max wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:

Consider, for example, the problem of wind generation previously
mentioned. Since, as mentioned, even in one of the most advantageous
siting areas for wind, it requires from 2.5X to 4X the needed capacity
to have 50:50 probability the wind farm will provide that much (on a
monthly basis, the multipliers get even larger as time averaging goes
shorter), there has to be that backup generation somewhere, somehow to
make it up when needed. That, unfortunately, means investment in some
other generation capacity that most often now is gas turbine which
drives up demand for diminishing natural gas and does add to the CO.

This is the most bull**** pocket-picking analysis i think i've ever
seen.

In what way? I'll be glad to share the data (again) and discuss it any
way you please...

--