Retaining the BF–BOF Core While Closing the Carbon Loop

Retaining the BF–BOF Core While Closing the Carbon Loop CRT allows BF–BOF steel plants to retain their core process while closing the carbon loop: off-gas carbon is recycled into fuel, enabling zero-emission operation and surplus power generation, without disrupting continuous steelmaking. For most integrated steel producers, the greatest barrier to deep decarbonisation is not ambition, but risk. Blast furnaces and basic oxygen furnaces are capital-intensive, long-life assets designed for continuous operation. Any pathway that requires dismantling, wholesale replacement, or prolonged shutdown is economically and operationally unattractive. CRT addresses this reality directly. Rather than attempting to replace the BF–BOF route, CRT is designed to wrap around the existing process, treating steel off-gases not as waste to be flared or diluted, but as recyclable carbon streams. Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide contained in blast furnace gas, converter gas, and associated flue gases are captured within the system boundary and converted into reusable fuel. This approach preserves what already works: • the metallurgical function of the blast furnace, • the productivity and reliability of the BOF, and • the continuous nature of steelmaking operations. At the same time, it fundamentally changes the role of carbon. Instead of leaving the plant as an emission, carbon is retained inside the system and recycled repeatedly as an energy carrier. A key advantage of this architecture is that thermal and power demands are addressed together. Recycled fuel produced via CRT can be used to meet internal steel plant heat requirements first — hot blast stoves, reheating, and auxiliary loads — ensuring process stability. Where recycled fuel production exceeds internal heat demand, the surplus can be used to generate dispatchable baseload power via gas turbines or combined-cycle systems. The carbon dioxide from that power generation is then captured and returned to the CRT loop, maintaining a closed system. The result is not just lower emissions, but a structural shift in plant energy balance: • emissions are internalised, • fuel security is improved, and • power becomes a by-product of decarbonisation rather than an external dependency. Critically, this is achieved without interrupting steel production. CRT does not require changes to burden chemistry, furnace operation, or steel quality. It is implemented as an integrated energy-carbon platform operating alongside existing assets, allowing staged deployment and risk-managed scaling. For BF–BOF operators, this reframes the decarbonisation question. It is no longer about abandoning proven processes or waiting for uncertain alternatives to mature. It becomes a matter of closing the carbon loop around assets already in place, transforming emissions into value while maintaining operational continuity. In this sense, CRT is not a transition away from BF–BOF steelmaking. It is a pathway to make existing steel plants compatible with a zero-emissions future — while delivering additional power, resilience, and optionality along the way.

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.

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.

The limitations of CCUS

The Structural Limits of CCUS and Implications for Long-Term Decarbonisation Clean Energy and Water Technologies Pty Ltd (CEWT) Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) has contributed to near-term emissions mitigation; however, its structural limitations become increasingly material as decarbonisation strategies shift toward long-duration infrastructure and system transformation. CCUS operates as a fundamentally linear model in which carbon is captured after fuel use and transferred to storage, creating cumulative storage volumes, long-term monitoring obligations, and enduring balance-sheet and regulatory liabilities over multi-decade asset lives. From an economic standpoint, CCUS does not structurally reduce fuel dependency. Energy output remains directly linked to ongoing fossil fuel input, exposing projects to long-term fuel price escalation and supply volatility. As carbon prices rise, CCUS systems increasingly depend on policy support, subsidies, or regulated cost recovery, raising questions about scalability and capital efficiency at the system level. At a system level, CCUS relocates carbon rather than reintegrating it into productive use. This limits its ability to support emerging demand for firm, dispatchable, low-emissions baseload power required by digital infrastructure, data centres, green steel, aluminium, and other energy-intensive industries. These sectors require solutions that embed carbon management within the energy system itself rather than relying on perpetual disposal. Looking forward, the decarbonisation challenge is shifting from managing emissions to eliminating the creation of new linear carbon liabilities. Systems that depend on indefinite storage face increasing regulatory scrutiny, long-term stewardship risk, and declining social licence as circular alternatives mature. As a result, CCUS is increasingly best viewed as a transitional or bridging mechanism rather than a terminal solution for net-zero systems.

Carbon Recycling Technology - an economic value proposition.

Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) Economic Value Proposition Clean Energy and Water Technologies Pty Ltd (CEWT) Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) is designed as an infrastructure‑grade decarbonisation platform that delivers long‑term economic value by structurally reducing fuel cost exposure while increasing carbon‑related revenue over the operating life of the plant. Unlike conventional fuel‑dependent power systems, CRT converts carbon from a one‑time consumable into a continuously recycled molecular carrier, significantly lowering cumulative fuel procurement costs and reducing exposure to volatile natural gas markets. At the same time, CRT’s closed‑loop architecture transforms carbon management from a compliance obligation into an economic opportunity. By preventing the release of CO₂ and enabling its continuous reuse within the system boundary, CRT is inherently positioned to benefit from rising carbon prices and the increasing value of verified emissions avoidance. As carbon markets mature and regulatory frameworks tighten, the economic value of avoided emissions is expected to increase over the life of long‑duration energy assets. These advantages are amplified by structural trends in global energy demand. The rapid expansion of digital infrastructure, data centres, green steel, aluminium, and other energy‑intensive industries is driving sustained growth in demand for firm, dispatchable baseload power. This demand is expected to place upward pressure on both fuel prices and carbon prices over time. CRT is economically advantaged in this environment: higher fuel prices magnify avoided fuel costs, while higher carbon prices increase the value of emissions avoidance embedded in the system design. By combining fuel cost resilience with carbon price upside, CRT offers a durable economic profile aligned with long‑term infrastructure investment horizons. This dual value creation supports investor return objectives, government decarbonisation and energy‑security goals, and regulator expectations for credible, system‑level emissions reduction without reliance on offsets or ongoing subsidies.

What this lens means in Cliamte and Energy?

What This Lens Means in Climate and Energy (And Why CRT Exists) When I say “tools get replaced, architectures endure,” this isn’t theory for me. It’s the reason Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) exists at all. For years, climate solutions have been framed as: • capture technologies, • fuels, • offsets, • or efficiency upgrades. Each solves part of the problem — but rarely owns the outcome. And when systems don’t own the outcome, they fail at scale. The Core Mistake in Climate Tech Most decarbonisation approaches treat carbon as: • a waste to be disposed of, or • a liability to be offset elsewhere. That creates dependency chains: • transport assumptions, • storage availability, • policy continuity, • market prices outside the system boundary. Just like outcome-free SaaS, these solutions participate in the system — They don’t control it. CRT Starts From a Different Question Not: How do we remove carbon? But: How do we design an energy system where carbon is no longer the failure mode? CRT treats carbon as a circulating carrier inside the system, not an external problem to manage after the fact. That architectural choice changes everything: • integration becomes the strength, not the risk, • utilisation replaces disposal, • and delivery matters more than claims. Why This Is an Architecture, Not a Technology CRT isn’t a single invention. It’s a system boundary decision: • capture, utilisation, and energy demand are designed together, • The loop closes inside the operating system, • Performance is measured by what the system delivers continuously. That’s the same shift happening in software: from features → workflows, from tools → platforms, from participation → ownership of outcomes. The Real Test The test isn’t whether a solution works in isolation. The test is: Does it still work when assumptions fail, prices move, or policies change? Architectures that internalise their risks survive. Those who externalise them don’t. CRT is built around that reality. Why This Matters Now Capital is no longer patient with abstractions. Neither is physics. Across software, energy, and climate, the same rule is asserting itself: If you don’t own the outcome, you don’t own the future. CRT is my response to that rule — applied to carbon, energy, and the real world.

CRT- Horizon Europe Alignment.

Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) Horizon Europe Alignment – Carbon Management (TRLs 6–8) Purpose This explainer outlines how Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) aligns with Horizon Europe carbon management priorities, particularly for TRLs 6–8, first-of-kind (FOAK) deployment, and infrastructure anchored projects. It is intended as a nonconfidential positioning note for evaluators, consortium partners, and funding specialists. Strategic Alignment Horizon Europe increasingly prioritizes system-level carbon management over isolated technology components. CRT is positioned as an integrated carbon management architecture, embedding capture, utilisation, and energy delivery within a single system boundary. This reduces reliance on external transport, storage, or speculative offtake assumptions. System Boundary CRT treats carbon as a circulating carrier rather than a waste stream. CO2 is captured and continuously reused within the operational architecture, strengthening delivery credibility and boundary discipline. TRL Positioning (6–8) CRT is designed for the latest-stage demonstration and FOAK deployment. Its value lies in integration maturity and system readiness rather than early-stage novelty risk. FOAK Risk Reduction FOAK projects most often fail at interfaces. CRT reduces risk by internalizing CO utilization, minimizing interface complexity, and anchoring performance to real infrastructure constraints. Infrastructure & Cluster Compatibility CRT is compatible with industrial clusters, energy hubs, and transitioning carbon-intensive infrastructure, making it well-suited to Horizon Europe cluster-based and infrastructure- ready calls. Evaluator Summary ✔ System credible ✔ Infrastructure aware ✔ FOAK realistic ✔ TRL appropriate Core message: Carbon management succeeds when CO■ is designed into the system — not managed after the fact. Clean Energy and Water Technologies Pty Ltd (CEWT) Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) – NonConfidential Overview

