I'm afraid you're miss informed chap. Wind turbines are part of the solution. They do only generate when the wind is blowing, but for offshore turbines that is most of the time. The effectiveness of wind turbines as energy source is multiplied when combined with pumped storage or local battery storage (imagine if your electric car could function as a local energy storage unit for your house). UK offshore wind is currently expensive however the latest offshore wind lease sold in Europe was at 64 euro's per MWh, about 5p per KWh. Wind and in particular offshore wind will be, if it's not already, a cheap, reliable, low environmental impact energy source with zero decommissioning issues.
The real problem is the grid base load. Nuclear seems to be favour of the month but decommissioning costs are still undefined (there aren't any fully decommissioned Nuclear power stations) and we still don't have a long term nuclear waste storage site in the UK. Hinkly C's Â£92MWh cost does NOT include decommissioning costs. Then if it goes wrong, and it can even with modern passively safe designs (terrorists, natural disasters), it ruin hundreds of lives and bankrupt countries.
So do build more Gas and rely on Russian imports, or revert to coal, which is higher Carbon and dirtier? Or can we wait for nuclear fusion becoming viable in the next 30 years? It will be expensive but when combined with cheap but variable wind and energy storage should provide an affordable, reliable energy supply mix. Check out the ITER experimental fusion reactor being constructed in France.
A regular feature of UK winters is persistent high pressure systems which can loiter overhead for typically 7-14 days but in extreme circumstances have persisted for up to a month; these systems often affect large areas of northern europe at the same time. How do you generate power when there's little or no wind for a fortnight and your neighbours are in substantially the same boat? You have standby generation in the form of diesel, coal, gas or potentially nuclear; current orthodoxy strongly suggests the only zero-carbon option is preferable, even though there are strong irrational fears about it propagated by lobby groups. The policy in Germany is to use Biomass instead, but frankly shipping woodchips from north america to burn in power stations in europe is insanity and very expensive and environmentally unfriendly insanity at that. Far better to use the nuclear power stations they already have and that are bought and paid for, rather than irrationally force them to close and get sued by the utilities that own them.
Hinkley's decom costs are EDF's responsibility. The lack of a permanent storage facility is the consequence of lobby groups persuading Cumbria Council to overturn the planning approval for a waste storage facility issued by Copeland and Allerdale councils; the same lobby groups complain about how the temporary storage facility is putting the people of Allerdale and Copeland at risk. Welcome to the world according to Greenpeace. Neither storage facility is much of a risk to anyone, the temporary store has existed for several decades and has killed nobody and the proposed 'man-made plutonium mine' isn't likely to be any more hazardous to anyone, except perhaps the people who dig it as digging big holes is actually quite dangerous. A better alternative to creating a honking big hole in the ground for HLW might be consuming it using PRISM or molten salt reactors developed for the purpose; creating the means to consume HLW and generate electricity in the process seems a better plan than creating a longterm underground storage and no more expensive. Passive safety is just that, by definition it's proof against natural disaster; if it were not then it's not passive safety. The terrorism risk is real but overstated, there are plenty of industrial processes and chemicals which could be used to create mayhem and mass casualties yet are not subject to burdensome security rules. A tanker filled with a common industrial gas in liquid form blown up in a city centre could kill thousands yet the stuff is used by a wide variety of industries and is carried on the roads by HGVs without armed escort.
Given a common objection to nuclear power on this thread is cost the mention of fusion is surprising; supposing the ITER research produces a viable design the cost of a commercial scale power station will make Hinkley look like a pound shop bargain. Nice as the idea of fusion is I don't expect to see it become a practical power source in my lifetime, so far the only practical output of 60 years of fusion research has been a lot of physics PhDs. Instead of hoping for power sources which are not available or relying on burning things why not use a power source that's been in use for 60 years, is reliable, safe and independent of the vagaries of the weather? Any viable mass energy storage medium makes nuclear power more viable as well, especially legacy systems that do not cope well with load following. There's not much prospect of more pumped storage in the UK, most suitable sites have been developed and the few left are subject to vigorous opposition at the planning stage(of the last 3 sites SSE had plans for 2 were killed at the planning application stage).