Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Can't condone whats happening here, obviously, and from what i've read there are far more sensible options, but from a purely aesthetic point of view I like them. I realise I may be in a minority.

I'm fairly indifferent. I think they can look quite elegant. A lot of the landscapes that they allegedly ruin are very artificial anyway. There are certain places where I think they'd impose detrimentally on a fairly unspoiled view - Lewis, for example - but in many places, I find them quite aesthetically pleasing.

The Simon Jenkins article was a profoundly depressing read, I agree with him about the decisions being made by the current chancellor which seem to be about replenishing the coffers of the already wealthy at the expense of the landscape. However, I do support the principle of wind powered energy which equates to wind turbines. What are the other options? Nuclear power? With all its hazardous ramifications for future generations.

Mustard, with respect I don't agree with you about Lewis which has vast swathes of low lying bog land where no one but peat cutters go ... and its greatest resource is wind. Wind like I've never experienced before, which can blow for days and nights on end without let up. The down side is that birds may fly into them - perhaps eagles would soar above them.

Difficult to put across a balanced viewpoint, Moss. As with 'man made climate change' there is far too much politics involved, far too much money to be made, far too many research grants to be withheld if findings appear to contradict the politically acceptable. It's always been the same.... just been reading about Victoria vetoing Darwin's knighthood since his closely argued views apparently didn't concur with that of the 'mood of the country'. We need more people of his ilk to simply analyse the data and (eventually) publish and be damned. Give us something to base proper decisions upon.

To my mind industrial activity can work in rural settings - I think hydro electricity is a Big Way Forward - but would suggest it needs to be on a case by case basis. For example I've surprisingly found myself far less opposed - aesthetically speaking, the ethics etc may well be up for debate since I'm not aware of the details - to the widespread salmon farming in Scottish lochs. Local men working in their local environment. No doubt there are complications.

The main issue I have with wind turbines is that the locations which would appear most potentially productive in terms of output (the uplands of Mid Wales being a prime example)... where nobody goes (perhaps they should) .... are precisely those last bastions of the natural world, the last watered-down vestiges of 'wilderness' (if the term has any meaning at all now - probably not) that we should be fighting tooth and nail to protect, if only to avoid that Bruce Dern scenario in Silent Running. What are the alternatives to smothering the mountain and hill tops in

More to the point the published evidenced as to the effectiveness of wind turbines - to me as a layman, anyway - can often appear contradictory, mutually exclusive. Which side is telling the truth? Maybe that's a result of the technology being deployed to make money and not power? I have to admit it is a rare sight indeed to see turbines actually turning, and talking to some upland farmers that is not surprising. One said that after signing the agreement he had to point out to the contractors that they were erecting the turbines on the wrong hill if they wanted to best utilise the prevailing south-westerly (or whatever it was). Did they care? Did they jack. Somehow, as with the future of energy production in general, we need to have a proper scientific debate without all the 'eco-loon' or 'climate-change denier' bullshit. Meanwhile the firms with the contracts are laughing all the way to the bank.

We have few unspoiled areas left around these islands, so I don't think it's acceptable to ruin one of those just because it's windy.