Swift-Hook 120101 first showed that renewables are the last to be stored on a power system. This paper rebuts the subsequent erroneous denials by Grant Wilson et al. [2011]. Storage on a power system normally buys energy only at night when it is cheapest but wind must be able to sell its power round the clock and for days on end. This makes wind and storage contractually incompatible. Daytime solar energy too is completely incompatible with power system storage. So Grant Wilson et al. 121 are unrealistic to suggest long-term storage contracts for wind or solar. They also claim that in the UK power exchange spot-market "there is a high probability" that storage will buy wind, which will be cheapest. This claim hardly matters, since the spot-market only represents 3% of the total electricity traded, but it is completely unjustified: it is not likely that wind and storage will be in this market together nor that storage will be able to outbid everyone else competitively for the cheapest, which may or may not be wind. With very large penetrations of wind power, >100%, gas turbine back-up will cost only an extra 4% of electricity prices, far less than 100% storage for wind which must cost of the order of wind power itself. As a store always fills during cheap base-load periods, it should be associated with nuclear which operates continuously then, not wind which only runs 30% of the time and is always the last to be stored and especially not with solar that never operates then. So research on storage should be funded from the nuclear budget, not from renewable energy. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.