Wind goes well with gas turbine generators, since they can match their output to demand and the supply of wind. Every watt-hour of wind energy you capture, is a watt-hour of gas you don't burn. Worst case scenario is no wind and you're burning gas -- which is already a main electric source.

Taken too far you would get into this weird situation of over-spending for capacity, and having surplus wind energy when it's windy, while still burning gas when it's not. But as a moderate contribution to a grid, 10 - 30% of supply perhaps, especially where gas is a primary source already, it makes a lot of sense, in some places.

I hope no one expects to actually run everything on 100% wind power.

Battery storage, solar, stored hydrogen, demand response, long distance HVDC, advanced geothermal.

The answer is tech from the 2000s, not 1900s tech.

Power industry folks are used to a field where tech hasn't changed for decades. It's time to get over that and use the new things that have been developed that will reduce the cost of energy, increase energy abundance, and advance society. We need to let go of the obsolete.

Import electricity, for example. We have here a 1.4 GW line to Norway for hydro power. Generally Germany is surrounded by many countries which share electricity. There are many wind farms in and around the North Sea.

Yes, Germany is a large net exporter of electricity.

1. There's a lot of ways to store energy

2. There's a few ways to transport power

3. Wind isn't the only renewable, though it can be really cheap

At this point, I'm having to remind myself of the xkcd lucky 10,000, because it feels disingenuous to even need to ask.

And I'm saying that as someone who really hopes the new fusion companies succeed, and that nuclear should have been used to move the world away from coal (and ship fuel) in the 60s onwards, and lament the risks and accidents were handled so poorly by the politicians.

But now? Meh.