ESG, Built in- Not Bolted on.

ESG, Built In — Not Bolted On Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles are often treated as a reporting exercise — something applied after an energy system is designed and built. At Clean Energy and Water Technologies Pty Ltd (CEWT), we take a different view. If ESG is not embedded in the physics and architecture of the system itself, it cannot be sustained by disclosure, offsets, or accounting. Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) was designed from first principles to integrate environmental integrity, social resilience, and governance credibility directly into the energy system — not layered on later. E — Environmental Integrity by Design Most “net-zero” systems reduce emissions at the point of use while leaving the wider system boundary untouched. This often results in: • front-loaded embodied carbon, • emissions shifted upstream or offshore, • reliance on offsets to close the gap. CRT addresses the environmental dimension at the system level. How CRT embeds Environmental ESG: • Closed carbon loop: Carbon is treated as a recyclable carrier, not unmanaged waste. CO₂ is captured, converted, reused, and re-captured within the same system boundary. • Fossil fuel displacement, not compensation: CRT replaces fossil fuel inputs rather than offsetting their emissions after the fact. • Physical permanence: Emissions reduction is achieved through chemistry and thermodynamics, not contractual claims. • Lower material intensity: By providing dispatchable, firm power without large-scale overbuild of storage or redundant infrastructure, CRT reduces embodied carbon across the system lifecycle. Environmental performance is therefore measurable in tonnes of avoided emissions, not inferred through certificates. S — Social Value Through Energy Continuity Energy transitions fail socially when they compromise: • reliability, • affordability, • industrial livelihoods, • or regional energy security. CRT was designed with continuity as a non-negotiable requirement. How CRT embeds Social ESG: • Firm, dispatchable energy: CRT delivers continuous power and industrial heat without exposing communities to intermittency risk. • Industrial compatibility: Existing skills, infrastructure, and workforce capabilities remain relevant, reducing disruption and job displacement. • Energy affordability: By recycling carbon internally and avoiding fuel price volatility, CRT stabilises long-term energy costs. • Regional resilience: CRT systems can be deployed close to demand centres, reducing dependence on fragile global fuel supply chains. Social value emerges not from promises, but from systems that work under real conditions. G — Governance Through Verifiability, Not Narratives Governance risk in climate solutions often arises from: • opaque carbon accounting, • unverifiable offset claims, • long-dated liabilities, • and misaligned incentives. CRT reduces governance risk by making outcomes physically auditable. How CRT embeds Governance ESG: • System-boundary clarity: Emissions are accounted for within the operating system, not displaced to the surroundings. • Auditability: Carbon flows are measurable in real time — captured, converted, used, and re-captured. • No offset dependency: CRT does not rely on future carbon credit markets to justify present performance. • Regulatory alignment: The technology aligns with emerging integrity-focused frameworks that prioritise real emissions elimination over financial substitution. Good governance follows naturally when claims are anchored in physics, not financial instruments. Why This Matters ESG frameworks are evolving. Investors, regulators, and communities are increasingly distinguishing between: • reported performance, and • real-world system impact. CRT sits firmly in the latter category. By embedding ESG principles directly into the design and operation of the energy system, CRT avoids the fragility, reputational risk, and long-term liabilities associated with offset-driven or disclosure-only approaches. In One Sentence CRT embeds ESG where it belongs — in the architecture of the energy system itself — delivering environmental integrity, social resilience, and governance credibility through physical design, not promises.

The problem definition and the solution.

