Hidden assumption in the Transition

Australia’s Energy Transition Problem Isn’t Renewables — It’s the Order We Built the System Australia’s renewable transition is often described as “failing.” That diagnosis is wrong. Renewables are not the problem. The sequencing is. At today’s penetration levels, renewables should be lowering wholesale electricity prices. Instead, prices remain high and volatile. The reason is simple but uncomfortable: The firming required to support renewables was never delivered in the right order. ⸻ The Hidden Assumption in the Transition For more than a decade, renewable generation was accelerated under the assumption that firming could be added later, gas would quietly fade away, and the grid would somehow adjust over time. In reality, power systems don’t self-correct. They must be engineered. Firming is not a backup. It is part of the primary system. When firming is missing, the grid becomes dependent on emergency interventions, inefficient dispatch, and scarcity pricing rather than competition. That is exactly what we are seeing today. ⸻ Why Prices Are Rising Despite Surplus Solar Australia now has massive renewable investment and frequent periods of surplus solar generation. Curtailment is increasing, yet prices remain high. This happens because surplus energy exists at the wrong time, firm capacity is insufficient when renewables are unavailable, and scarcity continues to set prices even when total generation is abundant. Governments are responding by proposing more transmission lines and larger network investments. But grid expansion alone does not solve firming. It only moves surplus electrons around. Without adequate dispatchable capacity, the system remains unstable — and expensive. ⸻ This Is Not a Technology Problem This is not a failure of renewables. It is not a failure of markets. It is not a failure of technology. It is a sequencing failure. ⸻ The Correct Order: Firming First A credible energy transition must follow this order: 1. Define system requirements first (capacity, duration, ramping, resilience) 2. Build firm, dispatchable capacity to cover nights, wind droughts, peaks, and contingencies 3. Secure fuel for firming (transitional or renewable) 4. Scale renewables within the firming envelope so they reduce prices instead of creating scarcity 5. Upgrade transmission where it unlocks firming value, not just to chase surplus generation 6. Decarbonise firming fuels last, once system stability is secured When this order is followed, renewables do exactly what they are meant to do: lower prices, reduce emissions, and improve reliability. ⸻ The Core Lesson You don’t firm renewables after the fact. You design the system around firming from day one. Until that principle is restored, the transition will continue to push prices up instead of down and undermine confidence in clean energy — unfairly. The solution is not to slow renewables. It is to fix the order of operations.

CRT is inevitable to achieve Net Zero, baseload power with zero fossil fuel,except for the start-up.

The CRT Master Narrative: Why Deep Decarbonisation Needs Hydrogen and Carbon** The global energy debate is often framed as a choice: electrons or molecules, batteries or hydrogen. This framing is incomplete — and it is the root of much confusion. Deep decarbonisation is not about choosing a favourite technology. It is about designing an energy system that adheres to physical laws. The hydrogen misunderstanding Critiques of hydrogen — including those famously voiced by Elon Musk — are not entirely wrong. They are simply conditional. Hydrogen looks inefficient only if carbon-free, dispatchable baseload electricity already exists. That system does not exist today. As long as the electricity supply remains intermittent, seasonal, and grid-constrained, hydrogen cannot be evaluated merely as a round-trip storage medium. That framing ignores the real challenge. The real challenge: energy continuity Deep decarbonisation is not an energy efficiency problem. It is an energy continuity problem. The question is not: How efficiently can we store electricity? The question is: How do we deliver zero-emission energy continuously, at scale, when nature is intermittent? Batteries solve short-duration balancing. They do not solve long-duration, industrial, or baseload energy needs. When continuity is required, chemical energy carriers become unavoidable. Why SpaceX quietly proves the point There is a powerful, rarely acknowledged truth embedded in modern aerospace engineering. When performance, density, reliability, and continuity are non-negotiable, even SpaceX does not use hydrogen as the primary fuel. They use methane. This is not ideology. It is physics. Hydrogen is an excellent energy source, but carbon-based molecules are superior energy carriers. The real problem is not carbon itself — it is fossil carbon that is not recycled. Carbon is not the enemy — fossil extraction is Carbon has always been nature’s preferred carrier of energy: • Dense • Stable • Transportable • Recyclable The climate crisis did not arise because carbon exists. It arose because humanity broke the carbon loop. What CRT changes Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) restores that loop. CRT: • uses renewable hydrogen as the true energy input, • recycles captured CO₂ into renewable methane, • delivers high-density, dispatchable, baseload power, and • eliminates the need for new fossil extraction. In CRT, carbon is no longer an emission. It is a reusable carrier that cycles endlessly. Hydrogen supplies the energy. Carbon carries it. The corrected energy hierarchy When the system boundary is drawn correctly, the hierarchy becomes clear: • Electrons → best for short-range, instant use • Batteries → best for short-duration storage • Hydrogen → best renewable energy source • Carbon molecules → best large-scale energy carriers CRT integrates all four — without contradiction. The inevitable conclusion Hydrogen is not a waste of time. Carbon is not the enemy. Batteries are not enough. Deep decarbonisation requires a closed carbon loop powered by renewable hydrogen. That is not a belief. It is a system solution dictated by thermodynamics. CRT is simply the architecture that makes it possible.

