Wind energy scales to the 3rd power of wind speed. Also from wind patterns you end up in the very low end of the generators capacity for most of its life, that is a 1MW generator spends most of its time generating ~100kW or so. Even in very favorable sites its not very good. Then you don't get the power when you need it so you must have a huge amount of over capacity. In fact far more capitol investment than a nuclear plant. The kind of numbers of generators required would stretch copper to it limit, even well beyond by some estimates.
Add it all up, and *every* study I have read shows that wind is and will be very expensive compared to almost anything else (solar panels can compete for the most expensive, but not solar thermal). Most wind farms around the world make money from subsidies by existing, not by making commercial sense.
Compare to nuclear, the generators can run at capacity 90% of the time, and can load follow (yes they can address peek power), and are also "free" to fuel. Free to fuel here is from the fact that a nuclear power plant sees less than 5% of its amortized cost in fuel. Even big price hikes in U costs don't effect nuclear energy prices much at all. There is over 5000 years worth of U if we reprocess. Far more if we use the oceans U. Then there is Th!
However decommissioning costs are not clear cut yet. We just haven't decommissioned enough reactors. But we could instead reuse the containment builds for new nuclear plants. Since the containment buildings are one of the biggest capitol costs, this could make a big difference, as well as reduce decommissioning costs of current plants.
Now no one seems to want to be next to a nuclear plant. But they are pretty small compared to a 1GW wind farm (which can't give 1GW for the vast majority of of its lifetime). And these days no one wants to be next to wind farms either.