"Sorry, not at all true. When Romania alone this year installed 2/3 of the UK onshore wind capacity"

Absolutely irrelevant. What matters is not how high the ratio of too weak an existing capacity in a different country. It's how long would be a realistic schedule for having a grid with only wind and PV in the UK.

That would take a long while. Yes, I do include the fact that British law makes it harder to deliver quick large scale projects. And remember that to have 100% from wind and PV would need other adjustments than just having the new plants online.

Of course, a new nuclear plant would have major issues too, I'm not saying it should be built, just that PV costs falling does not make it obvious that any other energy source should be scrapped immediately. And I dispute "Given that we are using what's already built until retirement time". If it's coal, it's got to go. If it's oil or gas, to be reduced if possible.

Nobody here disputes that the UK has a lot of wind potential and could do a lot more. Pointing that out does not refute that the country is a very long way from having a grid that uses no other energy source than wind and PV. I find it quite insulting that you gave the impression that it did.

Now the point about nuclear waste actually is an incentive to build a plant -provided it is a fast reactor, using the waste as fuel. Hitachi offered to do it for free if they did not manage to build it within 5 years. How about letting them prove their point while building all the wind turbines that we can in the meantime?

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi