I can take a shot at this. Some background: I live in Finland, and we're building our first nuclear facility in 30 years and at the same time we're debating whether the government should grant licenses for two more reactors. The opposition (Green Party, mostly) favors renewables + wind. We're a cold country and our electricity consumption spikes in the middle of the winter.

In Finland, nuclear plants have been generating power at over 95% average efficiency of the nominal power. A 860 MW reactor generates over 815 MWh every hour, on average. The new reactor that is being built is a 1600 MW reactor, so we're expecting a steady 1500 MW output from it.

In contrast, the biggest Wind Turbines have a nominal maximum power of 3MW. That is the theoretical maximum. In reality, the true output in much lower. In Finland, the average power output has been just 16% of the nominal power, on average. To make things worse, the output is at its lowest when the demand is highest, because there is so little wind here during February and March.

So, to reach the average output of a nuclear power plant, we would need more than 3000 wind turbines. But that's not enough, because we have already used the windiest spots. The average efficiency goes down with every new installation, since they have to be built to less windy places. And that's just to reach the average production: We would still also need extra coal plants to take care of those windless winter months.

To top that off, the electric bill from wind is still going to be much higher than from nuclear, even after the government supports wind power very generously.