I totally agree with Elizaphanian.  This country could build a new and highly redundant long-distance electrical system to handle the electricity generated from thousands of wind farms all across this country.  It might take 10 years to build this network but it could be done.  And there is always wind blowing somewhere in this country or on the coast.  Utilzing this new grid on top of the existing power grid, I think we could provide a fairly constant and substantial power supply for this country.  This would then lead to a substantial reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels.
It could be done- at vast, huge, uncomprehensible cost to the public and industry, and only after vandalising most of the remaining countryside with windfarms.

I remember reading that you need 8 MW of wind to replace 1 MW of coal/nuclear baseload because of the intermittency. At this ratio, to replace a single 1GW nuclear station you would need 3 or 4 thousand monster turbines at a cost of many tens of billions of pounds, not to mention vast quantities of steel and concrete, an army of installers and maintainers, and a legal team to shut down objections from angry country dwellers.

So much for sustainable, and thats just replacing a single power station!

The ratio is closer to 3.5 to 4 MW wind to 1 MW if pumped storage is used.

"Vandalize the countryside".  Yes, some people's aesthetics will be sacrificed, others will come to like them (particularly with time).  Some Icelanders oppose planting trees, even though Iceland was covered with trees "from the sea to the mountains" before their ancestors cut them all down for sheep.  They prefer their environmental stripmine.  OTOH, the Dutch like and try to preserve their old windmills.

All in what you are used to !

A wind turbine can replace the energy used in it's manufacture in about a year or so, with 20+ more years to add to the economic surplus.

And I STRONGLY suspect that lawyers are a renewable and sustainable resource :-P

In Germany, we had all these discussions, too. In the beginning, wind power was sometimes built too close to houses, some made too much noise and some had the dreaded "disco effect". These problems are pretty much fixed now.

Newer wind energy converters now have up to 6 MW.

It makes a lot of sense to build wind parks offshore. First of all the wind is stronger there, it blows more steadily, and the wind energy convertes obviously don't vandalize the landscpae out there.

A lot of wind power has also been built next to highways and motorways recently.

Yeah, I used to see a bunch driving south from Mainz along the highway.  I thought they were actually pretty cool looking and not as ugly as many people say.
> obviously don't vandalize the landscape out there.

The "limousine liberals" of Cape Cod island Massachusetts strongly support renewable neergy, except when a proposed offshore wind farm might clutter their view of the ocean.

Computer simulations show very small images out at the horizon.

That's why in the North Sea, the wind parks are planned out of sight from the coast...

Obviously, the sea has to be quite flat for this to work.

We have already destroyed everyone's view with electric poles from coast to coast.  After that we added cell phone towers everywhere.  I don't see how we can complain about a few windmills.  Soon renewable energy will be all we have, like it or not.  It takes a lot of work and only provides a spit of energy for your trouble and it is all we will have.  
Actually, there is a problem now with the power lines. In order to connect all the wind power in the north, where not that many people live, to the urban centers, we need more power lines.

As always, there is NIMB attitude. Each small village demands underground cabling, but for a 380 kV line, that is exorbitantly expensive. As a result, it takes 10 years to build a new power line - the wind power is growing much faster.

The back of the envelope cost for Megawatt class Windmills is about $1 USD per Watt. (.54 GBP)

To replace a 1GW power station with Wind would cost roughly $8 Bn USD

Now I don't know if you've priced a new Nuclear Power plant lately, but a while back I Googled about to find out how much they cost. link

Nuclear power's biggest problems are economic: it is simply no longer competitive with other, newer forms of power generation. The final 20 U.S. reactors cost $3 to $4 billion to build, or some $3,000 to $4,000 per kilowatt of capacity. By contrast, new gas-fired combined cycle plants using the latest jet engine technology cost $400-$600 per kilowatt, and wind turbines are being installed at less than $1,000 per kilowatt.

In other words, Wind costs 1/4 to 1/3 per watt of installed nameplate capacity.

Let's assume you are correct, and that the real ratio is 8:1 to handle the baseline load. That mans that you need to spend twice as much on windmills as you do on a Nuke Plant.

Of course, it takes 7 to 10 years to complete a Nuke plant, and there is NO electricity for those years, and the interest on the loans to build the thing just keeps rising. Then once you have completed it, you need to fuel it, and we have only found about 50 years of good EROEI uranium, (At present use rates) and as the purity of the remaining ore goes down, the amount of fossil fuels to mine and refine it goes up. THEN, at the plant end of life, you have to decommission it and store the waste for several times longer than recorded human civilization.

With a wind farm, you can begin electricity production as you add towers, and they economically pay for themselves in less than a year. There is no ongoing fuel cost, minimal downtime for maintenance, and when they wear out you can re-use the tower (Which is a significant portion of the cost) with a new generator and blades. If you want to decommission one, you show up with a crane and take it away to melt it down to make a new ones.

The notion of thousands of windmills somehow seems to creep people out, but compared to the scars on the planet caused by our use of fossil fuels I'd choose them in a heartbeat. Besides, maybe if we saw them every day we'd be more aware of our energy use.

Maybe this is not widely known, but in Continental Europe, we already have an integrated power grid, UCTE.

The "Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity" (UCTE) is the association of transmission system operators in continental Europe, providing a reliable market base by efficient and secure electric "power highways".

50 years of joint activities laid the basis for a leading position in the world which the UCTE holds in terms of the quality of synchronous operation of interconnected power systems.

Through the networks of the UCTE, about 450 million people are supplied with electric energy; annual electricity consumption totals approx. 2300 TWh.

Only the UK, Scandinavia and the Baltic countries are not part of the grid, but there are links as well from Denmark, Germany and Poland to Sweden.

The international links are not very strong now, but the EU is working on expanding them.

In the future, offshore wind parks in the North Sea, the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, and Solar in Spain, Italy, southern  France could provide a very reliable energy source for Europe.

The UK can transfer electricity with France via a N Sea cable. Since our systems are not synchronised, they have massive convertors [a bit like the SMPS that runs your PC]
to convert 'Frog mains' to UK mains