My feeling is that wind and solar work best as a point-of-use source of power, and not always best suited to be connected to the grid unless there is a wide enough span of the items that the peaks and valleys of power generation is mitigated.
Our current grid technology was set up from the onset to make use of a seemingly limitless ability to generate massive amounts of electricity and the twist of a knob. Whether it is coal, natural gas, propane, or nuclear, they all essentially do the same ancient thing: they boil water to make steam to spin a steam turbine.
So the speed/load necessary to spin said turbine(s) is easily adjusted by variation of the steam allowed to act on the mechanism. But the
boiler is making steam...boiling water (and thus burning/exploiting its fuel) all the time. It is then necessary to have these type of stations on stand by to carry the load of the wind or solar power during these peaks and valleys.
Grid managers do not like wind and solar for this very reason. It is easy to regulate the voltage and phasing of a grid, even from many miles away, when you have a nice big power plant with a huge and constant and ready to go ability at your fingertips. But you cannot easily control the sunshine or especially the wind.
What we need is a better way to mix and match the energy production facilities of all types so that they can augment one another more seamlessly or we'll keep having a battle over this topic.
I always felt that air conditioning of a building, which is needed MOST during the day, and the demand is needed much more when the sun is shining the most, would make perfect sense for point-of-use solar arrays. But that seems to be something that is not really employed very much. Cost seems to be the most common reason.
Our shop owner built us a brand new building a couple years ago, and he decided to air condition it (thankfully), but did not bother to pursue both ground sourced heat pumps and solar augmentation due to cost. When I asked, he said it would take a decade to recoup the cost, and he could invest that same money in other things that would eclipse any cost savings anyway.
I do not necessarily agree with that decision, but it was not mine to make. The point is, though, so long as it is "cheap" to be dirty and inefficient, people are largely going to continue to do so.