Stop lying. Page 5 does not say what you claimed it says.
“Firm capacity” is the fraction of installed wind capacity that is online at the same probability as that of a coal-fired power plant. On average, coal plants are free from unscheduled or scheduled maintenance for 79%–92% of the year, averaging 87.5% in the United States from 2000 to 2004 (Giebel 2000; North American Electric Reliability Council 2005).
Not 92%, which was your lie.
Figure 3 shows that, while the guaranteed power generated by a single wind farm for 92% of the hours of the year was 0 kW, the power guaranteed by 7 and 19 interconnected farms was 60 and 171 kW, giving firm capacities of 0.04 and
0.11, respectively.
So that's at least 11% for 19+ wind farms, not 4%-11%. You have both exaggerated coal's firm capacity and understated that of large numbers of interconnected wind farms. Maybe you just enjoy coal pollution, but the more likely motivation of your behavior is that you are a paid coal / petroleum shill.
Furthermore, 19 interconnected wind farms guaranteed 222 kW of power (firm capacity of 0.15) for 87.5% of the year, the same percent of the year that an average coal plant in the United States guarantees power. Last, 19 farms guaranteed 312 kW of power for 79% of the year, 4 times the guaranteed power generated by one farm for 79% of the year.
Finally, nobody believes we will decommission all coal plants any time soon. But wind is capable of adding to baseload instead of adding more coal plants or more nuclear plants. That is the relevant fact for the present situation. All new capacity should be clean, which means only wind and solar, and that is quite feasible using wind and solar thermal for baseload and pv solar for peak.