There's no question there at all, as evidenced by the fact that there is no question mark.
Which EXACTLY proves my point. The fact is that you've simply got used to them is because they've been there most or all of your life.
You're not comparing 22, the latest estimate is, pylons with one windmill on eyesore value, but on many associated value judgements which have more to do with the fact that one type of eyesore is relatively new, and the other not, and that you consider one type of eyesore to be useful and the other not. These have got nothing to do with either's real ranking in eyesore terms.
When people from outside the country are asked to fill in a questionnaire, they don't see all these irrelevant value judgements, they just see eyesores, and rank them accordingly, and they actually have put pylons ahead of wind turbines as eyesores.
(Actually the best figure we have now is 22 pylons for each turbine.)
No, but there are also plenty of wooden poles carrying 3-phase which criss-cross the landscape as well. I haven't included them, but they should really be included, because there are always plenty around where people live and work in the country. One example is not statistically significant, but from my bedroom window I can see without using field glasses: 4 Turbines (tips of vanes showing over hill ridge) 8 Pylons and most of the intervening cabling 6 Poles and most of the intervening cabling Certainly the non-turbine electrical hardware is by far the greatest eyesore here.
How can you complain about the cost of burying cabling to get rid of a major eyesore and make the system more reliable, and have no problem paying for the outrageous cost of nuclear power: 16.6p/kWh which probably doesn't include waste management, which itself requires indefinite subsidy by the future of the present?
I'm sorry Tony, but you really aren't being rational here, but then I suppose we shouldn't be surprised ...
More conspiracy paranoia! You've been listening to TNP too much, haven't you?
You obviously didn't bother to read or hoist in the full significance of this: "EDF's Flamanville reactor, which is under construction in France, is running four years late and at least double its original budget."
France is widely seen as being one of Europe's most pro-nuclear nations, and is not widely seen as being riddled by greens, as - if you were foolish enough to believe some of the loopier posters here - some claim the UK to be. Yet their reactor is still running 4 years late and at double the original budget.
If it's stable base-load you want, go carbon-based, the money saved by not going nuclear will leave us room to invest in other technologies such as fusion, carbon-capture, etc.
I would agree that it's probably not an option right now, but it should have been done then. Any cost incurred would long since have been repaid, written off, or whatever, and we'd now have the benefits of a more robust system and a much prettier landscape for tourists and residents alike.