Yes, we really should be making sure rapists all wear condoms and then force birth control pills down their victim's throats once their done!
This is a really bad line of argumentation. Research (such as those by the Guttmacker institute) says that less than 1% of abortions is due to rape or incest and less than 4% is due to fetal malformation (these are the reasons that are usually touted).
In the case of rape the victim can use medicines that prevents egg cells from being released.
Oh, and you know that more than 40% of abortions are second time abortions? (i.e. by women who had abortions before). They just couldn't be bothered to use contraception.
And there's certainly no way contraceptive methods could ever *gasp* fail!
The abortion rate is much higher than any imaginable failure rate for contraception. The biggest reason why contraception fails is *because it is not used*. If double contraception is used, then the failure rate is extremely low.
That has got to be the stupidest argument against abortion I have heard yet.
I did not state an argument (however you like to construe it). I stated my opinion - that abortion is a vile, barbaric and unnecessary practice that has no place in a civilised society. I stated my opinion in contrast the above poster's opinion (that you do not have a problem with). To quote, he said:
As for the anti-abortion, they just *need* to be dragged screaming and kicking into the century of the fruitbat.
You'd like to think that individuals who are opposed to preventing unwanted children would be standing in line for the opportunity to adopt such children and raise them in a loving environment.
I know many people who are adopted (and who adopted children themselves). Adoption is never easy (and it is a lifelong commitment). And yeah, the only orphanage in my town is run (and funded) by one of those evil churches who are opposed to abortion.
As for the anti-abortion, they just *need* to be dragged screaming and kicking into the century of the fruitbat.
Really? Slavery, abortion and infanticide is all centuries old. Unfortunately only two of these barbaric practices were stopped. Even the rationale for abortion has become weaker (since the efficacy of contraception greatly increased).
It is the pro-abortion folks who need to be dragged into the "century of the fruitbat".
I wonder if you tried that with a Fuck and a picture of Mohammed in other middle eastern countries.
What's wrong with visiting an arab country? or do you believe in enclosing a race to their own land and prevent them from outside contact?
The reverse is actually true. Try to get a VISA from an Arab country with an Israeli stamp (you can't) - the solution is to get a clear passport. Israel will actually give out VISAs even if you have Arabian country stamps in your passport.
I as neither a Jew or a Muslim feel much safer in Israel than Arab countries (except Dubia).
All countries with a developed civil infrastructure OR a stable leadership would have done some prospecting by now.
Some, but not enough. Especially in other African countries (examples such as the DRC that lacked stability) there may be many more deposits. The more mining that is performed in a country the more deposits are found.
It is the same as the copper problem. There are significant amounts of copper in the DRC and Zambia. But because of corruption and the lack of stability it is not exploited.
There is no reason not to use aluminum wire or galvanised stainless steel wire.
South Africa may have many chrome reserves but there are many countries with large reserves and there is no shortage (even when South Africa starts to implode).
One reason that South Africa have so many reserves is because of good prospecting (both for chrome and other minerals). Other countries may also have substantial reserves that we don't know about.
It would however not be sensible to use stainless steel.
Galvanised steel (steel with a very thin zinc coating) is routinely used for fencing. In my part of the world they also use it for telephone wire in rural areas (since copper gets stolen).
Steel wire could replace copper in many situations.
I wouldn’t go that far. You should just buy smart. Do not buy anything with Lexmark, Epson or Canon on it (especially Lexmark, they are evil). Check beforehand if the cartridges can be refilled.
I’ve bought an HP inkjet+scanner (F350 or something) 2 years back. I print a lot. The cartridge is an HP21 cartridge. The printer costed around $60 bucks with a colour and black cartridge (multiple uses). To refill a cartridge you simply pull the sticker back, stick a needle in the hole and inject ink. It is as fast as immunising a rat. For the black cartridges (I don’t use colour) I get about 30 refills before the quality declines. A refill costs about $1 and is good for about half a ream of paper.
I’ve shopped around for cartridges also. In brand name shops a cartridge will cost around $37. I found cartridges that sell for $20 though (imported from Singapore). This is original, brand new HP21 cartridges (probably gray imports). The moral of the story is to shop around.
