"When it says TOTAL CAPACITY, does that represent the average of 30% actual production output? Or does that represent the 'nameplate' 100% output?"
Good point here in Texas they generate at night when there is no load. When it gets hot in the daytime, they shut down.
Wind generation would not exist without the BIG tax breaks they get.
Slightly overstated but the gist is right. However, the cost of wind power has been reduced by 90% over the last 20 years. That has brought it into the realm of possibility. It is already competitive without subsidy (as is solar) for an increasing number of off-grid applications. In fact, I have been told that some rural electric coops have run the numbers and concluded that it would be cheaper to abandon some existing power lines, thus saving on maintenance, and install distributed wind. For grid linked applications wind is competitive with gas fired turbines. Nuclear is still champ, of course, but unfortunately we're not building any.
Bottom line, large scale wind is still subsidy dependent for grid linked applications but the subsidy cost is not outlandish. I'm all for building more nuclear plants but in the meantime wind is a good hedging option, especially when you start factoring in probable carbon taxes or other CO2 mitigation expenses in the intermediate future.
That's interesting. As long as those things cannot operate in hot weather, they're not worth investing in unless they're located in northerly areas.