Darned if I can find the detailed break-down now, as I looked at the issue some time ago and a lot of my sources are now off line.
The problem is that you are shooting at a moving target, and unfortunately most of the costs are rapidly rising - this applies to nuclear as well as wind, although the inputs are rather different, as wind uses a lot more basic resources like steel but obviously not such sophisticated engineering, although the nacelle does involve precision engineering, and the equipment to install off-shore wind is certainly technologically advanced.
Here is the basic UK government report , but it is from 2006:
http://www.renewables-advisory-board.org.uk/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=13
Offshore Wind Cost Study (ODE Ltd) - RAB Forum
Here are some calculations I did at the time, and came out to a figure of around £45bn for 33GW nominal, which would come out to around £4bn for an actual MW
However, this was certainly, or at least is now, an under-estimate, and at one time a figure of £66bn was about, although that apparently did not include much of the needed connections, with some of the estimates to include connection being around £3bn/MW installed.
Since the Government report, Sterling has sunk by around 12% against many currencies for a start, and most of the costs are either in dollars or Euros.
I won't bother giving my links for the £99bn figure,a s most of them seem to be old now, and you have encouraged me to find a later figure:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_/ai_n25141277
This comes out to £80bn, so using the Government's 30% utilisation figure from the report I quoted that is £8 million MW actual average output - this is April though, and Sterling is lower now.

I think I would be happier to use this figure, so apologies if I overstated the case - I really am happy for offshore wind to be built, it is only the cost that puts me off, so I don't have an axe ot grind.
It should also be noted that wind has an excellent load-following characteristic for the UK, being around 2.5 times stronger in mid-winter when it is most needed, as opposed to mid-summer when it is not.
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden05-dtiwindreport.pdf
sinden05-dtiwindreport.pdf

Nuclear costs are also a it as long as a piece of string, as if you take the costs the Chines have been building Westinghouse reactors for then you come out with a very low figure, whereas the new Areva reactor in Finland was the first of a kind, and they had to train the Finnish workforce and so may be high compared to series production.
However, I will use the highest estimate I can find - please note that it explicitly stated in the wind estimate that this was a conservative figure, so I am giving wind every chance to compete:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilitie...
So you have £4.8bn for a 1.6GW plant, at a 90% capacity factor that is around £3.3 bn GW

Connection costs are far lower for nuclear, as they are mostly going to be built on existing sites, and anyway are not in the very remote locations of wind power.
Fuel costs are minor. Decomissioning is not included, or waste disposal, but OTOH my figures do not include maintenance in the case of off-shore wind, and that is going to be expensive.
The projected life-span of nuclear plants is at least 60 years, albeit with substantial refurbishment, whereas the wind build is going for 20years, although it should be noted that some of the foundations may be OK to put another rig atop.

It is easy to trip over decimal points, and go for a false precision, but from the figures we have come out at, £3.3million MW of average production for nuclear, and £8 million MW for off-shore wind, if we think in terms of at least double the cost for off-shore wind to nuclear we may be in the right ball-park.

Hope this helps - it was a good opportunity to update my figures.

BTW, you will see all sorts of costs per kwh quoted, high and low for both sources, and they are based on levelised costs.
Unfortunately, these figures are dependent on the assumptions fed into them, with interest rates being one critical factor, so unless you have full details of the assumptions and breakdown they are useless, and can be adjusted to taste by the people who compile them.

For renewables typically the quoted levelised cost will not include government subsidies.
Some of the figures for nuclear also may not include all the costs - I don't know I don't use levelised costs as they are too dodgy.

Another thing to watch out for is most of the quoted figures per MW in the press and from advocates for renewables do not allow for intermittency - rework my figures allowing 100% utilisation for wind and it is a bargain! :-)

EDIT: I just looked back at your comment - the figure of $1million per MW for nuclear is way too low- they might be able to get somewhere near that in China, in a few years with series production, but no-one can do anything like that now.