1 - For any amount of wind penetration, there needs to be a quick responding source
(usually gas) assigned to augment its variability.
2 - The amount of this augmenting source is typically 90+% of the wind’s faceplate value.
The actual percentage can be calculated by subtracting the true wind facility capacity value
3 - For low penetrations (<5%), in some cases a new augmenting source is not built, and
wind variations are absorbed by the Demand Safety Margin. This is poor grid policy as it
increases safety risks for all users. It may be done for economical reasons (not having the
money to build the augmenting source), or for political reasons (so as not to show some of
the extra grid costs necessitated by wind energy).
4 - In ALL cases the levelized cost of wind should be calculated with it being paired with a
full time augmenting supply. This also applies to other comparisons with conventional
sources, like calculating the amount of CO2 saved.
The US has lost most of its jobs to other countries primarily due to economics:
low cost labor.
Our businesses have one major economic benefit left to counter more job loss:
low cost electricity.
Why would we agree to an RPS and voluntarily give this up???
More On Jobs
There is nothing — no program, no hobby, no vice, no crime — that does not
“create jobs.” For example, tsunamis, computer viruses and shooting
convenience store clerks all “create jobs.”
So since that claim applies to all it is an argument in favor of none.
Instead of providing evidence of the merits of an enterprise, a jobs claim is
a de facto admission that one has a specious case.
Even More On Jobs
We could eliminate all forms of welfare and food stamps, and offer the
unemployed full-time minimum wage jobs pedaling stationary bicycles
hooked up to electric generators.
This would solve our: 1) energy independence, 2) energy diversity, 3) fossil
fuel reduction, 4) poverty, 5) obesity, and 6) budget problems all at once!
1 - "Peer Review" is applicable in one primary situation:
when a scientist is proposing a new hypothesis.
2 - "Peer Review" is simply the opinions of selected other qualified scientists
about a proposed hypothesis.
3 - Even if all these selected other scientists agree with the hypothesis,
that does not constitute scientific proof that the hypothesis is accurate.
"The mistake, of course, is to think that peer review is any more than a
crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new
finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer
review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that
helps to make science our most objective truth teller.
But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, incomplete,
unaccountable, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally
foolish, and frequently wrong."
— Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet
is an assessment that is:
1) Comprehensive, 2) Independent, 3) Transparent, 4) Empirical
Technical, Objective Real World
Economic & All Data Available
Sound Scientific Solutions
is the Umbrella position that covers
ALL important concerns:
TECHNICAL ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL
(e.g. reliability, (e.g. taxpayer cost, (e.g. CO2 savings,
dispatchability, ratepayer costs, noise, flicker,
transmission, agricultural impact, birds & bats,
other Grid property values, other health effects,
limitations) net jobs, etc.) raw material extraction
and processing, etc.)