Wind is only useful up to a point, once it gets above 20% of generation capacity ensuing grid stability becomes expensive either through huge price swings or grid level energy storage.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-06/what-australia-can-le...
> For the first time ever, California's batteries took over gas as the primary source for supplying evening power demand in April, providing "akin to the output from seven large nuclear reactors" one evening, according to the New York Times.
You'll notice in your article they are almost always talking about power instead of energy because energy is the problem.
We still need about 100 - 1000x improvements to rely on batteries without reliable power plants, depending on how much the generation capacity is overbuilt.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g...
In reality we will still have a lot of fossil generation which will make it 'easier'.
There are numerous camps with strong impassioned and conflicting arguments as to cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Iberian_Peninsula_blackou...
The only sense in which there are conflicting arguments, is that the leftist Spanish government read the above report and concluded that it was the fault of the gas plants for not being available when they were needed. Because they were switched off. Because of their own policies. This is not an argument that deserves genuine consideration.
The preliminary report was exactly that, preliminary off the cuff listing of things that might cause issues with no definitive conclusion .. hence the need for longer consideration and a final report.
> the leftist Spanish government
Drop the politics and act like an Engineer (civil, electrical)
> the fault of the gas plants for not being available when they were needed. Because they were switched off.
It's routine across the globe to bring power generation facilities on and off, and spin them up in anticipation of need - this incident is a failure of a control algorithm regardless of politics.
“In 2019, California had 770 megawatts of battery storage. Now, it's 14 times higher, at 10,383 megawatts, and by the end of this year, it expects to add another 3,800.”
We saw the same curve with solar and wind. 20-30 years worth today will be peanuts in the near future. You’ve outlined a very achievable goal.
For the past year in the UK the average is ~30% generation from wind. https://grid.iamkate.com/
So seems it's possible. Swings in generation are dealt with via inter-country interconnects, pumped storage and gas turbine generation. Nuclear adds a steady base.
The UK's prices are a political choice due to the mapping of voters over the energy generation distribution.
By breaking the country in to zones, where the electricity that's bought can actually reach the users they then apply the actual economics of the system properly, and encourage suppliers to build where the demand can be satisfied by them.
Situation is very similar in Germany - most industry is concentrated in the south while most productive wind in the north. In the past it didn't matter since prices were similar with coal. But now, since you can't magically create wind in low wind/unproductive areas, the options are either split zones and kill part of industry, which Germany doesn't want, or to keep a single zone and build expensive transmission like sudlink.
Now, banning onshore wind in England for a decade when it was the cheapest source of energy available. That's just plain stupid (or a corrupt gift to your mates in gas companies).
I don't think anyone is expecting wind farms to supply anywhere near 100% of energy production. Probably not even 50%.
From the IEA report: "Substantiated by in-depth case studies, this report infers that, almost anywhere on the planet, nearly 100% VRE power grids firmly supplying clean power and meeting demand 24/365 are not only possible but would be economically viable, provided that VRE resources are optimally transformed from unconstrained run-of-the weather generation into firm generation."[1]
However, propagandists routinely spread misinformation on firming. For example, they might cite the absolutely absurd LFSCOE which is funded by the energy sector's equivalent of the Center for Indoor Air Research[2][3][4].
[1] https://iea-pvps.org/key-topics/firm-power-generation/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
[3] https://www.desmog.com/2016/01/10/rice-university-s-baker-in...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Indoor_Air_Research