[Ironically, the EPA was harassing gas companies in Kansas about drilling rigs disrupting the breeding habits of the greater prairie chicken. Not sure if the same happened to the wind companies]
I'm happy to see renewables, but they are coming at a cost.
driving across Spain I found the wind turbines a pleasant part of the landscape
On the other hand, consider the character of the landscape knowing that anyone can see it from a public highway. What you saw had already stopped being wilderness.
It's like receiving a bouquet of flowers and then complaining when they don't last. The same underlying changes that brought you the experience is the one that ensures it is temporary.
Note that these turbines are near the highways for a reason. Those who care enough about the view to get out of thier cars will always find windmill-free vistas.
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-04-23/news/mn-722_1_eiffel-...
Or did we cut down all the trees and dig up all the grass that was preventing the soil from blowing away?
One thing that I do appreciate is that most wind energy installations bury their cables. It's only a few percent more expensive than poles, but looks so much better and has fewer maintenance needs. It's a tragedy of economics that we as a society have selected elevated transmission lines.
Climate change.
This is a fairly minor issue that the planners are usually required to mitigate as much as possible, and the non-renewable sources have a significant cost to bird habitats as well. The various bird protection societies are usually cautiously in favour of wind power provided it's not in a sensitive habitat.
It turns out that glass-windowed skyscrapers and domestic cats are far more deadly to birds.
Monocultural wheat fields are also a highly artificial industrial landscape, just a more familiar one.
The little wind turbines are being replaced with fewer and bigger ones, which are less of a hazard to birds.
I dunno if anyone's experimented with other colors, to see impact on avian mortality.