I gave you the link in an eariler post. Or you can go to the DoE EIA site and look it up yourself.
People incorrectly say that wind can never provide a significant percentage of our power because of intermittance and they say that since it is intermittant it needs 100 percent back-up making it too expensive.
I say it because demand is growing faster than we can site and build wind plants. I'm not especially opposed to them, but I am under no illusion that they are a "solution." In fact, for grid operators, they are a nuisance since they can't be effectively scheduled or ramped to meet demand fluctuations forcing them to run fossil plants in unproductive modes while decreasing revenues for those same plants and driving fixed costs per MW generated higher.
If anything, wind makes people feel good but it will never do more than that on the grid. IMHO, they could be of great value in a 'hydrogen' economy if we ever get there. Forget about connecting them to the grid where reliability and predictability are key and use their generation capacity to make hydrogen.
So your prediction is that they will never be more than a feel good toy? Do you want to quantify that prediction?