This is a great debate by the way.
Wind turbines cost money to maintain, but they're cheap compared to building power plants, building oil rigs, building pipelines and all that stuff and then maintaining them. You can also spread out small wind farms all over the place. They need 10mph wind average areas to work, which are abundant. The location is a small problem but not what's keeping them down.
Aesthetics is the problem. People don't like the idea of having a community powered by wind, and selling the excess, because it might kind of ruin the view, but not really. I hate people sometimes.
Fission plants are costly, and disposal of nuclear wastes is also costly. My bet is on Fusion, it's going to kick every other energy source's ass. Fusion consumes a very very small amount of hydrogen isotopes, and boy does it generate a stuff ton of energy. The byproduct? Radioactive helium, it loses it's radioactivity after only 100 years. Radioactivity problem over.
The issue is the reactors suck at the moment and it's going to take another 70 years of research to perfect them. The amount of energy needed to get the fusion reaction going is astronomical, and then the reaction can't be maintained.
Edit: Also fusion is safer then fission
On wind - 2 main factors against it are truly aesthetics and reliability. A windmill doesn't provide power 100% of the time and by nature will vary tremendously. This variance puts a strain on the electrical grid as it constantly has to shift to maintain equilibrium. The maintenance costs of wind turbines outweighs the "cheap" cost to build them (not really cheap at all).
On Nuclear - The cost of building and operating a Fission plant is not that much greater than the building if any other power plant, it simply falls under tighter regulations. Their efficiency is quite high compared to the amount of energy extracted from fossil fuels on a mass basis.
I'd love to put all my hopes and dreams into fusion but I can't. We have already created fusion many times before, both in the laboratory and during war. There are at least 2 projects right now working on fusion. The problem with fusion isn't the radioactive bi-product (fissions is much worse any way) but rather the containment of the reaction.
You see, in order to maintain and contain the fusion reaction, you need powerful electromagnets. So far the energy gained from the fusion reactors we have is not enough to power it's own electromagnets, never mind anything else. Future advances in super-conductors may help but it is still a huge gap to cross.
There really isn't a winning combination or single technology for the world's energy needs. What we all need is a greater, more stable and reliable portfolio of energy sources with less environmental damage and greater sustainability. We also don't need to be too hasty. The E85 ethanol buzz is a great example of what can happen when you get too gung-ho about something and neglect to check the facts.