Also, if you are refilling, check that the cartridge doesn’t run dry (this damages the printhead and reduces the quality). As soon as you are out of ink you should refill. Another thing is that if you use Vista, use the native Vista drivers. The normal drivers are irritating (telling you the cartridge is empty when you refilled it. This doesn’t prevent printing but it is irritating).
One of my family members picked up a printer printing with an HP21 cartridge for around $40 dollars. This included the cartridges. The only catch was that it came with a funny plug that had to be replaced (probably a grey import from a funny country). HP printers are also nice for printing double sided pages.
Many cheap laser printers have the same model as cheap inkjet printers (Gillette model: Give the shaver away and sell the blades). So their refills are extremely expensive.
2) As people get wealthier their access to health care, proper sanitation etc. becomes easier. This increases the survival rate of their children which reduces the number compensatory pregnancies. In other words, when a child dies a woman's friends,
You do not understand - economic development will not be a good thing. Take as an example Africa. The place is economically underdeveloped so it produces almost no Carbon Dioxide. Whether the population growth is high or not, doesn't matter - it will reach an equilibrium (carrying capacity of the land).
If Africa were to develop like China, pollution will increase (not decrease) even if birth rates were to decrease.
"Engaging with skeptics" is an approach that I find improvised and naive at best.
You know that there are a fair amount of “Skeptics” with PhD degrees? (e.g. Hans von Storch, Roger A. Pielke, etc). Skeptics in this case are scientists that dissent from the mainstream view. Gallileo was also in his time viewed as a skeptic.
You also ignore the fact that the skeptic which is the most hated (as the hate in the e-mails proclaim) discovered numerous errors. He discovered an error in the Goddard Institute of Space Science (GISS)’s temperature record for the USA which they corrected (this is a very big thing). He also discovered errors in a paper by Mann, et. al. which forced him to make a correction in Nature. All of these actions by a “skeptic” helped push science forward.
The nature of science is supposed to be adversarial – you make a claim and others test our claim (by reproducing the results for example). That is why you “defend” your PhD (it is not filled with a room of yes-men who all agree with you). The Climate-Alarmist-Scientists seemed to dislike the adversarial method of science.
They are out to destroy the legitimacy of climate scientists in public opinion and they use all the dirty tricks in the book toward that objective.
As these emails reveal, it is the climate alarmists which used every dirty trick, including but not limited to:
1. Manipulating data.
2. Hiding data whilst breaking the law (deleting data under a Freedom of Information Act Request).
3. Deception (“Hiding” the decline)
4. Ensuring that results could not be reproduced by not giving data and obfusticating data.
5. Loading review boards.
6. “Redifining” the peer review process (as one stated).
The list goes on. What happens here is a blight on the scientific method. Popper would turn around in his grave.
This affair should really be reviewed by ethics review boards of the specific universities.
I have to go with the way Dawkins approaches this type of situation. Giving them a seat at the table gives them credibility.
That is the problem. A lot of "skeptics" are good scientists. A good example is Stephen Mckintyre that found a major problem in the temperature record that Godard Institute for Space Science (or whatever) admitted and corrected. He then further found an error in a paper by Mann, et. al.
All of those are significant findings - yet the "scientists" try their best not to give him data and to ensure that their work is not reproducible (otherwise fiddling with data and loading reviews, but that is besides the point). This Climate Gate will probably not change any debates in Climatology, but I am pretty sure that a few chapters in Professional Ethics textbooks will be written by this affair.
Nuclear power produces base-power, it can not produce peak-power
For interest sake, peak power is almost removed in some countries due to differing costs of electricity. You will be surprised how much industry (big and small) is started up at non-peak times.
sensitivity to such issues whatsoever know that it's racially-charged to use the symbolism of a monkey to represent a black person. In the name of not looking like a racist pig most people would just choose a different way to caricaturize the President.
In otherwords, oversensitive people who get their panties in a bunch is okay? But I guess that double standards is the standard these days?
Bush was characterised as a stupid white frat boy. He was compared to a chimp, intelligence called into question, etc Cheney was compared to Darth Vader, Sauron, Satan, etc All of these things were accepted without batting an eyelid.
Yet when one website called celeberityapes.com makes a picture of Michelle Obama (when its sole purpose is to make Simian-human hybrids of celebrities) it is branded as racist. WTF? Why is it “International News”.
I personally think that it is only because of the cult of personality around the Obama’s.
