The thing is you could run the nuclear stations at almost full tilt pretty much all the time while your wind turbines park will output as you noted about 35% of

The thing is you could run the nuclear stations at almost full tilt pretty much all the time while your wind turbines park will output as you noted about 35% of their theoretical capacity. So, it's cheaper but its output is also almost half of the nuclear plus the intermittent issue. Even if we consider that you "saved" $23bn, that would buy about 58 Megapack XL from Tesla, at around 4 MWh a piece. So, in the end, you would only be able to pay for 230 MWh, or 0.23 GWh. You are still very far from the excess 1GW available at any time that the nuclear station would give you. The way I see it, the economics would need to increase at least 5 folds before it can be thought of as a "solution" and that's before considering the longevity and logistics of those systems. It is extremely likely that they won't last as long and will be even more of a pain in the ass to manage in the very long term, but that's something greenwashing would rather keep under the radar. Then we will have to deal with stuff like this: https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/sweetwater-wind-turbine-blades-dump/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/sweetwater-wind-t... I was actually looking for an impressive picture of an unused wind farm I read about a bit ago (unrelated, on an urbex site) that didn't make sense to run economically but was just sitting there... Considering all their foreseeable long-term problems, most of the "green" solutions look like more trouble than they are worth. But the only other answer is to force people to consume less or kill 2/3 of humans on the planet so I guess we will keep on the lies...