[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I was only commenting on the graph. The scale(s) used are a very important consideration in the graphical display of data. For instance, logarithmic vertical scales would show the rate of growth in capacity and production.

By making the capacity scale match the production scale; the graph does show that capacity and production are rising at about the same rate. That would be important, if you were interested in changes in efficiency. However, it also masks the fact that production is only 1/5 of total capacity.

Do you have a graph comparing the utilization factor for wind power, relative to coal and natural gas plants?

Ideally, no energy source would be subsidized. Arguments could be made about subsidies for R&D -- but, not for full industrial-scale commercial implementation.

[Ben Ficklin]

Its a misconception that a generator generates what he wants to generate, The grid manager specifies what he wants from the generator.

So, at 5 PM during the dog days of summer, ERCOT, who manages the Texas grid, will ask for very little power from the west Texas wind farms(1%-2%). OTOH during the mild and windy spring, the wind farms may be producing 20%-25% of the state's consumed power. The state record is about 28%.

This gives rise to the hybrid power plants, which may consist of wind and nat gas. Blending the high capital cost of wind and the low capital cost of nat gas for an average capital cost. This is then offset by blending the low operating cost of wind with the high operating costs of nat gas for an average operating cost. Under this scenario, the hybrid plant operator decides the mix of the source(wind vs nat gas), not Ercot. The operator is then in the position of being able to utilize the greatest amount of wind(cheaper) and the least amount of nat gas(higher cost).

And then on top of that, a hybrid plant operator can install a grid battery because that cost would be amortized relative to nat gas, not wind.

"Ideally, no energy source would be subsidized"

In the US we subsidize all sources of energy, some more than others. This is what makes the anti-wind crowd look bad. If you were sincere in your opposition to subsidies, you would be going after nuclear and ethanol, not wind.

And if you were really sincere in your opposition to subsidies, you would be going after the externalized costs of coal. The health and environmental costs from the pollution generated from utilizing coal are huge. We socialize these costs and because you ignore this, that makes you a right-wing socialist.