One thing which seems to be missing from this analysis (I didn’t watch the video associated with the article, but I would be surprised if it was included) is the concept of EROEI - Energy Return On Energy Invested. (Or if you prefer, EROI - Energy Return On Investment, but I prefer the former acronym.)
“Energy Return” refers to the power being generated, minus the unused excess and whatever is being lost in the process of power transmission. “Energy Invested” refers to the energy costs to build and maintain the power generators, as well as gathering and processing the fuel and building and maintaining the fuel processors, if relevant. In order for an energy source to be economically competitive, the EROEI ratio needs to be 8:1 or better.
Ever since around 2015, the ER side of the ratio for solar and wind have been dramatically improving to the point where they are now economically competitive in most markets, while the EI side of fossil fuels have worsened to the point where they are barely competitive anymore, and will likely drop below that in the near future. (Though some countries will artificially prop them up for awhile, and some of those are doing it a little already, because their current infrastructure is too fossil-fuel dependent.)
Yes, wind power is less energy dense, but guess what? That barely matters.