Chapter 10

Introduction | Discussion of Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Chapter 10 | Chapter 11 | Chapter 12 | Conclusion | Appendix

Chapter 10:  Misrepresentation and Manipulation. This chapter starts with a reasonable explanation of how support for renewables in the UK grew inadvertently from the 1990 government decision to support nuclear power significantly with a 10% levy on the price of electricity.  Despite renewables never since receiving such large support and despite not discussing institutional support mechanisms for coal, oil and gas, Etherington remains critical of the support mechanisms for wind power. Nevertheless Etherington’s account of the present UK and European Union support for wind power is well written and factually correct.  Likewise, he explains fairly the structure and operation of UK Planning legislation regarding wind power, but again fails to mention the necessity of comprehensive Environmental Impact Statements and Planning presentations (which typically cost windfarm developers at least £150,000) that are part of democratic planning that allows all stakeholders to participate.

Etherington claims that the wind industry regularly misinforms about the carbon reduction and other benefits of wind power.  Unfortunately, his main examples (Table 10.1  page 157) are not cited to the named anti-wind organisation in the ‘references and notes’ of his chapter, which is probably an inadvertent error.  However, it is typical of his readiness to cite anti-wind organisations rather than primary sources.  Nevertheless, it is clear that windfarm developers may well have exaggerated their claims in the past and that the British Wind Energy Association  needs to be watchful of the professional standards of its members. Etherington does not comment on ‘misrepresentation and manipulation’ of anti-wind organisations, although examples are common*.

Other content of this chapter tends to repeat accusations made in previous chapters and reviewed above.  Etherington also comments unfavourably on wind power production and carbon reductions in Denmark, which is admittedly complex.  Denmark has by far the largest proportion of wind power capacity on its utility network and per capita than any other country.  Yet it is also strongly interconnected with more countries (Germany, Norway and Sweden) than the UK, with exported surplus wind power being, in practice, exchanged at times of deficiency with the hydropower imported from Norway and Sweden under tariffs negotiated  through Norweb, the joint transmission operator.  In addition, Denmark has unusually large taxes on internal electricity sales and an unusually large proportion of combined heat and power plant using coal.  Since the hydropower is not generated in Denmark, it is not assessed as carbon reduction in standard Danish statistics. Etherington’s analysis is therefore incomplete.

*e.g. the reprimand by the UK Advertising Standards Agency  of the anti-wind organisation against Swinford windfarm in Leicestershire, 2009; submission of false letters of objection to Harborough Council opposing Gartree windfarm, 2009/2010.