Hell, I'm a red headed Canadian with a penchance for Blues and Soul music... and I feel dirty watching BET, as if i'm doing something wrong as a white man watching a BLACK channel. Why are we moving towards separational thinking again?
I thought that the whole idea about a multi-cultural society is that each group can have its own unique culture? Is it wrong for a black (or white or Indian) person to live out his own unique culture?
It becomes clear to me that the much toted "multiculturalism" promoted in the Europe is nothing but cultural assimilation where the dominant culture is left-liberalism.
I also share this sentiment. Since processing this DNA costs money, to minimize the cost, police should use whatever features there that indicates an individual would be more susceptible to crime.
As another example, the number of samples of men are also probably a lot larger than women. That isn't discrimination - it is statistics.
I remember visiting a baseload gas fired plant in Rhode Island a ways back. It was brand new, and very cool. The gas turbines always running.
That is funny. In most countries gas is used as peak power supply since gas is more expensive than coal. (Gas is also often used when the grid is too small – it is faster to build one than a coal power plant).
Except for solar, I thing they all need maintenance. And even solar needs to get cleaned from dust occasionally.
Fair enough. But it is easier to maintain one generator than 1000 mounted on poles (as is the case for wind power).
The thing is, what we need most is power during the day and wind happily mostly blows during this time, since it is after all a solar effect. A baseload plant is great, but only about 1/3 of the power is needed at night.
In many countries, the peak power is reached at night (when people start cooking). Baseload is also higher than 1/3. In many countries there are industries (e.g. metallurgy) that use power 24 hours of a day. Many other industries also run in the night (because of the cheaper power).
With some good computers and weather models, they can tell whether one needs to fire up the oil/gas/coal peak load plant or not.
All of those extra plants is an additional capital expense.
Coal is a lot cheaper than gas. That is why gas generators are usually not baseload generators. Many countries (Germany) do however prefer gas since it burns cleaner than coal. But it is a lot more expensive though. Countries such as the USA, China, Australia, Russia and South Africa have huge reserves of cheap coal. For those it makes sense to use coal power plants.
But nothing compared to a nuclear power plant. Even John Kerry tried to stop a wind farm on the Cape.
A nuclear power plant has much less space – so it directly influences a lot less people. The flexibility in placing a nuclear power plant is much greater than for example wind farms, solar farms or coal power plants.
Opposition to nuclear power usually comes from ill-informed enviro-terrorists.
The largest US single wind farm "Horse Hollow Wind Energy" is 735.5MW. Which is slightly shy of 1/2 of a massive nuclear power plant.
The largest windfarm in the USA is actually Roscoe Wind Farm. You quoted the installed capacity. Because the wind does not always blow at full strength, the wind farm never runs at full capacity.
The generation of a wind farm should therefore be multiplied by a capacity factor. For wind farms, it is usually 20-40%. If we assume (the optimistic case) of a capacity factor of 40%, the wind farm is 5 times smaller than a nuclear power plant. A nuclear reactor’s lifetime is also between 40 and 60 years (two to three times longer than a wind farm). A wind turbine also has the problem of its gearbox that needs constant maintenance. A 1600MW nuclear power plant is also not massive – it is actually pretty small (when compared to a wind *farm*).
It requires no 100 mile evacuation plans and sirens, nor does it make nuclear waste... etc...
Only small parts of the country are suitable for wind generators. This means that incredible long power lines should be laid. Also, because the energy is unpredictable (because of weather patterns) you have to connect far flung regions to maintain a constant supply of electricity. This is no easy task.
Btw, wasn’t there complaints from neighbours about the Horse Hollow wind farm?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, we really should be making sure rapists all wear condoms and then force birth control pills down their victim's throats once their done!
This is a really bad line of argumentation. Research (such as those by the Guttmacker institute) says that less than 1% of abortions is due to rape or incest and less than 4% is due to fetal malformation (these are the reasons that are usually touted).
In the case of rape the victim can use medicines that prevents egg cells from being released.
Oh, and you know that more than 40% of abortions are second time abortions? (i.e. by women who had abortions before). They just couldn't be bothered to use contraception.
And there's certainly no way contraceptive methods could ever *gasp* fail!
The abortion rate is much higher than any imaginable failure rate for contraception. The biggest reason why contraception fails is *because it is not used*. If double contraception is used, then the failure rate is extremely low.
