I am not surprised that the proposal to build a new 160km line of pylons to carry electricity from the outskirts of Norwich to the Thames estuary near London has caused a major outcry.

But before there's too much outrage perhaps we should think about what is being proposed.

I have lived in East Anglia all my life and pylons have always been part of the landscape of the region during my lifetime. I'm not going to describe them as objects of beauty, but I really don't see them as disfiguring the skyline. They're just there.

It is absolutely right for James Cartlidge and Sir Bernard Jenkin to try to keep pylons out of the Dedham Vale AONB - but for the rest of the length of the proposed route there really is no alternative.

One conservationist from Norfolk went on television news to say that the whole route should go underground.

That sounds great - but the cost of putting cables underground is somewhere between five and 20 times the cost of putting them on pylons. The exact figure depends on which organisation you talk to.

But either way there's a big cost difference with pylons and if you do go for a massively more expensive alternative somebody has to pay for that.

And at a time when the cost of energy is such a concern, the idea of going for a hideously expensive option just to preserve the views from some country properties seems rather perverse.

The energy companies really aren't whiter than white in this, however. And neither is the government.

I still haven't heard a convincing argument about why the energy companies could not co-operate to bring their power from the offshore turbines to a much smaller number of sites than are being planned.

Why on earth does Scottish Power want to trash its reputation in the area by destroying countryside near Friston when it would look far more sensible to bring power ashore at the former Sizewell A site where there would be no objections?

It would also be good to hear from National Grid a bit more about why it isn't possible to set up an undersea cable - and to get some idea of the costs of such a project.

But if the cost of an underwater cable matches that of an underground line then I would understand why pylons are seen as the only viable option.

There is, of course, another way of providing power at a reasonable cost - but it is one that the government seems to have set its face very much against.

Onshore windfarms are much cheaper to build and connect to the grid than those built in the middle of the North Sea - but the government seems to have been spooked by opposition to them.

From my subjective point of view, modern wind turbines are things of beauty and add interest to landscapes in the same way that castles, churches, or other landmarks do. You might not want one at the end of your garden but they can add interest to the open countryside.

The turbines at Eye airfield are a really significant landmark on a pretty dull section of the A140. Why not build more of these nearer major population centres so they don't need long lines of pylons?

But for some reason the government appears to be siding with those who dislike them - even though they could be the answer to providing cheap electricity in the future without damaging the environment.

Coming back to the question of pylons, though. As I said they may not be items of beauty but generally they are not hugely damaging to the environment either.

To be honest far more damage was done to the countryside in the 1960s and 70s when some farmers were ripping out hedgerows and pouring every chemical fertiliser and weedkiller they could get onto their land - far more damage than was ever caused by a few pylons.

Thankfully today's farmers are far better stewards of the land than that - and most understand the needs of power distribution companies.

If we want to live in a technologically-advanced society that uses energy delivered as cheaply as possible then we really do have to understand that lines of pylons really are a necessary evil.