Nuclear doesn't make financial sense in Europe either. The French taxpayer is forking over billions of euros to keep their reactors online, as is the German taxpayer. Finland's latest nuclear reactor had cost-overruns somewhere in the neighborhood of 350%

The only place on planet earth right now where nuclear might be financially sustainable is China, where highly skilled construction labor is very cheap, where they are building dozens of nuclear reactors in bulk, and where regulatory hurdles don't exist on account of their... administrative system.

But that is only my speculation. We don't have insight into their cost figures, and any data released by the CCP has probably been massaged.

Kepco release figures they claim are the costs (but probably not including cost of the loan or a bunch of other things).

They're also far lower capacity factor than the US (whether that's a symptom of lower reliability or of lower costs permitting curtailment is a different matter) and we know of at least two instances of cost cutting and forgery on safety critical parts.

Kepco is shutting down a lot of nuclear plants too. I think at least half are slated to be shut down permanently over the next few years

They're going with the netherlands/russian model of milking other countries' taxpayers now that the local well has run dry.

New nuclear plants don't make sense in western Europe either. Ask the French about Flamanville 3, or the British about the subsidies for those new plants they're trying to build.

Maybe it's closest to competitive in eastern Europe? Except the cheapest nuclear plants from Russia aren't going to be a thing now.

With its expansionist policy, would you really want a Russian-made nuclear plant on your grid? People were panicked about Huawei's networking gear snooping their traffic; a backdoored power plant is a nightmare.

Why are you implying that I would want that? Are you going to next ask if I've stopped beating my spouse?

Don't think that was implied. Seems to be agreeing with you.