The only thing that will save this planet from AGW is the elimination of anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nuclear energy, fission and someday fusion, can be a big part of getting that done, But solar and wind are playing a big part now and, until the general public has become more confident in nuclear power safety, they will likely be the major stockholder.
An interesting read is Lazards "Cost of unsubsidized energy for energy sources", the most in depth study of unsubsidized energy souces in the US. International multi-billion dollar asset management firm. And shows solar/wind with a huge advantage. Of course that would explain how those wind companies are able to underbid coal and other energies.
Levelized Cost of Energy and Levelized Cost of Storage 2018
Wind is being utilized differently than gas, nuclear, and coal. It's much easier to start and stop a wind turbine than a gas/coal/nuclear plant. According to the US Energy Information Administration, our energy grid needs to be made for peak energy, not average energy. Which means starting and stopping energy sources as those peaks hit and recede. Well the cost of stopping a gas plant, coal plant, and nuclear plant are MUCH more expensive that turning off a wind turbine. So wind is helping our electrical grid become MORE versatile and cheaper to run and increasing reliability.
And yes that affects it's capacity where low costs of starting and stopping turbines make it the choice for the peak demand and thus lower overall capacity. What we are seeing is as overall wind power capacity increases, more turbines are left on and coal plants shuttered and wind capacity grows. ERCOT (Texas power grid operators) years ago had a report of how much more reserve would be needed to keep wind alive. An obsolete report those coal liars like to use. Fortunately, the Texas grid operator has answered that question in real time, and in that case found its study actually overestimated the increase in reserve needs that would be caused by wind. In 2013, ERCOT used its real world grid operating data to validate the results of a 2008 study it had conducted to estimate the impact of higher levels of wind use and in 2018 performed another and came to their conclusion wind energy makes the grid more efficient. But some liars like using old debunked data.
We've seen that capacity skyrocket. Averaging at 37.4% last year and right now about 44%. Sure some liars like using the old numbers of around 14-15% in order to either intentionally lie, or they are just ignorant on that topic, like that one guy who was here and I caught lying a few times before putting him on ignore. Based on current pace, not only will wind overtake coal in winter months (first time happened a couple years ago), but also year round by 2021. If you want to make capacity use and costs your reasonings... Well Coal is out and wind is in for you. Unless you want to lie with old data instead.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/current_month/epm.pdf (you can click the full report for the full numbers.
As Bruce Rew, the VP of operations for the Southwest Power Pool, recently explained, “Ten years ago we thought hitting even a 25 percent wind-penetration level would be extremely challenging, and any more than that would pose serious threats to reliability. Now we have the ability to reliably manage greater than 50 percent. It’s not even our ceiling."
So you have to ask yourself.. Why are people intentionally still using old data or not the best data and then cherry picking parts and outright lying about others?
It would be like someone today saying Horses need to be our primary mode of transportation since there's only 300 gas stations in the US. Yeah that was true at one point in US history, but it's an outright lie today. What do they gain from telling lies?
