First off depending on where you put your wind you're going to have different capacity factors. In Ontario Canada you're looking at like 25% capacity factor. Many places in the world are going to be similar.
Secondly, and this is the big one. As soon as you average out an intermittent source of energy you've lost the plot. You've taken something incompatiable with being averaged and then averaged it. Think of this way. Say you're designing a building code for houses to withstand earthquakes. During an earthquake the house will be accellerate by 5G for 1 minute. This happens once a year. But for some reason you average it out. Now it's that 5g for 1 minute per 512,640 minutes (1 year). So on average the house will shake 0.0000097G per minute for a year and you will now base your building code on that. It's silly and doesn't make sense to do this.
So again, as soon as you average out an intermittent source you're screwed. Frequently the source isn't producing energy, in which case you need another source to back it up. OR if you install to much of it you're now producing too much energy and you need to curtail.
To get the same service as a nuclear plant, you in addition need a lot of storage and overbuild (to compensate for below average wind years) and/or backup powerplants fuelled by (expensive) carbon neutral fuel or using CCS technology.
For the sake of fairness one should add that nuclear power only achieves your quoted capital costs with repeat build, while FOAK is a lot more expensive. So the first few reactors will have significantly higher capital costs than you assumed here. But we know nuclear projects can be done fast and on time and on budget with experience, as China and Russia are demonstrating again and again.
First off depending on where you put your wind you're going to have different capacity factors. In Ontario Canada you're looking at like 25% capacity factor. Many places in the world are going to be similar.
Secondly, and this is the big one. As soon as you average out an intermittent source of energy you've lost the plot. You've taken something incompatiable with being averaged and then averaged it. Think of this way. Say you're designing a building code for houses to withstand earthquakes. During an earthquake the house will be accellerate by 5G for 1 minute. This happens once a year. But for some reason you average it out. Now it's that 5g for 1 minute per 512,640 minutes (1 year). So on average the house will shake 0.0000097G per minute for a year and you will now base your building code on that. It's silly and doesn't make sense to do this.
So again, as soon as you average out an intermittent source you're screwed. Frequently the source isn't producing energy, in which case you need another source to back it up. OR if you install to much of it you're now producing too much energy and you need to curtail.
To get the same service as a nuclear plant, you in addition need a lot of storage and overbuild (to compensate for below average wind years) and/or backup powerplants fuelled by (expensive) carbon neutral fuel or using CCS technology.
For the sake of fairness one should add that nuclear power only achieves your quoted capital costs with repeat build, while FOAK is a lot more expensive. So the first few reactors will have significantly higher capital costs than you assumed here. But we know nuclear projects can be done fast and on time and on budget with experience, as China and Russia are demonstrating again and again.