Conclusions: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 valuefrom 100%.3 - For low penetrations (<5%), in some cases a new augmenting source is not built, andwind variations are absorbed by the Demand Safety Margin. This is poor grid policy as itincreases safety risks for all users. It may be done for economical reasons (not having themoney to build the augmenting source), or for political reasons (so as not to show some ofthe extra grid costs necessitated by wind energy).4 - In ALL cases the levelized cost of wind should be calculated with it being paired with afull time augmenting supply. This also applies to other comparisons with conventionalsources, like calculating the amount of CO2 saved.
For more information on wind energy, see EnergyPresentation.Info
On JobsThe 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 JobsThere is nothing — no program, no hobby, no vice, no crime — that does not“create jobs.” For example, tsunamis, computer viruses and shootingconvenience 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 isa de facto admission that one has a specious case.
Even More On JobsWe could eliminate all forms of welfare and food stamps, and offer theunemployed full-time minimum wage jobs pedaling stationary bicycleshooked up to electric generators.This would solve our: 1) energy independence, 2) energy diversity, 3) fossilfuel reduction, 4) poverty, 5) obesity, and 6) budget problems all at once!
Peer Review1 - "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.
Peer Review"The mistake, of course, is to think that peer review is any more than acrude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a newfinding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peerreview. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process thathelps 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, occasionallyfoolish, and frequently wrong." — Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet
Scientific Process is an assessment that is:1) Comprehensive, 2) Independent, 3) Transparent, 4) Empirical Technical, Objective Real World Economic & All Data Available Environmental
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.)