Wiki article is interesting, but it does not list two important cost elements.
When there is no wind, we need some other source of energy (for now we don't have any practical energy storage - we don't have batteries and pump storage can work only if we have a big lake on the hill and the other at the bottom of it), this is also cost of having wind power plant.
Since it is not easy to plan upfront when and how big energy deficit might happen, we need to purchase energy on request and this is expensive.
There is also another problem: what if it is very windy and you can add that much energy to the grid? Easy, you just turn off some windmills, the problem is that wind power plants owners does not like that idea, so they also want money if production needs to be lowered beneath some level. Obviously there is some margin, nuclear/coal power plants have some means to slow/speed up electricity production, but only to some extent.
The irony is that we have a energy source, which is "magic", it is clean, predictable, we know how to operate it - nuclear energy plants, but for some reason we are chasing some silver bullet with horrible energy density, that looks bad and is not reliable.
If eco people were not fighting nuclear energy for last 50 years we would have been now in much better shape today. People who wanted to work on nuclear plants in the academia were treated like Holocaust deniers, so we have seen hardly any progress in the field for a long time, that's why we don't have any good way to handle nuclear wastes except storage (if they are radiating, there is energy there, why not to find a way to use it?).
When there is no wind, we need some other source of energy (for now we don't have any practical energy storage - we don't have batteries and pump storage can work only if we have a big lake on the hill and the other at the bottom of it), this is also cost of having wind power plant.
Since it is not easy to plan upfront when and how big energy deficit might happen, we need to purchase energy on request and this is expensive.
There is also another problem: what if it is very windy and you can add that much energy to the grid? Easy, you just turn off some windmills, the problem is that wind power plants owners does not like that idea, so they also want money if production needs to be lowered beneath some level. Obviously there is some margin, nuclear/coal power plants have some means to slow/speed up electricity production, but only to some extent.
The irony is that we have a energy source, which is "magic", it is clean, predictable, we know how to operate it - nuclear energy plants, but for some reason we are chasing some silver bullet with horrible energy density, that looks bad and is not reliable.
If eco people were not fighting nuclear energy for last 50 years we would have been now in much better shape today. People who wanted to work on nuclear plants in the academia were treated like Holocaust deniers, so we have seen hardly any progress in the field for a long time, that's why we don't have any good way to handle nuclear wastes except storage (if they are radiating, there is energy there, why not to find a way to use it?).