People who think wind turbines are beautiful either have no empathy at all for our beautiful British countryside, or they are seriously myopic. Or perhaps they just have a vested interest in them.
To me, it seems to be the ultimate irony that, in the name of greenness, supporters of wind power are willing to see these turbines blighting the most breathtaking areas of the UK.
And we’re not just talking about the wild, windy uplands and islands, where they’ll be visible for miles around, a man-made structure poking its unnatural, symmetrical ugliness hundreds of feet above once unspoilt terrain. Any suitable lowland site that enjoys a bit of a breeze seems to be fair game, too.
Add in the undoubted noise pollution that these things produce, and question marks over their efficiency, reliability and true cost both in cash and environmental terms, and I reckon the wind farm lobby has some serious explaining to do.
Unfortunately, development is being driven by a government desperate to be seen to be green, and slick salesmen working for an industry hell-bent on making a fast buck, regardless of its colour.
It has to make sense to explore further the potential of less intrusive and potentially more efficient alternatives, such as biofuels, tidal power and the nuclear option, as well as clean-burn technology for fossil fuels, before blighting vast tracts of our countryside with potential white elephants.
If wind turbines stand up to such scrutiny and prove to be the holy grail of renewable energy, then fine.
But on current evidence, who needs them?
By Robert Harris
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding