Wind power is unreliable and only cost effective with big subsidies. You really don't want that as a significant % of your power supply. To me, it is a niche supply only.
That's exactly what I mean, there. There are (a few, limited) places where it might make sense. Most places, it doesn't, for the reasons you mention.
One of my instructors at North Anna Nuclear Power Plant had a serious mad on for wind as a major contributor to baseload. When he brought up the bit about the power law (where motor speed dropping by a factor of 2 drops power output by a factor of *8*), we pretty much all had to agree that he was right.
I'd like to see the nukes build to over the peak capacity, and then just divert whatever the grid isn't demanding to a plant making synthetic methanol.
Another good idea of birdman's (along with autoclaving the planet ...).
I get tunnel vision sometimes, and focus in too closely. That's a *REALLY* good idea. Ultimately, though, you'd STILL need peaking plants, because the methanol plants kind of become part of the baseload, more or less - they're probably not going to be starting up and shutting down on a whim, while power use out on the grid... does vary that way. I don't think they can, anyways - don't know much about synthetic methanol production.
Got no problem with planning for the future, though. Not like we're ever going to want LESS power to use in our homes and businesses, or ways to make that power portable, which liquid fuel is great for.