Roy Kilborn (News Guardian, Letters, November 14) states that ‘Turbines will ruin seascape view’: not my view.
For me they are in most circumstances an awe-inspiring enhancement to many landscapes.
But, this is, like Roy’s view, a matter of aesthetics, itself a matter of almost minuscule importance when one considers our need for new, sustainable sources of energy production.
I imagine that Roy, like me, is sitting in a warm, well-lit home akin to most readers of these pages?
Maybe, like me, many are considering changing their energy provider to the cheapest retailer, rather than the most sustainable or green provider?
What I want is the cheapest energy and if that is sustainable, then I will be delighted.
I reckon that view will be echoed by most readers.
So, let’s not build inshore turbines, but instead a nuclear power station at Druridge Bay; I believe that plans already exist from the 1960 or 70s?
Or maybe a super-clean coal fired power station in south Northumberland, fuelled by locally sourced opencast coal?
Or even more ambitiously, how about damming part of the upper Tyne Valley to produce hydro-electric power?
All of these are viable and reasonable, and would produce enough energy for the future of our region. All, however, would have significant local impact upon stunning landscapes.
Unless we live in a carbon free individual energy bubble, we all need more energy and yes, we should be trying to use less and be helped in doing this; we must also accept that there may be local, national and maybe international impacts in order to meet our need. We need to minimise these.
We do though need to get things in proportion, thus the alteration of much-loved and photographed landscapes and seascapes may have to take place.
Wind turbines are the least damaging of all of these technologies.