This article is a mess. Energy is NOT power. Reporting on energy (which is what the original publication does; and even they confuse it) is almost pointless.

We need power. Not energy.

Let me explain. There is no such thing as a useful measure of energy reliability. Energy is the accumulation of power over time. Here's a super simplistic example to illustrate the point:

You spend all day walking through the desert. Your water bottle is empty. You drank it all. You really need water, yet there's none to be found. You nearly die a few times, yet manage to make it out to a settlement by nightfall.

Someone there fills your bottle with water.

A reporter says your bottle, over that 24 hour period, was full.

That's the way you compute energy. You can have zero power for 12 hours and then have some for another 12. Energy just adds-up all the bits of power you had over 24 hours and reports it as one number.

Energy comparisons are useless.

Here's reality:

Solar is, nominally, about 50% reliable (if this term isn't comfortable, think "available").

No?

It turns off at night.

Roughly 50% of the time...it does not work.

Wind, on the other hand, does not suffer from this issue. It is much more reliable.

With the addition of a nominal amount of storage wind can easily get up to 95% reliability. Solar, with the same amount of storage, runs about 70% reliability.

This is about power delivery. Consistent. Water bottle in the desert, to use when you need water.

Ignoring all other factors (environmental, wildlife, NIMBY, noise, etc.), wind is a far better technology than solar.

Yet, again, to pull this back into the realm of what we should discussing: We need to talk about power, not energy. When you go to charge your electric car at the same time a million other people want to do the same thing, you need power.