That has got to be the stupidest argument against abortion I have heard yet.
I did not state an argument (however you like to construe it). I stated my opinion - that abortion is a vile, barbaric and unnecessary practice that has no place in a civilised society. I stated my opinion in contrast the above poster's opinion (that you do not have a problem with). To quote, he said:
As for the anti-abortion, they just *need* to be dragged screaming and kicking into the century of the fruitbat.
You'd like to think that individuals who are opposed to preventing unwanted children would be standing in line for the opportunity to adopt such children and raise them in a loving environment.
I know many people who are adopted (and who adopted children themselves). Adoption is never easy (and it is a lifelong commitment). And yeah, the only orphanage in my town is run (and funded) by one of those evil churches who are opposed to abortion.
As for the anti-abortion, they just *need* to be dragged screaming and kicking into the century of the fruitbat.
Really? Slavery, abortion and infanticide is all centuries old. Unfortunately only two of these barbaric practices were stopped. Even the rationale for abortion has become weaker (since the efficacy of contraception greatly increased).
It is the pro-abortion folks who need to be dragged into the "century of the fruitbat".
"Fuck Star of David" pic on phone
I wonder if you tried that with a Fuck and a picture of Mohammed in other middle eastern countries.
What's wrong with visiting an arab country? or do you believe in enclosing a race to their own land and prevent them from outside contact?
The reverse is actually true. Try to get a VISA from an Arab country with an Israeli stamp (you can't) - the solution is to get a clear passport. Israel will actually give out VISAs even if you have Arabian country stamps in your passport.
I as neither a Jew or a Muslim feel much safer in Israel than Arab countries (except Dubia).
Unattended luggage gets treated as possible bombs the world over (from the English Tube to airports in any country).
Of course, we lived with a couple of decades of terrorist attacks ourselves long before Terrorism was the new bogeyman.
It is ironic that the UK government dislike terrorism yet the Minister of Foreign Affairs (David Miliband) openly supports terrorism.
All countries with a developed civil infrastructure OR a stable leadership would have done some prospecting by now.
Some, but not enough. Especially in other African countries (examples such as the DRC that lacked stability) there may be many more deposits. The more mining that is performed in a country the more deposits are found.
It is the same as the copper problem. There are significant amounts of copper in the DRC and Zambia. But because of corruption and the lack of stability it is not exploited.
There is no reason not to use aluminum wire or galvanised stainless steel wire.
South Africa may have many chrome reserves but there are many countries with large reserves and there is no shortage (even when South Africa starts to implode).
One reason that South Africa have so many reserves is because of good prospecting (both for chrome and other minerals). Other countries may also have substantial reserves that we don't know about.
It would however not be sensible to use stainless steel.
Galvanised steel (steel with a very thin zinc coating) is routinely used for fencing. In my part of the world they also use it for telephone wire in rural areas (since copper gets stolen). Steel wire could replace copper in many situations.
Then use steel...
It's simple. Don't buy inkjets.
I wouldn’t go that far. You should just buy smart. Do not buy anything with Lexmark, Epson or Canon on it (especially Lexmark, they are evil). Check beforehand if the cartridges can be refilled.
I’ve bought an HP inkjet+scanner (F350 or something) 2 years back. I print a lot. The cartridge is an HP21 cartridge. The printer costed around $60 bucks with a colour and black cartridge (multiple uses). To refill a cartridge you simply pull the sticker back, stick a needle in the hole and inject ink. It is as fast as immunising a rat. For the black cartridges (I don’t use colour) I get about 30 refills before the quality declines. A refill costs about $1 and is good for about half a ream of paper.
I’ve shopped around for cartridges also. In brand name shops a cartridge will cost around $37. I found cartridges that sell for $20 though (imported from Singapore). This is original, brand new HP21 cartridges (probably gray imports). The moral of the story is to shop around.
Also, if you are refilling, check that the cartridge doesn’t run dry (this damages the printhead and reduces the quality). As soon as you are out of ink you should refill. Another thing is that if you use Vista, use the native Vista drivers. The normal drivers are irritating (telling you the cartridge is empty when you refilled it. This doesn’t prevent printing but it is irritating).
One of my family members picked up a printer printing with an HP21 cartridge for around $40 dollars. This included the cartridges. The only catch was that it came with a funny plug that had to be replaced (probably a grey import from a funny country). HP printers are also nice for printing double sided pages.
