That is an assumption. I don't know if the 19% is nameplate capacity, or actual MHH delivered --- I assumed the latter for the example on explaining why wind does not eliminate conventional plants.
Obviously my examples are at the extreme and were meant for illustration only, but in a sane world that we used to have, plant dispatch was on a 'lest cost basis'. Now, the sacred, subsidized 'renewables' in much of the US and I'd assume in Denmark as well, must be first dispatch regardless of their cost. It is a hidden tax on consumers that goes directly to the fat-cat financiers of these inefficient facilities.
The fact is whether conventional plants operating at zero MW in standby mode, or at 20, 40, 60 or 80 percent in a load follow mode, the most expensive power gets preference over the least expensive sources which are forced to operate below optimum levels which also drives their cost up, which only get passed on to consumers. The bottom line is that proven to the ultimate and Denmark (and Spain) does noting for the 'environment' in terms of CO2 reduction while drives costs up for consumers, putting the grid in precarious positions, and only benefits opportunists living off government subsidies for building these so called 'eco friendly' facilities in the first place.
If the technology is so great, I'd like to see one of the developers really put their ass on the line --- disconnect from the grid and build a process plant around the wind farm. Maybe some energy intensive industry like an aluminum smelter or chemical plant, or maybe even a water cracking plant for hydrogen. That would reduce their carbon footprint. But building these things to attach to the grid does absolutely nothing to reduce CO2.