The Problem We Solve The global energy transition is not failing because of a lack of technology. It is failing because of system-level design errors. Over the last two decades, decarbonisation has been framed as a collection of substitutions: • replace fossil electricity with renewables, • replace fossil fuels with hydrogen, • offset what cannot be eliminated, • optimise efficiency at the point of use. Individually, these steps appear logical. Collectively, they do not add up to a stable, scalable, or physically sound energy system. Where Today’s Transition Breaks Down Most current strategies optimise for accounting metrics, not system behaviour. They prioritise: • net-zero in operation while ignoring embodied carbon, • peak efficiency while neglecting continuity and reliability, • technology add-ons instead of integrated system architecture. As a result: • emissions are shifted rather than eliminated, • carbon is front-loaded instead of reduced, • infrastructure is overbuilt and underutilised, • and energy systems become fragile, expensive, and subsidy-dependent. In practice, many “solutions” reduce emissions on paper while increasing material use, energy losses, and long-term risk. The Core Unresolved Challenge Modern economies still require: • continuous, dispatchable power, • industrial heat and feedstocks, • dense, storable energy for transport and industry, • and systems that work across seasons, not just in ideal conditions. Electrons alone cannot meet all of these needs. Hydrogen alone cannot either. What is missing is system closure — an architecture that aligns energy, carbon, materials, and reliability within the same boundary. Our Definition of the Problem How do we replace fossil fuels without sacrificing reliability, affordability, or physical carbon integrity — at the scale modern societies require? This is not a question of marginal efficiency. It is a question of system design. Our Approach We address the transition as an architecture problem, not a technology race. That means: • designing systems for continuity, not intermittency, • treating carbon as a controllable carrier, not unmanaged waste, • closing loops instead of exporting emissions to the surroundings, • and aligning thermodynamics, economics, and real-world operation. Our focus is not on chasing the next technology headline, but on building energy systems that work in reality, not just in models. What This Enables By solving the system-level failure of today’s transition, we enable: • genuine fossil fuel displacement, • physically verifiable carbon elimination, • scalable pathways for hard-to-abate sectors, • and energy systems that remain affordable and reliable as they decarbonise. In One Sentence We solve the system-level failure of today’s energy transition — enabling the replacement of fossil fuels without compromising reliability, affordability, or physical carbon integrity.

Decarbonising Iron does not mean Iron making must become "Hydrogen-based"

Decarbonising Iron Does Not Mean Ironmaking Must Become “Hydrogen-Based” Steel is an alloy of iron and carbon. The real decarbonisation challenge is therefore not what we call steel, but how iron itself is produced. Today, around 70% of the world’s iron is produced using the blast furnace (BF) and basic oxygen furnace (BOF) route. This is not a marginal pathway—it is the backbone of global steelmaking. The BF–BOF process relies on carbonaceous materials to chemically reduce iron ore, provide high-temperature process heat, and maintain continuous, stable operation. If carbon emissions are to be eliminated, hydrogen can play a role. But that does not mean hydrogen must be used directly and simultaneously as both the fuel and the reductant. That assumption unnecessarily narrows the solution space. The objective is not to eliminate carbon at all costs. The objective is to eliminate emissions at the system boundary. Hydrogen can be used indirectly to decarbonise ironmaking—as an energy vector supplying carbon-free heat and power, or as part of an integrated system that prevents CO₂ release—without forcing hydrogen to replace carbon everywhere it performs an essential metallurgical function. Ironmaking is a continuous industrial process. It cannot depend on intermittent energy, annual averaging, or offset accounting. Without firm, dispatchable, carbon-free power available 24 hours a day, emissions are simply shifted upstream or deferred in time. This is why system architecture matters more than the selection of technology. When energy systems are designed correctly—integrating renewable electricity, storage, and recyclable energy carriers—it becomes possible to retain carbon where it is functionally necessary while eliminating emissions at the industrial boundary. The defining question is not which molecule we choose. The defining question is whether the energy system delivers continuous, carbon-free power and prevents emissions at the point of production. That is the standard true green iron must meet.

WAHT WE ARE BUILDING?

