When I say throw power away, I literally mean throw power away. Perez and Rabago were the first to spell this out. Others had suggested some spill, but these guys recommended upwards of 30% to 35% spill. 

Energy markets are weird, but goes to show that it's a unique industry and can't be looked at like other areas of the economy

Richard, renewables disciples are at it again. Instead of acknowledging the problem of intermittency that has plagued solar and wind from the start, now they're blaming "conventional thinking."

Of course...we're not looking at it the right way! Presumably, we can learn to love not having enough energy when we need it, of having too much when we don't, if we just think outside the box.

"Demand side needs to learn how to dance to the rhythm of the supply side."

Actually, no. It doesn't. The public, de-humanized as "the demand side",  needs to stop accepting this idiocy at face value, to stop allowing profiteers to exploit electricity consumers who have no choice but to accept it as the new "rhythm" of how they must consume electricity.

"Traditional approaches are resulting in more frequent negative LMP results, which are simply unsustainable."

No, traditional approaches recognized that a free market in any commodity is impossible when supply is provided by a monopoly.

"...there is no clear answer on how to fix the existing wholesale market pricing problems."

Let's start by admitting a free market in electricity doesn't exist, shall we?

When 30% -35% of RE is dumped the price of the remaining 65% - 70% sold must be increased by approximately 50% to get the same return on investment for the wind farm developer.  One way or another, the consumer pays for RE and for the back-up power, storage and grid stabilization necessary.

With perhaps a very few exceptions, variable RE always results in more expensive electricity for the consumer than would be the case were conventional power generation utilized.  That is why we have government mandated RE targets and CO2 tax which penalise conventional generation and heavily subsides variable RE.

Some people believe this to be a good policy, others do not.  Here in Ireland we now have 40% variable RE with a 70% target by 2030, and I pay more than 25c / kWh for my electricity.  Meanwhile, the vast majority of Irish greenhouse gas is produced by our seven million heavily subsidized cattle each of whom emits 220lb of methane annually.  The EU cow subsidy is so enormous that in 2018 74% of Irish farmer’s income was provided by the EU taxpayer; three dollars cow subsidy for every dollar earned on the farm.   The global warming potential of methane is 110 times CO2 over 10-years, and 30 times over 100 years.

 I hope that by subsiding seven million methane producing cattle in parallel with ever-increasing CO2 tax on 4.5 million human residents, my government has chosen the right path, because all of us consumers are paying for it!