While scouring around on the Topix forum, I saw some interesting calculations as to why Wind power isn't as good as Nuclear Power.

How Many?

300 new reactors at around 1200 megawatts each comes to 360,000 megawatts of capacity which, each having a capacity factor of 0.9, would deliver 2.84 billion mw-hours of electricity each year.

In comparison, for wind generation to deliver 2.84 billion mw-hrs of electricity at a capacity factor of .25, it would require 1,296,000 windmills having a total megawatt capacity of nearly 4 times that of the nukes. Consider that capacity factor means the average fraction of rated power adjusted for the time the source is producing power. For example, a plant which is idle 50% of the time adjusts its full deliverable power down to 50% of rated.

How Useful?

A central tendency whose inputs may vary a little or a lot. It does not mean a fixed constant. Nukes plants, whose capacity factors are upwards of 90%, are obviously down less than 10% of the time.

As for wind power, the 25% capacity factor is wildly and unpredictably variable. Some days wind at full strength, some days nothing, some days barely enough wind to have any output at all, and most days at less than full power. Proponents say the answer is even more windmills on the belief that a lot of wind generators spread out over the country would provide its own backup because not all would be idled at the same time. That argument is specious because wind conditions tend to be relatively the same in the same geographical regions for the same meteorological reasons. That means that large areas are affected by the same wind conditions at exactly the same time. It further means that the grid system would be subject to very large disruptions in large geographical areas unless there is some roughly equal amount of backup power in the affected region to step in upon demand.

How Much?

Nuclear Power Economics (It's too big to copy)
http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

Current projections for the windmills alone are $1 per watt to build and install. That is 1,296,000 times $1,000,000 per megawatt, or $1.296X10E12. Does 1.3 quadrillion dollars sound like a lot of money? I think the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury might see it that way. BUT, Most of the proposed windmills are to be in remote highlands or offshore where no grid structures currently exist. For new transmission lines, the added cost per mile is 1.5 million dollars. For one windmill needing 10 miles of transmission lines, add 15 million to the initial $1.5 million and the cost for that windmill goes to 16.5 million dollars per windmill. This for over a million windmills adds tremendously to the projected massive costs already.
(http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming/T41I97KU2IV6U20O8 post #4, maths done by booner on Topix)

I suggest the Pelamis Project that is being studied at Billia Croo:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/coast/programmes3/01_shetland_orkney.shtml
http://www.oceanpd.com/Pelamis/default.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelamis_Wave_Energy_Converter
It's much better :D.

p.s.Yes I know that I've already posted two topics on this forum. I hope you don't mind.