Absolutely we need nukes. Lots of em. Renewables in today's forms will not supply the majority of US power needs.
However, wind has become an increasingly economically viable resource and there's no reason to not continue pursuing it. I'm in the wind industry and can vouch for the author's figures that good wind projects are now producing power on par with coal/gas.
Pursue, yes - subsidize, no.
Your statement is true, and has been true for a long time. It was true in 1975 when I was working for an electric utility. However, when we modeled it in terms of reliability, what reserves we needed in case the wind died, or didn't blow on a still January or July day (in Minnesota), we found that it did not relieve us of the cost to build coal or nukes. Since so much of electric generation is in the capital investment, the running cost of the windmills would have to be negative to pay off.
I'm sure that both capital and running costs per MW have improved for wind power, but the mismatch between when the wind blows and when the power is needed still generates the need for backup power sources, which double the capital investment. It's a hard problem and won't be solved by subsidizing wind-power generators. The subsidies will just encourage folks to work on the wrong end of the problem.