"It reduces CO2 emissions" is being used to justify burning fossil fuels? And is "a huge part" of the argument? I think you explained yourself wrong.
No, it’s being used to say that ignoring the problems with Wind farms scaling to a huge scale (and fossil fuels is massive and wind has made less than a noticeable dent) means that you’ve solved one set of problems for another and hopes the second set isn’t as bad. I didn’t say the only alternative is to go back to fossil fuels. I personally think that nuclear has much better and cleaner scaling properties with fewer issues than wind and solar (for example it still remains generally true that the only countries that have meaningfully reduced CO2 emissions are those that have offset it using nuclear while solar and wind have a very poor record) .
Please look at a chart of per-MWhr generation costs. Wind and solar are a fraction of the cost of nuclear (with solar plunging by the day, almost) and nuclear is only getting more expensive as time goes on despite being a decade or two away from being a 100 year old technology.
In the US nuclear plants are being phased out and wind/solar projects are replacing them at a ratio of roughly 6:1...with huge savings for grid operators and customers. It's so cheap, even with storage system costs it's still cheaper.
That's where utilities are focused: expanding energy storage and better transmission grid infrastructure. Those, and renewable energy, increase grid reliability.
Of course it does depend on how you measure cost.
If you just measure generation costs then you are missing the other key element of a nation grid - it always working - and that characteristic costs as well, not just the electrons provided.
So those improved transmission and storage investments need to be put on the renewables total costs.
Nuclear also has significant decommissioning costs.
However the biggest cost here is probably that required to adapt to the effects of climate change if we don't take steps.
As pointed out, the cost is only a fraction if you ignore the lack of batteries. Solar & Wind today can only be used economically for peak load. Baseload requires batteries and nuclear & fossil fuels remain more economical.
> wind has made less than a noticeable dent
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-mu...
Almost 30% is not nothing.
And it's important to understand a lot of solar doesn't show up on the figures as it reduces demand, rather than showing up in supply.
( ie if you have panels on your roof you typically use it first before sending any excess to grid ) so the effect is largely reduced demand not measured increased production.
If the only similarity is ignoring some problem somewhere then those two are massively different and it's not "funny" in the way you're implying.