In the Swiss Alps, people take far more pictures of the Landwasser Viaduct than of the untouched parts next to it. This is an extreme example (because it's so exceptionally pretty), but the same is true to an only slightly lesser extent about most other things that have been built into those nice landscapes. (the dark cavities of the new Gotthard that dominate the view from the old Tremola are a rare exception)
>This is an extreme example (because it's so exceptionally pretty)
For a more pedestrian example, search for images of "letchworth state park upper falls". Note that photographers rarely try to crop out the railroad trestle even though it's much less pretty than everything else in the picture. It's an accepted part of the landscape and the aesthetic.
For instance, I don't find natural forests or mountains more beautiful than well maintained cropland or pastures or gardens; they are just different kinds of beautiful. (Since I grew up on a farm, I call this "the farmer aesthetic".) I also don't think I would find well-maintained, visible -- even colorful! -- wind turbines to detract from a scene of natural beauty; it would just be a different scene than it was before, not inherently worse for that difference.
But I acknowledge this is not a universally-held aesthetic.
What I've always found odd is how windmills are loved and wind turbines are hated. Maybe tell people they're windmills?
But in all seriousness, power generation is something that isn't discussed as much as it needs to be. Electric vehicles are coming fast (fuel prices are surprisingly low right now, but it never stays that way..) and when you consider the number of vehicles about, that will take quite a bit of power (or Angry Pixies as a certain Youtuber would say). Energy does have a cost to the environment (there isn't an easyway around that), but it also has a cost to the economy, there's no simple answer which is why I think it isn't discussed enough. I'm pro nuclear, on a renewable energy tariff and I'd argue natural gas makes a lot of sense in the UK - That's just my answer.
It's always nicer when things look, well, nice, but the core of the aesthetic is purpose: a thing with a purpose, that fulfills its purpose, is beautiful. An endless field of wheat or corn, a massive concrete grain silo, and an array of windmills all have a purpose which they are exquisitely performing, and so they are beautiful.
(One of my favorite instantiations of the farm aesthetic is the multi-generational farm, with some buildings that are post and beam or stone, some that are cinder block, some that are sheet metal, etc. Each building was simply built according to what was the cheapest vernacular construction technique of the time, but the combination conveys a sense of continuation beyond the simple permanence of an old structure. This farm was fulfilling its purpose generations ago, and will continue to do so for generations still. It is not static; it is living and changing.)