Many cheap laser printers have the same model as cheap inkjet printers (Gillette model: Give the shaver away and sell the blades). So their refills are extremely expensive.
\rant
2) As people get wealthier their access to health care, proper sanitation etc. becomes easier. This increases the survival rate of their children which reduces the number compensatory pregnancies. In other words, when a child dies a woman's friends,
You do not understand - economic development will not be a good thing. Take as an example Africa. The place is economically underdeveloped so it produces almost no Carbon Dioxide. Whether the population growth is high or not, doesn't matter - it will reach an equilibrium (carrying capacity of the land).
If Africa were to develop like China, pollution will increase (not decrease) even if birth rates were to decrease.
"Engaging with skeptics" is an approach that I find improvised and naive at best.
You know that there are a fair amount of “Skeptics” with PhD degrees? (e.g. Hans von Storch, Roger A. Pielke, etc). Skeptics in this case are scientists that dissent from the mainstream view. Gallileo was also in his time viewed as a skeptic.
You also ignore the fact that the skeptic which is the most hated (as the hate in the e-mails proclaim) discovered numerous errors. He discovered an error in the Goddard Institute of Space Science (GISS)’s temperature record for the USA which they corrected (this is a very big thing). He also discovered errors in a paper by Mann, et. al. which forced him to make a correction in Nature.
All of these actions by a “skeptic” helped push science forward.
The nature of science is supposed to be adversarial – you make a claim and others test our claim (by reproducing the results for example). That is why you “defend” your PhD (it is not filled with a room of yes-men who all agree with you). The Climate-Alarmist-Scientists seemed to dislike the adversarial method of science.
They are out to destroy the legitimacy of climate scientists in public opinion and they use all the dirty tricks in the book toward that objective.
As these emails reveal, it is the climate alarmists which used every dirty trick, including but not limited to: 1. Manipulating data. 2. Hiding data whilst breaking the law (deleting data under a Freedom of Information Act Request). 3. Deception (“Hiding” the decline) 4. Ensuring that results could not be reproduced by not giving data and obfusticating data. 5. Loading review boards. 6. “Redifining” the peer review process (as one stated). The list goes on. What happens here is a blight on the scientific method. Popper would turn around in his grave.
This affair should really be reviewed by ethics review boards of the specific universities.
I have to go with the way Dawkins approaches this type of situation. Giving them a seat at the table gives them credibility.
That is the problem. A lot of "skeptics" are good scientists. A good example is Stephen Mckintyre that found a major problem in the temperature record that Godard Institute for Space Science (or whatever) admitted and corrected. He then further found an error in a paper by Mann, et. al.
All of those are significant findings - yet the "scientists" try their best not to give him data and to ensure that their work is not reproducible (otherwise fiddling with data and loading reviews, but that is besides the point). This Climate Gate will probably not change any debates in Climatology, but I am pretty sure that a few chapters in Professional Ethics textbooks will be written by this affair.
Nuclear power produces base-power, it can not produce peak-power
For interest sake, peak power is almost removed in some countries due to differing costs of electricity. You will be surprised how much industry (big and small) is started up at non-peak times.
Can you link the image?
I got results for Obamas - but no ape comparisons, just normal photos (except the celebrityape.com one, but I do not have the image).
sensitivity to such issues whatsoever know that it's racially-charged to use the symbolism of a monkey to represent a black person. In the name of not looking like a racist pig most people would just choose a different way to caricaturize the President.
In otherwords, oversensitive people who get their panties in a bunch is okay? But I guess that double standards is the standard these days?
Bush was characterised as a stupid white frat boy. He was compared to a chimp, intelligence called into question, etc Cheney was compared to Darth Vader, Sauron, Satan, etc All of these things were accepted without batting an eyelid.
Yet when one website called celeberityapes.com makes a picture of Michelle Obama (when its sole purpose is to make Simian-human hybrids of celebrities) it is branded as racist. WTF? Why is it “International News”.
I personally think that it is only because of the cult of personality around the Obama’s.
