The Problem • We are solving a physical problem with accounting tools. • Balance does not change the system. What is Net Zero? • Net emissions = Emissions – Removals = 0 • Net Zero is a balance condition, not zero emissions. Accounting Model • Fossil → Energy → CO₂ → Atmosphere → Removal → Balance • External compensation model. Limitations • Relies on future removals • Emissions continue • Time mismatch • Global atmosphere vs local accounting. Physical Reality • Carbon is a flow between systems. • The problem is flow design, not balance. System Model (CRT) • CO₂ Capture → H₂ → Fuel → Energy → CO₂ → Re-capture • Closed carbon loop. Comparison • Net Zero: Linear, dependent on removals • CRT: Circular, internal loop, physics-based. Why It Matters • Energy demand rising • Supply intermittent • Reliability gap persists. CEWT Position • Hydrogen = energy • Carbon = carrier • Closed-loop architecture. Two Paradigms • Emit → Remove → Balance • vs • Capture → Reuse → Circulate Policy Shift • Incentivise system design • Reward closed loops • Focus on firm clean power. Closing • Net Zero balances carbon. • System design eliminates one-way carbon flow.

Why the Energy Transition is Stuck in Component Thinking

Why the Energy Transition is Stuck in Component Thinking We are not short of technology. We are stuck because we are solving a system problem with component thinking. We optimise electrolysers, batteries, carbon capture and renewables. Each improvement matters. But the system itself remains unchanged. Energy is not a collection of components. It is a flow system governed by thermodynamics — energy and mass must balance. Today’s system is linear: extract carbon, burn fuel, emit CO₂. We try to fix this with add-ons, offsets and partial substitutions. But the architecture remains the same. The real blind spot is closed-loop design. Nature operates in cycles. Carbon cycles. Water cycles. Balanced flows. Our energy system does not. Experts are not the problem. Structure is. Disciplines optimise their own layers: chemical engineering, power systems, economics. But no one owns the full system architecture. Finance and policy reinforce this. Assets are evaluated individually. Policies are fragmented into hydrogen, CCS and renewables. But real systems do not operate in silos. We don’t need more isolated innovation. We need system architecture thinking. That means asking different questions: Does this close the carbon loop? Does it provide reliability, not just generation? Does it reduce dependency on external inputs? The transition today is based on substitution. Replace fossil fuels. Offset emissions. But substitution keeps the same structure. The next step is defossilisation. Removing the one-way carbon flow entirely. History shows progress comes from system shifts, not component upgrades. The future of energy will not be defined by the best component. It will be defined by the best architecture.

HAVE WE LEARNED ANYTHING FROM HORMUZ?

HAVE WE LEARNED ANYTHING FROM HORMUZ? A System-Level Reflection on Energy Security, Sovereignty, and Design The Strait Is Not the Problem The Strait of Hormuz is not just a narrow passage of water. It is a mirror reflecting the structural fragility of the global energy system. Nearly 20% of the world’s oil passes through this chokepoint. One disruption can cascade across economies with price volatility and supply constraints. And yet, the response remains: secure more supply, diversify imports, build larger reserves. These are not solutions—they are symptoms. The Illusion of Energy Security Energy security has long been treated as a logistics problem: move fuel, protect routes, stabilise price. But a system dependent on continuous external fuel flows is inherently insecure—regardless of whether the fuel is oil, gas, LNG, or hydrogen. The Structural Blind Spot The global energy system is linear: Extract → Transport → Consume → Emit. This creates geopolitical exposure, economic volatility, and systemic instability. A Shift from Supply to System Design What if energy security is not about protecting supply chains—but eliminating the need for them? This means shifting from fuel supply chains to closed-loop energy systems. From Linear to Circular Energy Architecture Linear Model: Extract → Transport → Burn → Emit. Closed-Loop Model: Capture → Convert → Reuse → Repeat. Carbon becomes a recyclable carrier, hydrogen an enabler of circularity, and dependency is reduced. Energy Sovereignty Redefined True sovereignty comes when systems produce their own energy, recycle emissions, and operate independently of fragile supply chains. The Lesson We Keep Ignoring Hormuz is not the root problem. It is the symptom of a system designed around dependency. The Strategic Question Are we still trying to secure the old system—or ready to build a new one? Closing Reflection The future of energy will not be determined by who controls supply routes, but by who eliminates the need for them. Clean Energy and Water Technologies Pty Ltd (CEWT) Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) – Enabling Closed-Loop Energy Systems

Defossilisation: One System Concept, Multiple Solutions

Defossilisation: One System Concept, Multiple Solutions For decades, climate change has been approached as a series of separate challenges: • Decarbonise power • Green steel and industry • Electrify transport • Build hydrogen infrastructure • Improve energy efficiency in buildings Each pathway is valid — but also adds complexity, cost, and fragmentation. What if the problem is not the lack of solutions, but the way we frame it? The Real Issue: Carbon Flow Today’s system is linear: Fossil carbon → Energy → CO₂ → Atmosphere This single flaw drives emissions, volatility, and dependency. The Solution: Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) CRT creates a closed-loop system: • Capture CO₂ • Combine with renewable hydrogen • Convert back into fuel • Reuse continuously Carbon becomes a recyclable carrier. Where CRT Applies • Power Generation – 24/7 zero-emission energy • Steel & Industry – Stable high-temperature processes • Transport – Net-zero fuels for aviation and shipping • Buildings – Reliable heating via existing infrastructure • Logistics – Decarbonised fuel systems Why This Matters • Climate: No net CO₂ emissions • Energy Security: Local fuel production • Infrastructure: Uses existing assets • Economics: Reduced volatility • Reliability: Continuous operation Final Thought The transition is not about changing the fuel. It is about closing the loop that fossil systems left open.

“Extending CRT to coal via plasma-assisted hydrogasification has the potential to transform coal-dependent systems—from open-loop emissions to closed-loop carbon operation—while preserving industrial continuity.”