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.