Really? When I searched for "Michelle Obama Monkey" on google image search, the pictures I got was of George Bush.
http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm157/cin2008_album/bush_monkey3.jpg
http://www.globalpov.com/images/bush-monkey.jpg
And a monkey that got to first base:
http://klog.imjustsaying.org:81/files/images/monkey.preview.jpg
Another was of Palin being compared as an Ape
http://i.somethingawful.com/u/garbageday/apepalin.jpg
The only Michelle Obama photo was from a site called celebrity apes (a site which now seems defunct http://www.celebrityape.com/).
This furor over the photos shows a double standard in the media when liberals are concerned.
What makes you so sure that this comparison is racially charged? Why is all criticism (whatever the form) of Obama branded as racism?
Can't we even disrespect our president without being branded as racists?
Hell, I'm a red headed Canadian with a penchance for Blues and Soul music... and I feel dirty watching BET, as if i'm doing something wrong as a white man watching a BLACK channel. Why are we moving towards separational thinking again?
I thought that the whole idea about a multi-cultural society is that each group can have its own unique culture? Is it wrong for a black (or white or Indian) person to live out his own unique culture?
It becomes clear to me that the much toted "multiculturalism" promoted in the Europe is nothing but cultural assimilation where the dominant culture is left-liberalism.
Add 12% tax, $5 customs handling, $45 brokerage, ~$20 shipping, and 6% duty onto just about anything you buy from the US online.
I was under the impression that Canadians liked paying taxes.
I also share this sentiment. Since processing this DNA costs money, to minimize the cost, police should use whatever features there that indicates an individual would be more susceptible to crime.
As another example, the number of samples of men are also probably a lot larger than women. That isn't discrimination - it is statistics.
I remember visiting a baseload gas fired plant in Rhode Island a ways back. It was brand new, and very cool. The gas turbines always running.
That is funny. In most countries gas is used as peak power supply since gas is more expensive than coal. (Gas is also often used when the grid is too small – it is faster to build one than a coal power plant).
Except for solar, I thing they all need maintenance. And even solar needs to get cleaned from dust occasionally.
Fair enough. But it is easier to maintain one generator than 1000 mounted on poles (as is the case for wind power).
The thing is, what we need most is power during the day and wind happily mostly blows during this time, since it is after all a solar effect. A baseload plant is great, but only about 1/3 of the power is needed at night.
In many countries, the peak power is reached at night (when people start cooking). Baseload is also higher than 1/3. In many countries there are industries (e.g. metallurgy) that use power 24 hours of a day. Many other industries also run in the night (because of the cheaper power).
With some good computers and weather models, they can tell whether one needs to fire up the oil/gas/coal peak load plant or not.
All of those extra plants is an additional capital expense.
Coal is a lot cheaper than gas. That is why gas generators are usually not baseload generators. Many countries (Germany) do however prefer gas since it burns cleaner than coal. But it is a lot more expensive though. Countries such as the USA, China, Australia, Russia and South Africa have huge reserves of cheap coal. For those it makes sense to use coal power plants.
But nothing compared to a nuclear power plant. Even John Kerry tried to stop a wind farm on the Cape.
A nuclear power plant has much less space – so it directly influences a lot less people. The flexibility in placing a nuclear power plant is much greater than for example wind farms, solar farms or coal power plants.
Opposition to nuclear power usually comes from ill-informed enviro-terrorists.
The largest US single wind farm "Horse Hollow Wind Energy" is 735.5MW. Which is slightly shy of 1/2 of a massive nuclear power plant.
The largest windfarm in the USA is actually Roscoe Wind Farm. You quoted the installed capacity. Because the wind does not always blow at full strength, the wind farm never runs at full capacity.
The generation of a wind farm should therefore be multiplied by a capacity factor. For wind farms, it is usually 20-40%. If we assume (the optimistic case) of a capacity factor of 40%, the wind farm is 5 times smaller than a nuclear power plant. A nuclear reactor’s lifetime is also between 40 and 60 years (two to three times longer than a wind farm). A wind turbine also has the problem of its gearbox that needs constant maintenance. A 1600MW nuclear power plant is also not massive – it is actually pretty small (when compared to a wind *farm*).
It requires no 100 mile evacuation plans and sirens, nor does it make nuclear waste... etc...
Only small parts of the country are suitable for wind generators. This means that incredible long power lines should be laid. Also, because the energy is unpredictable (because of weather patterns) you have to connect far flung regions to maintain a constant supply of electricity. This is no easy task.
Btw, wasn’t there complaints from neighbours about the Horse Hollow wind farm?