Financing and risk sharing in investments in new nuclear power

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is now time to debate the Committee on Economic Affairs' report 20 Financing and risk sharing in investments in new nuclear power, in connection with the bill of the same name.

I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision and to reject the reservations.

What we are now going to debate and later today vote on is undoubtedly one of the biggest issues for the Committee on Industry and the Riksdag this parliamentary term. The policy will, through the House's decision today, lay the foundation for extensive investments in new nuclear power in Sweden.

In one case, it means enabling large-scale, predictable base load power, which, given a technical lifespan of around 80 years, will generate electricity and power even after everyone who has made the decision today has died. This is worth stopping and reflecting upon. I belong to the younger members in the chamber, and even though I have just turned 29, not even I will be alive when the nuclear reactors we are now clearing the stage for are taken out of operation.

The ambition, as is well known, is to have new nuclear power plants connected to the grid by 2035 which can then, without any problems, produce the very prerequisite for our industry, our prosperity, and our welfare for at least 60 years, but more likely for several decades thereafter.

Mr. Speaker! It is not often that the Chamber makes decisions whose consequences are so long-lasting. Against this background, there has been an ambition among the Tidö parties to try to ensure as broad political support as possible for this long-lasting reform. A number of energy policy discussions have taken place between the Riksdag's eight parties with an open-hearted ambition to try to reach as much consensus as possible. But despite the decision's longevity and the large investments and commitments for the public that it involves, the opposition parties have only been able to agree in their opposition to nuclear power. Consequently, we have not succeeded in gaining support for the bill among the Riksdag's opposition parties.

Let us return to the role of nuclear power. When previous generations expanded the Swedish electricity system through hydropower and nuclear power, they knew very well what they were doing. They planned and created the world's best electricity system, which was stable, cheap, and clean. Despite the rigorous planning and the clear ambitions at that time, they could probably not know in advance that this, in turn, would create the conditions for Sweden to become an industrial country of absolute world-class. Since then, however, the prosperity that could be created thanks to nuclear power and hydropower has generated room for criticism and subsequently dismantling.

Mr. Speaker! Everyone is familiar with psychologist Maslow's famous hierarchy of needs. Simplified, it is about the fact that we have different needs, and depending on whether we have succeeded in fulfilling the most basic needs or not, we can move upwards in the pyramid.

Thanks to hydropower and nuclear power, Sweden ended up at the top of the pyramid in terms of electricity supply and industrial conditions. There is room for digressions of a more self-actualizing nature when one is at the top of the needs pyramid, and with large volumes of regulating power and base load, Sweden could afford some weather-dependent power production. It surely felt good for those who made the decisions and carried out the investments. Initially, however, it was precisely an expression of self-actualization. Building wind power when there is plenty of regulating power in the system does not constitute a stress test of the system. The problem arises when the proportion of weather-dependent power production increases at the expense of regulating power and base load.

Mr. Speaker! Do not misunderstand me; I am no categorical opponent of any kind of power. I can, however, state that there are certain types of power that are dependent on others to be able to exist and produce, while at the same time there are other types of power that can stand on their own feet without any trouble – hence the reference to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It is easy to demand or advocate for weather-dependent power when there is base and regulatory power. The problem is that when one is at the top of the hierarchy of needs, one forgets the basic needs because they have already been satisfied and are then set aside.

That was exactly what happened in Sweden. The systemic benefits that nuclear power guaranteed began to be taken for granted, whereby decision-makers and investors forgot that the self-actualizing weather-dependent power production was unable to stand on its own. As a result, it was expanded while the policy shut down nuclear power.

Now, the same politicians who decommissioned nuclear power and who, through electricity certificates, financed foreign venture capitalists' exploitation of the Swedish environment and nature through loss-making wind farms, are the Tidö parties to create the conditions for nuclear power. Despite their history in the energy policy area, they today have the nerve to claim that policy steers the market significantly by allowing nuclear power to deliver the capabilities into the system that are needed and demanded and which for far too long have been sidelined.

There is a business saying that goes "acquire, inherit, ruin" and which actually refers to the rise and fall of family businesses. The first generation acquires the company, the second generation inherits the same and tries to run it further, and the third generation ruins it because it has been raised by the generation that inherited the company and thus lacks drive. Convenience paralyzes. It is exactly the same tendency we have seen in Sweden's electricity system. Now that the Tidö parties are in the acquisition phase, those who ruined it want to be involved and question. I don't give much for that, Mr. Speaker.

Since I am being a bit rambling and philosophical, I can also afford to share a quote by G Michael Hopf, which in Swedish translation reads: "Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men and weak men create hard times."

Sweden's electricity system is in bad times because of the weak politicians who made the bad decisions – if we are now to choose to interpret the quote literally and place it in the energy policy debate.

These cycles repeat, however, and that is why we today make decisions that create good times. It is now that we acquire and build prosperity for future generations.

Mr. Speaker! The question remains as to how we do this in concrete terms. Let me therefore proceed to that. Today, the Chamber decides on a risk- and profit-sharing model for primarily state loans and two-way difference contracts. In this way, we support both the construction and the operation of the nuclear power plants being built within the framework of this support package.

I will try to explain and simplify what this means. The state will enter into agreements with the companies that receive support. In such an agreement, risks and profits will be distributed in a well-balanced way between the state, the policy, and the companies.

The support will be regulated by conditions in the agreement which are designed with regard to the state's risk, the state's ability to protect its rights and the state's need for control and follow-up.

The state support primarily consists of the state providing a share of the borrowed capital needed until the reactor is put into routine operation. Upon routine operation, the two-way difference contract comes into effect, and a redemption price is therefore established in the agreement. This implies a sound risk-sharing and profit-sharing with a maximum cap for the compensation per calendar year.

