@ Ivan 4
Quite likely. My own bill which includes a fair mix of day/night hours "only" shows 52% from wind sources. "Only". But we're kinda blessed with a place where sun shines through the day and wind runs all night, other places might fare less well.
Despite that, it doesn't give you the right to bury head into sand. Especially since the less you do now, the more you pay later to hop on the moving train, assuming you still can and don't just end up buying all your supply. We sucked up the costs not because it was efficient, but just because in the long end it would leave us stuck with "no option" as the only option.
Bit of common sense does need to apply though. Production is only 1/2 the equation. Consumption is the other 1/2. If your consumption keeps increasing as it has, there won't be enough power to fuel it in the long term. OTOH, if you lessen your consumption, you already saved. But most savings come from stamping out bad habits we've acquired during the "cheap fuel" part of history, so people are quite reluctant on that. Think "better insulation instead of heating/cooling" and you get the idea of change/reluctance.