In reply to abarro81:
> In reply to Andy Stephenson:
> [...]
>
> What would you rather? We bury our heads in the sand with regards to future energy costs and security, not to mention global warming?
>
It's not either/or though, is it? Would you really support 3000+ wind turbines in one part of Northumberland? If the energy company's shareholders were to accept smaller profits then the turbines could be built at sea.
Remember that at present we have under 1400 land-based turbines in the whole of the UK (including under construction), effectively generating in total about half what the rather ancient Ferrybridge C power station produces.
Or more realistically, about the same as the very old Hartlepool power station; or about a quarter of the capacity of the proposed new Hartlepool station. The latter is to provide renewable energy for its designed lifespan of 60 years, whereas the equivalent wind station of 12000 turbines has to be rebuilt every 25 years. And that's only the equivalent of one small nuclear facility.
I'd support a small wind farm of (say) 10000 turbines in the North Sea; even though I don't think that it makes sense economically I think we can afford it as a luxury form of power. To encourage other rich countries to do the same.
But when you spoil a significant amount of landscape for a measly 9 turbines, producing negligible power, in my view the overall environmental impact is too high. Note that a typical small old-fashioned nuclear facility will supply electricity to power 1.5 million homes, whereas with a wind farm with similar footprint (like the one in question) will be supplying 1000 homes per turbine at best.