The above quote is from Richard Kidd, the Army’s deputy assistant secretary for energy and sustainability.  

The context is US Army is buying 15 MW of solar PV and 50 MW of wind power through a 30 year contract.  The interesting part is the cost of energy is lower than the cost of conventional electricity provided by the grid.  For more see http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-20/u-s-army-buys-65-megaw...

More quotes from the article:

"The Army will pay ... as much as $497.4 million over the life of the deal, about $168 million less than what it would pay for power from the traditional electricity grid"

“We are not spending money for optics or to feel good about our work,” Richard Kidd, the Army’s deputy assistant secretary for energy and sustainability, said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “We are spending money that either enhances our mission effectiveness or is an investment that saves resources over time.”

I got this table from http://www.aweablog.org/output-records-and-nerc-report-show-increasing-r....  

It summarizes on one table all the grid reliability services provided by a wind power plant and compare it to conventional power plants.  It covers LVRT, frequency support, reactive power and voltage control, active power control, frequency response and others.  The technology exists, what is lacking are policies and compensation mechanisms for wind plants to provide these valuable grid reliability services.

November was a good month for the wind industry in the US.  The chart below shows the high penetration of wind on specific days (see http://www.aweablog.org/output-records-and-nerc-report-show-increasing-r...).

Look at these statistics:

- In Texas wind supplied over 40% of electricity in the ERCOT grid for 17 hours in a row (http://www.aweablog.org/output-records-galore-texas-does-it-again/)

- "Between mid-September and mid-November, Xcel’s Colorado power system had 20 hours in which over 60 percent of its demand was met with wind generation, and 100 hours in which wind served over 50 percent of demand."

- "Xcel Colorado has noted that in some hours it uses wind plants’ advanced controls to keep system frequency stable. ERCOT requires wind plants to provide the full range of grid reliability services. All of the large grid operators discussed above now fully integrate wind energy into their electricity markets, with wind governed by the same rules as other energy sources."

Wind is therefore reliable source of power that can be successfully integrated with high levels of penetration.

The total installed wind capacity in China jumped to 145 GW in 2015, with new installations of 30.5 GW.  See http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1379739/china-capacity-grows-145...

The spurt came as the FiT of wind is scheduled to be reduced in 2016.  For FiT in China see http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1378719/china-reduces-fits-two-y....

Goldwind led the Chinese manufacturers in terms of domestic deployment, with 7 GW of installations.

In Morocco's 850 MW wind tender, the lowest bid came in at $25 per MWh, while the average bid price was $30 per MWh.  For more information see http://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/18/new-low-for-wind-energy-costs-morocc...

Factors influencing the low prices are: remarkable wind resource and concessional finance.

According to the vice minister of energy and environment, new coal power plant would be $80 per MWh.

US is the other market where wind PPA are in the $25 per MWh range or lower, however wind enjoys $23 per MWh of incentive--production tax credit for 10 years.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance reports that 2015 was a record year for global investment in clean energy, with $329 billion.  The previous record was $318 billion in 2011.  China contributed $110.5 billion, followed by US at $56 billion.  India invested $10.9 billion.  For details see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/14/why...

This is despite low fossil fuel prices around the world.  This goes to show that the cost of clean energy (wind and solar) is reaching a tipping point--renewable energy is achieving parity with new fossil fuel generation.

Half of new generating capacity globally was from wind and solar.  As of end of 2015 wind and solar provide about 5% of electricity to the US grid.

LBNL and NREL report (http://eetd.lbl.gov/node/60652) quantifies the impact of wind deployments due to renewable portfolio standards (RPS).  These renewable energy projects have reduced the amount of water withdrawn and consumed by conventional power plants.  Look at California and Texas two states with severe droughts; both states are benefiting from wind power.

I found this interesting chart in http://www.aweablog.org/national-lab-report-wind-energy-win-win-win-for-...

It quantifies the health and economic savings from reduced air pollution in all regions of the country--it is a conservative estimate of the cost of air pollution and only focuses on savings from renewable energy’s reduction of one air pollutant: particulate matter.

Lawrence Berkeley National Labs (LBNL) and NREL are reporting (http://eetd.lbl.gov/node/60652):

1. Under the RPS standards in 2013, 98 TWh of electricity (2.4% of total US generation) was generated from renewable energy sources
2. This resulted in 7.5 c/kWh of benefits in terms of GHG and air pollution  emissions reductions
1. 2.2 c/kWh from GHG, 59 million metrics tons of GHG
2. 5.2 c/kWh from air pollution emissions reductions--77,000 metric tons (mt) of SO2, 43,900 mt of Nitrogen Oxides, 4,800 mt of particulate matter 2.5
3. In addition, water use consumption is reduced by 27 billion gallons, and withdrawal reduced by 850 billion gallons
4. $20 billion in GDP from 200,000 jobs
5. Reduced consumer electricity prices by 0 to 1.2 c/kWh
6. Reduced demand for natural gas (as fuel for electricity generation) leading to reduction in cost by 1.3c to 3.7c /kWh of RE

RPS standards exist in 29 states and Washington, DC.

The above estimates show that the savings from RE has huge: 8.8 c/kWh to 12.4 c/kWh.  This ignores savings in water consumption and benefits of higher GDP.

On the costs side, there is 2.3 c/kWh for 10 years of production tax credit from the federal government, and RPS costs.  Regarding the latter costs "RPS compliance costs over the 2010–2013 period were generally equivalent to less than 2% of average statewide retail electricity rates, but varied substantially, with the net cost to utilities and other loadserving entities ranging from -0.4 to 4.8¢ per kilowatt-hour of renewable electricity (kWh-RE)" (see http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-1003961.pdf, page 14).  Although these are estimates that will be refined over time, the benefits are overwhelming.

Compelling stats according to AWEA (as of end of 2015):

• More than quadruple total capacity since 2008 with more than 70 GW now installed

• Cut costs 66 percent in six years

• Set records for share of the electricity mix across entire states and regions

• Create 73,000 well-paying U.S. jobs

• Reduce carbon pollution and save millions of gallons of water as compared to other energy sources

• Save money for consumers, companies and cities, while also help them achieving their sustainability goals