(it's technically possible to use as a peaker by throwing away power, but costly enough that the idea is overwhelmingly stupid, so it is not suitable)
The only reason any country builds it is to provide economic support for the military industrial complex. The cost even when not using it as a peaker is truly staggering compared to alternatives.
This is, of course, a lie. https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12...
--- start quote ---
The minimum requirements for the manoeuvrability capabilities of modern reactors are defined by the utilities requirements that are based on the requirements of the grid operators. For example, according to the current version of the European Utilities Requirements (EUR) the NPP must at least be capable of daily load cycling operation between 50% and 100 % of its rated power Pr, with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% of Pr per minute.
--- end quote ---
As the chart on the same page (page 8) shows, a change from 800 MW to 1300 MW was routine operation for German reactors
Iran is one - they have very legitimate fears about a very particular country. They don't have a legitimate economic reason to build nuclear power, which is why America got very angry at them. America knew why they were building a PWR and weren't buying the "exclusively for peaceful civilian purposes" excuse.
But they're not the only ones. Sweden is another. They even used to have a nuclear program, in fact.
Poland is also one. Well, Poland wasn't so afraid of any geopolitical rivals 3 years ago. It has recently become afraid for... reasons. It has only recently developed an interest in building nuclear power even though it didn't suddenly get any cheaper. What a coincidence.
As I said before: the cost is very very high. It is staggering, in fact. If you don't have a good non-economic reason to build it you don't.
> Poland is also one. Well, Poland wasn't so afraid of any geopolitical rivals 3 years ago. It has recently become afraid for... reasons. It has only recently developed an interest in building nuclear power even though it didn't suddenly get any cheaper. What a coincidence.
I wonder if any raw materials that Poland was using for power generation have become more expensive in recent years because of internal or external sources. Oh look, they're mining out their cheap coal, and Russia is cutting off access to cheap gas.
> As I said before: the cost is very very high. It is staggering, in fact. If you don't have a good non-economic reason to build it you don't.
Switzerland recently spent more on a complex underground pumped water energy storage system than South Korea spent on its most recent nuclear power plant - and the South Korean plant has more raw production capacity than the Swiss system has just storage capacity.
Nuclear power is only prohibitively expensive in countries which have lost (or never had) nuclear production know-how. SK proves that very well, and Japan is not far off. Of course, nuclear plants are highly capital intensive. But they are extremely long lasting. But high-capacity long-term energy storage is also extremely capital-intensive, and is required to have a secure energy grid with a high percentage of renewables. Renewables are only extremely cheap if you look at a relatively small percentage for variable peak production. And they are also requiring a massive overhaul of power grid management, which is another cost that is rarely discussed.
Today nuclear power is one of the safest, together with solar and wind [1]. If we were to make coal power as safe as nuclear (including externalities), I wonder how much the difference would be.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
Tell me, what do you think those three countries have in common?
Russia, for example, built a lot of nuclear plants around the world as a way of exporting the supply chain and skills base they built up while building the world's largest stockpile of nukes.