What We Are Building Clean Energy and Water Technologies (CEWT) is developing a next-generation energy platform designed to address one of the hardest challenges in the energy transition: how to supply continuous, carbon-free power to industry, 24 hours a day, every day. Most decarbonisation pathways rely on direct electrification supported by variable renewable energy. While essential, this approach alone cannot meet the needs of industrial systems that require firm, dispatchable energy—such as green iron and steel, chemicals, data centres, mining, and large-scale infrastructure. CEWT’s approach starts at the system boundary, not at individual components. We are building an integrated energy architecture that: • Delivers firm, dispatchable, carbon-free power rather than an intermittent supply • Uses renewable electricity as the primary energy input • Incorporates energy storage and recyclable energy carriers to bridge variability • Eliminates reliance on fossil fuels while maintaining industrial reliability • Is designed for scalability, repeatability, and real-world deployment This is not a technology add-on or offset-based solution. It is a purpose-built energy system engineered to operate continuously while meeting genuine net-zero requirements in practice, not just on an annual accounting basis. The project is currently in development, with system design, partner engagement, and implementation pathways progressing in parallel. Further technical and commercial details will be disclosed at the appropriate stage as the project advances. Our focus is simple: build energy systems that work in the real world, at an industrial scale, without shifting emissions elsewhere.

WE ARE BUILDING A SYSTEM-THAT DELIVERS!

Clean Energy and Water Technologies (CEWT) is developing an upcoming large-scale energy project focused on one of the most difficult challenges in the global energy transition: how to deliver continuous, carbon-free power—24 hours a day, 7 days a week—at an industrial scale. Direct electrification will drive much of global decarbonisation. However, electrification alone does not guarantee emissions reduction unless the electricity itself is carbon-free at all times. Many industrial systems—such as green iron and steel, chemicals, mining, data centres, and critical infrastructure—require firm, dispatchable energy that cannot depend on intermittent supply or annual averaging. CEWT’s project is based on a system-level energy architecture, not a single technology or add-on solution. It is designed from the system boundary inward, integrating renewable electricity, energy storage, and carbon-recycling principles to ensure reliability, continuity, and genuine emissions elimination in real-world operation. The platform is being developed to: • Deliver firm, dispatchable, carbon-free power rather than an intermittent supply • Maintain industrial reliability without reliance on fossil fuels • Reduce exposure to volatility in fuel supply, pricing, and grid constraints • Scale and replicate across multiple industrial applications and regions • Meet decarbonisation objectives in practice, not just in accounting terms This is not an offset-based approach, nor a reliance on future grid assumptions. It is a purpose-built energy system engineered to operate continuously while supporting long-term industrial and infrastructure needs. The project is currently in development, with system design, partner engagement, and implementation pathways progressing in parallel. Further technical and commercial details will be disclosed at the appropriate stage as the project advances. Our philosophy We design energy systems that deliver predictable, carbon-free power at an industrial scale—every hour of the year.

Why Coal to SNG is problematic?

Why coal → SNG is problematic 1. Carbon intensity is intrinsic o Coal gasification starts with high carbon-to-hydrogen ratios o Even with good efficiency, CO₂ generation is unavoidable o Without permanent capture and disposal, lifecycle emissions are worse than those of natural gas 2. System logic is backwards o Carbon is treated as a fuel to be consumed, not a carrier o Large fractions of carbon are discarded as CO₂ during gasification, shift, and cleanup o Methanation only “polishes” the downstream chemistry — it cannot fix upstream carbon loss 3. CCS does not solve the core issue o CCS adds cost, complexity, and long-term liability o It addresses symptoms (emissions), not the cause (open carbon loop) o Storage availability and permanence remain non-trivial risks 4. Policy-driven, not system-optimal o Coal-to-SNG plants in China were built for:  energy security  stranded coal utilisation  regional air-quality improvement o They were never climate-optimal solutions, only transitional ones Why was it still licensed From a licensor’s perspective, the logic was: • Coal was abundant and cheap • Gas infrastructure already existed • SNG enabled cleaner end-use combustion • Methanation technology itself worked extremely well So the chemistry succeeded, but the system failed. The key distinction (important) • Methanation is not the problem • Coal-derived syngas is the problem That distinction matters because it preserves the value of methanation when paired with the right upstream logic. In other words: Coal-to-SNG failed because carbon was treated as a consumable fuel. Carbon recycling works because carbon is treated as a reusable carrier.

