Arguing with a source inline is not an improvement    while you raise some worthwhile points in these edits your method of inserting unsourced rebuttals to a cited source inline renders the passage incoherent Especially with the typo thought instead of though  I had to read that about three times slowly to parse it correctly If you dont agree with a cited source on Wikipedia the proper way to provide balancing views is to find reliable sources for whatever views arent being mentioned Merely arguing against a source from your personal knowledge or opinion is original work not what we do here In particular you miss the point by noting that carbon reductions from wind power occur wherever the wind power gets consumed because the article is not primarily about carbon reduction its about how grid managers can handle intermittent power sources on the grid The intermittencies of wind and solar power matter because the grid functions not only to generate carbon offsets but also and primarily to supply electricity when customers demand it