I think the anti-nuke movement is more to blame; the accidents have not helped, and the political risk. This pre-dates the growth of wind. Also, nuke is a very large investment whereas anyone who owns a suitable field can go to their local bank for a wind turbine investment.
Can't see it myself given the sise it would have to be to handle massive gale waves.
Bet there is a reason that they don't currently using floating turbines.
Not so true of stuff that has been done for centuries now with floating stuff tho.
No it hasn't. They are still being built.
No it does not while ever new fuel continues to be cheaper.
But the question is whether it is more viable than the current approach with off shore turbines. While it might in theory be better with very off shore, that also has the problem of much longer cables and much bigger waves in the worst gales.
You don't need investors when the govt does the nukes.
It clearly hasn't in France, China, India, Russia, and now even the UK.
And it will be interesting to watch how europe reacts now that it has become very clear how risky it is to depend on russian gas.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required