Hydrogen Direct Reduction of Iron Ore

Hydrogen Direct Reduction of Iron Ore: System-Level Realities This note summarises the practical, physical, and system-level considerations associated with the direct reduction of iron ore using green and blue hydrogen. While hydrogen-based DRI is often presented as a straightforward decarbonisation pathway, real-world deployment is constrained by energy intensity, reactor hydrodynamics, and system integration challenges. 1. Fundamental Physical Mismatch Hydrogen is the lightest gas (molecular weight 2 g/mol), while iron ore is among the heaviest industrial solids (bulk density ~2,000–3,500 kg/m³). Achieving effective gas–solid interaction between such mismatched phases is intrinsically difficult. Reduction success depends not only on chemical reactivity, but also on momentum transfer between gas and solid. 2. Gas–Solid Hydrodynamics Challenge Drag force in a shaft or fluidised reactor scales with gas density and velocity. Hydrogen’s very low density means that, compared to CO or syngas, substantially higher gas velocity, pressure, and temperature are required to deliver equivalent momentum. This leads to unavoidable design penalties. 3. Pressure Requirement Hydrogen-based DRI systems typically require operation at elevated pressures (5–10 bar) to increase gas density and avoid channelling and bypassing. Higher pressure increases: • Reactor wall thickness and capital cost • Compression energy demand • Operational complexity 4. Temperature and Sticking Risks Hydrogen reduction kinetics favour high temperatures (>800–900 °C). However, at these conditions: • Iron ore pellets soften • Metallic iron forms early • Sintering and sticking occur • Bed permeability collapses These effects are more severe with hydrogen than with CO-based systems, leading to defluidisation risks in fluidised beds and operability limits in shaft furnaces. 5. Gas Bypass and Non-Uniform Reduction Hydrogen’s low density and viscosity promote preferential flow paths, resulting in: • Channelling • Uneven reduction • Hot spots • Lower productivity Achieving uniform metallization, therefore, requires careful pellet design, high recycle ratios, and precise control. 6. Energy Penalties Beyond Chemistry Hydrogen DRI imposes significant indirect energy loads: • Compression energy to reach operating pressure • Recirculation and blower power • Electrolyser electricity demand (~2.7–3.0 MWh per tonne of DRI) Even if direct emissions are near zero, total system energy demand remains very high unless firm, carbon-free power is available. 7. Green vs Blue Hydrogen Pathways Green hydrogen offers the lowest direct emissions but is constrained by electricity demand, intermittency, water use, and cost. Blue hydrogen provides industrial-scale continuity today but retains residual emissions and CBAM exposure. Neither pathway alone fully resolves the system challenge. 8. Core Insight Hydrogen is an excellent chemical reductant, but a poor momentum carrier. CO-based systems succeed not only due to chemistry, but because heavier molecules naturally stabilise gas–solid hydrodynamics. Decarbonising ironmaking therefore requires system redesign, not molecule substitution alone. 9. Strategic Implication Effective green iron production depends on: • Continuous, firm energy supply • Integrated hydrogen production • Carbon management at the system level • Avoidance of abrupt technology lock-in System-integrated approaches that stabilise energy supply and manage carbon flows are essential to make hydrogen-based ironmaking scalable, operable, and CBAM-robust.

