Your logic is impeccable and many well-qualified observers have repeated it. Turns out not to be so: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Grid-Integrati

Your logic is impeccable and many well-qualified observers have repeated it. Turns out not to be so: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Grid-Integration-of-Wind-and-Solar-is-Cheap http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Grid-Integration... The reason is human psychology: the systemic costs we pay for the old stuff is familiar and therefore doesn't seem noteworthy. From the link: nuclear and large fossil plants actually have “far higher integration costs than renewables,” Goggin said. “Contingency reserves, the super-fast acting energy reserve supply required of grid operators in case a large power plant shuts down unexpectedly, are a major cost. Comparing the incremental cost of wind to those costs that ratepayers have always paid, the wind cost looks even more trivial.”