Technically you can but you spent however many billion euro and aren’t utilizing the capacity. Maybe it still makes sense vs keeping coal and gas underutilized, I don’t know.
If you allow yourself to use carbon energy (coal and gas) then it absolutely makes sense to use them to compensate for the variability of wind. That's what the UK does. Their cost is pretty much proportional to their utilisation so it makes sense to switch them on and off.
You also have hydro but it's a fairly limited (there are only so many valleys you can flood and so much water you can capture - plus historically it's the source of energy that killed the most people).
But if you truly decarbonise, and in absence of an economical way to store vast amounts of energy for a long time (wind can be down to pretty much zero for weeks on a typical year), and I don't see any such facility being built at scale, I am not sure what else than nuclear you can use to compensate for the volatility of wind. And because nuclear costs the same whether you use it or not, you then might as well save yourself the construction of a wind farm.
That's why I don't understand why we are spending billions building those gigantic wind farms. They only make sense if the intention is to keep using carbon. Otherwise they should spend that money on nuclear.
