Mrs Maureen Fry in her letter under the headline “Research the Issue” (Echo September 18) harangues the Portland incinerator protestors as “unbelievably ill-informed and ignorant”.

Her own “research” appears to be based upon “idle chit-chat” in Sweden.

Mrs Fry points out that an incinerator can “supply all the hot water and heating needs for the general district.” But a visit to the Powerfuel website enables the diligent researcher to identify that claims made for the Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) on this point and on others do not bear scrutiny.

Powerfuel highlights the potential for district heating in their literature, but this is merely aspirational, for as they state “The ERF would be capable of supplying heat to local consumers by means of a future local heat network” [1].

They clearly have no plan in place to deliver on district heating and their claims for savings on carbon emissions from heating cannot be guaranteed. [2] Further, they state that the community, health and economic effects of supplying “district heating to local properties, subject to demand, will be a slight beneficial effect that will not be significant” [3].

Not only aspirational but deemed insignificant by their own admission.

Powerfuel “commits that the Portland ERF will operate as a net zero carbon infrastructure asset for its operational life.” [4]

They recognise that in order to achieve this inadequate net-zero goal (true zero carbon is essential given the current Climate Emergency) increases in their greenhouse gas emissions (above baseline levels) will be compensated for “by purchasing carbon offsets” [4].

The United Nations Environment Programmes considers that “Carbon offsets are NOT our get-out-of-jail free card.” [my emphasis 5]

Offsetting expects developing countries (populated mainly by black and brown people) to compensate for the excessive emissions of “developed” countries like the UK.

This is not only blatant neo-colonialism but hypocritical given that developed countries are responsible for by far the greatest historical carbon dioxide emissions.

It is no surprise that this incinerator proposal, due to emit carbon for 25 years, cannot make claims for true zero carbon emissions. The technology for removing carbon dioxide from incineration processes (CCS or Carbon Capture and Storage) simply does not exist at scale.

The money planned to be invested would be much better spent investing in home insulation and developing genuine renewables. This would address fuel poverty, so improving health and provide many more local

green jobs than are likely from the incinerator.

The ERF is nineteenth century steam generating technology, clutching at putative straws and thus failing to address the very real twenty first century problem of climate change.

1. Powerfuel Supporting Statement S.9

2. Powerfuel Non Technical Summary NTS.48

3. Powerfuel Non Technical Summary NTS.61

4. Powerfuel Supporting Statement S.12 5.

Dr Graham Lambert

Gypsy Lane, Weymouth