CRT aligns with plantery operating logic.

Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) Aligning Energy, Carbon, and Planetary Logic The problem investors face The energy transition is constrained by intermittent renewables, fragmented carbon solutions, and poorly defined system boundaries. Many approaches appear compliant on paper but fail at scale, economically or thermodynamically. The CRT insight Nature does not eliminate carbon — it circulates it, powered by external energy. CRT applies this planetary operating logic to industrial energy systems by closing the carbon loop and driving it with renewable energy. What CRT does Renewable energy produces hydrogen. Hydrogen binds with captured CO2 to form renewable methane. The fuel generates firm power, and carbon is continuously recovered and recycled. Carbon becomes a reusable carrier. Hydrogen is the true fuel. Renewable energy is the driver. Why CRT is different CRT is not CCS, CCU, or hydrogen-only. It closes the system boundary, makes carbon flows auditable, and delivers firm zero-emission power using proven infrastructure. Why this matters financially CRT delivers firm clean power, converts carbon risk into value, and aligns with long-life infrastructure investment. Its economics strengthen as carbon prices rise and grid stability becomes critical. Investor takeaway CRT is not a transition patch. It is a permanent operating model for a net-zero economy.

What truly matters in a Transition Economy?

What Truly Matters in a Transition Economy In the transition economy, various solutions are promoted under different labels, including CCS, CCU, hydrogen pathways, and renewable power. However, complexity should not distract from the first non-negotiable: the system must achieve genuine net-zero emissions. Not relative reductions, not offsets masking ongoing releases, but verifiable zero emissions when the entire system is accounted for. If emissions persist, even at lower levels, the problem is deferred, not solved. The second requirement is progressive fossil fuel reduction. Capturing carbon while continuing indefinite fossil fuel extraction is not a transition—it is an extension of the existing system. A credible pathway must show declining fossil inputs over time and their replacement with sustainable energy sources. Hydrogen—renewable or non‑renewable—and renewable power are acceptable only insofar as they support this trajectory while maintaining net‑zero outcomes. The third and most overlooked criterion is a rigorous definition of the system and its surroundings. Whenever a carbonaceous fuel is involved, carbon accounting is only meaningful if system boundaries are explicit. Removing carbon from the system but releasing it into the surroundings—atmosphere, land, or ocean—does not constitute neutrality. Only closed, traceable carbon loops or verified permanent removal justify net‑zero claims. The transition economy does not need more labels; it needs boundary clarity.

Why is the current Carbon accounting system is flawed?

Why Today’s Carbon Accounting Is Fundamentally Imperfect And Why “System vs Surroundings” Changes Everything For over three decades, carbon accounting has been the cornerstone of global climate policy. Emissions are measured, classified, priced, offset, and reported with increasing sophistication. Yet despite this expanding machinery of accounting, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations continue to rise, extreme climate events accelerate, and confidence in “net-zero” claims steadily erodes. This is not a failure of intent. It is a failure of the framework. The core problem is simple yet profound: current carbon accounting fails to respect physical reality. It optimises administrative systems while ignoring what happens to carbon in the surrounding environment. Until this mismatch is addressed, no amount of refinement in reporting standards will deliver true sustainability. Carbon Accounting as It Exists Today Modern carbon accounting frameworks focus primarily on emissions events. They record when and where carbon dioxide is released and attribute responsibility to an organisation, asset, or activity. Boundaries are defined — Scope 1, 2, and 3 — and emissions are tallied annually. Where emissions cannot be eliminated, offsets or future removals are used to “balance” the ledger. This approach has practical value. It creates visibility and accountability where none existed before. But it is built on an implicit assumption: that carbon is a one-way waste stream. Once carbon crosses the system boundary and enters the atmosphere, accounting responsibility largely ends. The atmosphere becomes an unowned, unaccounted-for sink. From a physical perspective, this assumption is deeply flawed. The Missing Distinction: System vs Surroundings In thermodynamics, no analysis is valid unless the system and the surroundings are clearly defined. A system can be optimised endlessly — made more efficient, cleaner, or cheaper — but if its waste is simply dumped into the surroundings, the total problem is not solved. It is displaced. Carbon accounting makes precisely this mistake. The “system” is usually defined narrowly: a power plant, a company, a project, or a value chain. The “surroundings” — the atmosphere, oceans, biosphere, and future generations — are treated as externalities. Carbon leaving the system is recorded, but what happens afterward is largely ignored or assumed away. This leads to a dangerous illusion: a system can appear “net zero” while the surrounding environment continues to accumulate carbon. Key Loopholes Created by This Error 1. Boundary Manipulation By adjusting system boundaries, emissions can be shifted rather than eliminated. Hydrogen may appear clean while emissions are moved upstream. Bioenergy may appear neutral while land-use change is excluded. Carbon capture may appear effective while long-term storage risks are deferred to the future. The atmosphere still receives the carbon — just under a different accounting label. 2. Temporal Mismatch Carbon accounting operates on annual or project timeframes. Atmospheric carbon operates on centuries. Present emissions are often cancelled with future promises — offsets, removals, or assumed permanence. From a physical standpoint, this is invalid. A present mass balance cannot be negated by a future assumption. 3. Offsets Without Physical Coupling Most offsets occur in different locations, different carbon pools, and different time horizons from the original emissions. There is no physical linkage between the emitter and the offset activity — only a financial one. Accounting symmetry replaces physical symmetry. 4. Scope Fragmentation Scope 1, 2, and 3 reporting was meant to clarify responsibility but has fragmented accountability instead. Carbon molecules do not recognise scopes. They accumulate in the atmosphere regardless of which column they appear in on a spreadsheet. Why “Net Zero” Keeps Failing the Atmosphere The uncomfortable truth is this: net zero is often achieved on paper, not in physics. A system is declared successful when its emissions balance financially or administratively, not when carbon flow is physically closed. As a result, global carbon accounting can show progress while atmospheric concentrations continue to rise. This is not a paradox. It is a consequence of ignoring the surroundings. If carbon leaves the system and enters the atmosphere, the climate problem has not been solved — it has been outsourced. What a Physically Correct Carbon Accounting Framework Requires A framework aligned with reality must start from first principles: 1. Carbon is conserved. Carbon atoms do not disappear. They must be tracked through their full lifecycle. 2. System boundaries must include responsibility for the surroundings. If carbon enters the atmosphere, it remains part of the accounting problem until it is removed or recycled. 3. Carbon circulation must be distinguished from carbon release. Reusing carbon in a closed loop is fundamentally different from emitting it once and offsetting later. 4. Time must be treated honestly. Present emissions cannot be neutralised by uncertain future actions. Without these elements, carbon accounting remains a reporting exercise rather than a solution framework. Why This Matters Now The limits of the current system are becoming impossible to ignore. Climate impacts are overtaking accounting narratives. Investors, regulators, and the public are increasingly sceptical of claims that rely on offsets, scopes, or future promises rather than physical outcomes. This is why new approaches are emerging — not because they are fashionable, but because the existing accounting framework can no longer explain observed reality. Technologies and systems that explicitly define system boundaries, track carbon flows continuously, and prevent carbon escape into the surroundings do not merely comply with accounting rules. They render many of the debates unnecessary. When carbon is physically contained, measured, and recycled, accounting becomes a matter of measurement — not interpretation. Closing Thought Nature has never relied on offsets. It operates through closed loops. Until human energy systems do the same, carbon accounting will remain an imperfect proxy for sustainability rather than a reflection of it.