Nottingham City Council has refused to correct false propaganda about its Energy Strategy. Everyone who attended a seminar on energy policy in May 2013 received an 'ezine' (2MB) which claimed that 11% of the heat and power consumed in the city is being produced from 'renewables and waste'. By contrast, figures in the City’s Energy Strategy (April 2010) show that just 3% of the city’s heat and power comes from renewables and waste. Most of that is from the Eastcroft incinerator which burns municipal waste. Renewables contribute less than 1%.

The seminar, at Nottingham's Council House, was one in a series of consultations by the Department of Energy and Climate Change about reducing carbon emissions. The ezine was issued by DECC but circulated by the City to participants. It was clearly designed to bolster the City's claim to be 'the most energy self-sufficient city' in the UK:

          The City's claim on energy from 'renewables and waste': The City's Energy and Sustainability Portfolio Holder Alan Clark has since admitted that it should have said '11.45% of heat and power being generated by low carbon, renewable and waste sources'. (The difference is accounted for by gas CHP schemes - see below.) He initially said that DECC would be asked to issue a correction. But it now appears that no such request has been made.

So what is the current position on Nottingham's Energy Strategy? Renewable energy has not so far made a large contribution. There has recently been a major campaign to put solar panels on houses and other buildings. But it would take photovoltaic panels on around 30,000 houses to account for 1% of the city's total heat and power consumption.

Low carbon?

So the City has been trying to deflect attention from its limited aspiration for renewable energy by making contentious claims about energy generated from 'low carbon' sources.

Earlier in 2013 it produced a spreadsheet claiming that carbon dioxide emissions from the Eastcroft incinerator are only 145g CO2/kWh for electricity and 73g CO2/kWh for district heating. Our calculation is that actual CO2 emissions are around 1500g and 750g per kWh respectively. (This compares to around 500g/kWh for grid electricity and 200g/kWh for gas heating.)

So how does it do this 'low carbon' calculation?

Burning municipal waste produces around 1 tonne CO2 for each tonne of waste. So Eastcroft's throughput of 160,000 tonnes p.a. emits around 150,000 tonnes CO2. But the City's calculation excludes all but 17,816 tonnes CO2! This reduction in emissions is achieved by:

• ignoring two thirds of the CO2 which is from biogenic sources - paper, wood, food, etc;
• ignoring 24% of the rest because it relates to heat lost in the incinerator;
• ignoring the supplementary gas burnt at the London Road Heat Station when the incinerator is shut down for maintenance;
• deducting the hypothetical emissions if all of the waste were landfilled instead of incinerated;
• including electricity and hot water consumed in the incinerator as if it is useful output.

So that, folks, is how the City demonstrates that the incinerator produces 'low carbon' energy.

Gas CHP

The City also claims that gas CHP (combined heat and power - producing heat and electricity together) is low carbon. This claim is perhaps more legitimate. There are a number of commercial organisations in the city using gas CHP, including Boots. Efficient systems should be able to produce electricity with CO2 emissions comparable to gas fired generation - about 30% less than than the current grid average of around 500g CO2/kWh.

However, the Committee on Climate Change recommends the carbon intensity of the grid should be reduced to 50g CO2/kWh by 2030. So gas CHP is not low carbon relative to this 2030 target.

If gas CHP is added to renewables and waste it does account for around 11% of the City's heat and power. But how many people will be fooled into believing that burning gas is 'low carbon'?