The Swedish government’s ambitious plan to revitalize nuclear power production through a comprehensive support system has sparked intense debate and criticism. The proposed system includes favorable state loans and a fixed electricity price, designed to guarantee profitability for new nuclear power plants. These measures aim to incentivize the construction of at least two new reactors by 2035, with further expansion planned until 2045. However, the plan has drawn sharp criticism from influential bodies like the Swedish Energy Agency, Svenska kraftnät (the national grid operator), and researchers at prominent technical universities.
A core criticism revolves around the government’s alleged failure to thoroughly examine alternatives to new nuclear power. Critics argue that a more robust analysis of the socio-economic consequences is necessary before the state commits to such a substantial and long-term investment in nuclear energy. They question the government’s seemingly singular focus on nuclear power, expressing concerns that other viable options for meeting future energy demands haven’t been adequately explored. This lack of comprehensive analysis raises questions about the overall effectiveness and prudence of the government’s approach.
Energy Minister Ebba Busch has dismissed these criticisms, characterizing them as ”misleading” and mere ”opinions.” She argues that no credible alternatives exist to the government’s proposed nuclear investment. This dismissive stance has further fueled the controversy, particularly given the weight and consensus of the critical voices. The Minister’s response has been interpreted by some as arrogant and indicative of a concerning unwillingness to consider expert perspectives. This has raised concerns about potential political bias influencing energy policy decisions.
The Green Party’s energy policy spokesperson, Linus Lakso, has called for a parliamentary review of Busch’s statements, alleging a breach of the constitutional requirement for ministerial objectivity. He argues that the Minister’s dismissiveness towards expert criticism poses a significant risk to Sweden’s energy transition. Lakso contends that the substantial costs and lengthy lead times associated with new nuclear power could hinder investment in other renewable energy sources, such as wind power, thereby delaying the overall shift to a sustainable energy system. The prioritization of nuclear power, he suggests, might create an uneven playing field, discouraging investment in other potentially viable and more rapidly deployable renewable energy technologies.
Tobias Andersson, chairman of the parliamentary Trade and Industry Committee representing the Sweden Democrats, has echoed the government’s defense, questioning the credibility of the critical expert agencies. He implies that these agencies, having been part of past energy policy decisions, are now biased against the proposed solutions. This line of argument further polarizes the debate, framing the criticism as stemming from entrenched interests rather than objective analysis.
The heart of the proposed support system involves substantial state-backed loans covering 75% of the construction costs for new reactors, with nuclear power companies responsible for the remaining 25%. This leverages the state’s ability to borrow at lower interest rates. The plan also includes a guaranteed electricity price of 80 öre per kilowatt-hour, effectively ensuring a baseline return for the power companies. If market prices fall below this level, the government would compensate the companies for the difference, funded by an electricity tax. Conversely, if market prices exceed the guaranteed price, the surplus would revert to the state. A risk-sharing mechanism is also incorporated, where loan interest rates and the guaranteed price can be adjusted based on the profitability of the new reactors. However, critics point out that the government’s focus on financing nuclear power excludes a comparative assessment of alternative energy solutions, raising concerns about the potential for misallocation of resources.
