CRT Trigeneration versus 24/7 Solar PV + BESS

20 MW AI data-centre firm-power comparison | 13 November 2026 Clean Energy and Water Technologies Pty Ltd (CEWT) • Preliminary / Confidential Executive finding The prior CEWT screening comparison indicates that engine-based Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) trigeneration may offer a lower effective cost of continuous firm electricity service than a fully firmed, oversized solar photovoltaic (PV) plus battery energy storage (BESS) system. The result depends strongly on renewable resource, reliability, equipment prices, hydrogen/renewable inputs and the valuation of cooling and carbon benefits. It should not yet be presented as a validated project tariff or bankable LCOE. Indicative results from the working comparison Configuration Indicative A$/MWh Interpretation Oversized solar PV + BESS 319–496 24/7 firm-delivered electricity screening range CRT trigeneration — gross 253 Before allocating cooling/carbon value CRT trigeneration — adjusted 179 After illustrative cooling and carbon-value allocations Figure 1. Comparative screening estimates. The shaded extension denotes the PV+BESS range; figures are not vendor quotations. Common comparison basis • Reference firm electrical demand: 20 MW, continuous operation (24 hours/day). • Currency: Australian dollars (A$); discount rate: 8% real. • Evaluation period: 25 years; annual delivered electricity in the prior model approximately 170,000 MWh (consistent with 20 MW at roughly 97% annual utilisation). • Compare at the delivered-service boundary, including renewable overbuild, battery cycling, replacement, land, interconnection, auxiliaries, and reliability reserves as applicable. • For CRT, include all external renewable electricity for electrolysis and other loads, fuel and start-up requirements, engine operation, CO₂ capture/recycle, water, heat recovery and maintenance. Engineering and commercial interpretation The distinction is between the low cost of solar generation when sunshine is available and the cost of guaranteed, continuous 24/7 supply. A PV+BESS design must be sized for night-time duty and extended low-solar periods; a credible estimate requires hourly or sub-hourly simulation over multiple weather years and explicit reliability criteria. CRT provides dispatchable engine-based power with potentially useful recovered heat for chilled/hot-water services. However, full-cycle external renewable energy demand, methanation efficiency, captured-carbon balance, and lifecycle emissions must be accounted for. Credit for recovered cooling or carbon outcomes must not be double-counted against electricity revenues. Recommended next verification 1. Reproduce both cases from the original editable model and reconcile each A$/MWh line item. 2. Run hourly dispatch and reliability simulations for the proposed Morwell site, including multi-day low-solar scenarios. 3. Obtain equipment and EPC quotations and verify the CRT carbon/hydrogen mass balance. 4. Publish gross electricity cost and integrated service cost separately; state assumptions for cooling revenue and any carbon credits. Status: internal screening comparison. Cost values are carried forward from the earlier discussion; the underlying detailed financial model was not independently re-audited for this summary