Carbon- before decarbonisation

Carbon, Before Decarbonisation: A Reflection on Nature, Embedded Carbon, and the Myth of Removal A reflective essay for contemplation, not advocacy Carbon existed long before the word “decarbonisation” ever entered human language. It was present before economies, before industry, before fuels, and even before life itself. Carbon was forged in stars, scattered across the universe, and gathered into planets. Life did not invent carbon; life emerged because of it. Yet in modern discourse, carbon is often spoken of as if it were an error — something added to the world by mistake, something to be eliminated, erased, or buried away. This framing reveals a deeper misconception: the belief that the climate challenge is about the existence of carbon, rather than our relationship with it. What we call “decarbonisation” today is largely an exercise in managing electrons. Renewable electricity, solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries reduce operational emissions from power generation. This is valuable and necessary work. But it is not, by itself, decarbonisation of the economy. It does not address carbon already embedded in materials, infrastructure, fuels, and industrial systems. Every solar panel, wind turbine, transmission line, and battery begins its life with embedded carbon — released during mining, processing, manufacturing, transport, and construction. These emissions are front-loaded in time, emitted before a single unit of clean electricity is produced. Over years or decades, they may be offset by avoided emissions, but they are never undone. Embedded carbon quietly exposes the myth at the heart of simplistic decarbonisation narratives. It reminds us that carbon cannot be wished away through accounting conventions or linguistic shortcuts. Matter obeys conservation laws, not policy slogans. Nature has never attempted to eliminate carbon. Instead, Nature recycles it. Photosynthesis captures carbon temporarily. Respiration releases it. Biomass stores it. Oceans absorb and emit it. Carbon moves continuously through closed loops, guided by energy flows and thermodynamic balance. The industrial age broke this loop. Fossil fuels represent carbon taken out of geological time and released rapidly into the atmosphere without a corresponding return pathway. The problem is not carbon itself; the problem is a one-way flow. Seen from this perspective, the true task before humanity is not “decarbonisation” in the literal sense, but carbon rebalancing. It is the restoration of closed carbon cycles within human systems, analogous to those that exist in Nature. Any serious attempt to decarbonise an existing fossil-based economy must therefore confront an uncomfortable truth: carbon already exists inside the system. It cannot be eliminated without dismantling civilisation itself. It must be managed, controlled, transformed, and returned to circulation. This is why purely electrical solutions, however elegant, are incomplete. Electrons can move energy, but they cannot erase matter. Batteries can shift energy in time, but they cannot address carbon embedded in fuels, steel, cement, chemicals, and infrastructure. High- temperature processes, material production, and dense energy uses remain bound to carbon chemistry. The insistence on avoiding all forms of carbon capture, even temporary control within a system, reflects a moral reaction rather than a physical one. It confuses permanent burial with carbon management, and in doing so, denies the very mechanisms Nature uses to maintain balance. Temporary carbon containment is not a failure; it is a prerequisite for redirection. Carbon must be held before it can be transformed. Even in Nature, carbon is never instantly neutralised — it is always in transit. The deeper truth revealed by embedded carbon is humbling: carbon is not the enemy. Carbon is older than our technologies, older than our institutions, and older than our narratives. Any system that attempts to work against this reality will eventually collapse under its own contradictions. Systems aligned with Nature, by contrast, do not need constant justification. They rely on balance, closure, and patience. They accept that progress is measured not by purity of language, but by fidelity to physical law. Perhaps the most profound insight is this: Nature does not need to be convinced. Nature does not negotiate. It simply responds. Those who design systems in harmony with Nature may move slowly, face resistance, and appear out of step with prevailing narratives. But they are carried forward by something more durable than consensus — reality itself. In the end, the question is not whether we can eliminate carbon. We cannot. The question is whether we can learn, once again, how to live within its cycle. That is not a technological challenge alone. It is a civilisational one.

GO/Product- GO Alignment- Renewable Synthetic Methane gas

Annex X: GO / Product-GO Alignment – Renewable Synthetic Methane (RSMG) Purpose This annex outlines how Renewable Synthetic Methane (RSMG) produced via Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) aligns with the objectives of Australia’s Guarantee of Origin (GO) and Product-GO frameworks, as applied by Clean Energy Finance Corporation and Australian Renewable Energy Agency. Molecule equivalence and infrastructure compatibility RSMG is chemically identical to fossil methane (CH₄) and biomethane. It is fully compatible with existing gas infrastructure, turbines, engines, and industrial end-uses, with no additional safety or materials risks. As with biomethane, acceptability is determined by carbon origin and lifecycle emissions, not molecule type. Carbon origin and circularity RSMG is produced by combining captured CO₂ with renewable hydrogen, creating a closed carbon loop. Carbon atoms are recycled rather than extracted from new fossil sources. This satisfies non-fossil carbon sourcing principles and is consistent with circular carbon treatment already accepted for biomethane. Lifecycle emissions accounting Under CRT, CO₂ released at end-use is recaptured and recycled within the system boundary. No new fossil carbon is introduced. Lifecycle emissions are therefore governed by renewable energy inputs, not combustion chemistry. This aligns with GO/Product-GO intent to assess emissions on a system basis, avoiding double counting of end-use CO₂. Traceability and verification RSMG pathways enable robust verification through metered renewable electricity and hydrogen inputs, measurable carbon mass balances, and auditable records. The pathway is compatible with physical segregation or book-and-claim approaches under Product-GO, supporting credible Scope 1, 2, and avoided Scope 3 reporting. Alignment conclusion RSMG produced via CRT is consistent with GO and Product-GO objectives as it: • Uses recycled, non-fossil carbon • Achieves lifecycle-based emissions neutrality • Maintains full infrastructure compatibility • Enables transparent, auditable provenance RSMG therefore represents a natural extension of existing renewable gas certification principles applicable to biomethane, with greater controllability and auditability.