You seem to assume you're the only person around who has dwelt on these issues and researched them. In my case, I've also lived with them for many years in real life, not just reading papers, and my concern for climate change is very real and constant.
The real scam is nuclear power, for very many reasons I won't bother rehearsing here because as I first observed and you've yet again proven, there's little or no point debating you, but Hinkley Point is a prime example.
Primarily, it's a cuckoo in the nest. If all the resources and time that have been ploughed into that ridiculous development had gone into renewables research, deployment and investment, the UK might have its own indigenous companies producing turbines and other facilities, rather than relying on foreign investments which inevitably take the bulk of the profits away from these islands.
Wind and other renewables have a vital role to play as a mix of sources. Nobody credible is suggesting that any country place its sole reliance on wind, that's a ridiculous and historically Trumpesque straw person. The wind may not blow constantly, but if you lived in Scotland, you'd know it blows pretty damn regularly, and will increasingly do so as climate change takes a greater hold.
The prime time when wind falls down is during periods of winter blocking highs and cold weather accompanying prolonged periods of calm. That's where the mix comes in, along with interconnectors to locations which aren't subject to the same weather conditions.
Every nuclear power station must have a rapidly deployed backup in case it goes offline and unbalances the grid. That backup, in the UK at least, comes from dormant gas-powered stations that can be fired up more or less instantly. So nuclear also relies on other sources of power during its operational life.
= new reply since forum marked as read