Scientist exposes anti-wind groups as oil-funded, now they want to silence him

Wind is only useful up to a point, once it gets above 20% of generation capacity ensuing grid stability becomes expensive either through huge price swings or grid level energy storage.

Sure you need baseload/storage as part of the mix - however where do you get the 20% figure from?

For the past year in the UK the average is ~30% generation from wind. https://grid.iamkate.com/

So seems it's possible. Swings in generation are dealt with via inter-country interconnects, pumped storage and gas turbine generation. Nuclear adds a steady base.

The argument was about the cost, UK having highest prices on the continent (depending how you count subsidies for others) but 20% seems too low anyway. Normal plants are still fine at 60% cf

The UK has insane prices because of their refusal to do regional pricing to accommodate grid constraints. They'd rather pay wind farms to park their turbines, than to segment their grid pricing (i.e. make energy prices cheaper where there is a surplus of wind generation).

The UK's prices are a political choice due to the mapping of voters over the energy generation distribution.

Isn't regional pricing dangerous for industry if it's concentrated in wrong areas and moving it isn't easy?

It means that the industry has to actually follow economics, and build supply where the demand is.