I’m not claiming that wind can generate baseload power, it can’t. But there is free energy in the wind that can obviously be harnessed. The harnessing isn’t free, but the energy is.
???????????????????????????????????????
It costs more for electricity generated form wind than conventional but the wind is free? Coal is free but the harnessing isn't. Nuclear is free but the harnessing isn't. weirdo green ideas are free but the harnessing of them is the most expensive.
Yet, in order to deliver that "free" energy to you, you must also pay:
a. For the federal subsidy that makes wind energy economically feasible for those who invest in the wind farms.
b. A rate premium to the utility who delivers that that "free energy" to you, because they are forced to purchase a specific percentage of their total energy from that wind farm at a premium price.
c. Yet another rate premium for the back-up plant that the utility must build and have standing by in order to have an alternate energy source at hand for when the wind farm can't deliver its "free energy".
Q: How does all this make economic sense?
A: It doesn't.
The cost to harness a source is built into its operating cost. Fish in the ocean are free, too, except for that boat, the nets, the crew, the fuel to operate...
Basically, you are advocating spending money on some company’s hobby - because if energy isn’t part of the base, then it’s only for play.
There fixed it.