Mr. Speaker! Now I have tried to explain what the financing model consists of. I believe that there will still be some questions and claims in the debate about how much it might cost, why there are no figures in the bill, and so on. It is so simple that there will be a state aid assessment against the Commission when the agreements are concluded. The respective parameter values in each transaction will need to be negotiated between the companies that are to build and the state, as well as to some extent the EU Commission.

In the debate, people throw around figures in a district that will never become relevant, given that we have a limit of 5,000 megawatts, which determines how much the state can step in and share the risk.

What is significant on this historic day is that politics is once again taking responsibility for the system, setting requirements for what capabilities the power output shall generate into the system, and creating conditions for investments in nuclear power plants that will stand and produce electricity long after I and everyone else who votes in the chamber today have passed away. This in itself – how long-lasting these decisions are and what conditions they create – I think is worth emphasizing.

In this speech, Josef Fransson (SD), Mats Green (M), and Camilla Brodin (KD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thought I would start by asking a question to Tobias Andersson: What is he going to use all the electricity for that will be the result of the investments in nuclear power that he now claims are being made possible?

We who think that the electricity system should be improved have an idea of how we are to manage the climate transition, how we are to have a new industrialization, and how we are to electrify our transport sector. Tobias Andersson and his party usually mostly throw grit into that machinery or pursue a policy that goes in precisely the opposite direction. Why one should make such large investments when one has that fundamental view on Sweden, Sweden's prosperity, and what we shall live on in the future, I really wonder.

As Tobias Andersson pointed out in his speech, it is reasonable to ask questions about how much things and items cost or are allowed to cost. Now it becomes a major issue that the bill is adopted, and then one should be able to answer questions about how many hundreds of billions one, two, three, or four reactors cost.

In the investigation that forms the basis for the bill, there are ideas about guaranteeing a minimum price of 80 öre. That is very low compared to other countries that have that type of subsidy for nuclear power; there, it might be 1 krona or 1.10, 1.20 or 1.30. Is there any limit where Tobias Andersson thinks it becomes too expensive?

The final question is linked to what the member said about the limitation in the legislation of 5,000 megawatts, but in which paragraph in the legal text does it stand? There are vague descriptions about this, but there is no concrete limitation or any ceiling for how much nuclear power can be expected to receive support from the Tidö parties.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Fredrik Olovsson, for all the questions! We have sat in energy policy talks and had the opportunity to handle these questions on a number of occasions, but I can take the opportunity to address them here in the chamber instead.

What will the electricity be used for? Well, above all, to compensate for the system that your party has destroyed. If the Social Democrats had not shut down Barsebäck 1 and 2, which Göran Persson writes and boasts about in his memoirs, and if the Social Democrats had not subsequently, together with the Green Party, shut down the four nuclear power plants that are shut down today, we would probably not have needed to stand here today from a political standpoint and handle this bill. The simple answer is, therefore, that the electricity and the power will be used to save the system that the Social Democrats, accompanied by the Green Party, have destroyed.

With this said: We will also be able to invest much more in southern Sweden because it is likely where the reactors will end up since there is a significant power problem there. What I primarily envision is that existing industry will expand instead of moving out of the country. The major dividing line is that the Social Democrats would rather invest in high-risk projects in northern Sweden than in creating conditions for industrial development in southern Sweden.

Regarding the second question, the investigation touches upon how large a portion of the risk the state can take. There, it goes up to 600 billion in the more expansive scenario for the debt financing part. It is also worth reinforcing in this chamber that it is a loan intended to be paid back. It is therefore not a cost. In the debate, people throw around somewhat carelessly that it will cost the state hundreds of billions, even though the fundamental basis is actually that the loan is to be paid back, with interest as well.

Regarding the megawatt limit, there is a political dividing line here. For Fredrik Olovsson, it is incredibly important exactly what ceiling we set for how much nuclear power is built, while for me, it is rather about us creating the conditions for the power that we need.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that in a country like Sweden, which has the largest or perhaps second largest electricity surplus in the entire EU, it is not insignificant to know what all the new electricity will be used for. We are already large net exporters. We also belong to the countries that have the absolutely lowest electricity prices. This applies to the whole country, even though we think they are too high in the southern parts.

The nuclear power that is coming now will likely be more expensive. That is why the price must be guaranteed. The investigation says 80 öre, but in reality, it might end up a bit higher. Tobias Andersson is welcome to say where he thinks the limit is. Is it 1.10, 1.20, 1.50 or 1.70? Those are the types of levels that occur in other countries that invest in this type of power.

Tobias Andersson took up the Swedish electricity system in his speech, which was often expanded by Social Democrats. Both hydropower and nuclear power were built, but then also wind power. This was preceded by rigorous investigations, proper planning, and a clear and good implementation.

Now we stand here and discuss the issue, but Tobias Andersson cannot answer what it costs or how much it should be. He also cannot answer any of the other questions I asked. Does it really indicate that you have come so far in the process, Tobias Andersson, that one can say it is responsible to proceed?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the additional questions from Fredrik Olovsson. I will try to meet him halfway and answer them all. I would nevertheless like to state that we have sat four times at the ministry with experts from the ministry, the investigators and so on. The opportunities for the Socialdemokrater to get answers to the questions they have saved for the chamber have been many, but I will nevertheless try to address them.

First and foremost, we absolutely have an export of electricity. It is electricity that we could have used through industrial development in southern Sweden if there had been capacity. That is somewhere where the problem lies. I do not believe that we would have exported as much electricity as we do today from southern Sweden to Denmark and Germany if we had had enough capacity to be able to balance the system in southern Sweden. Then, I believe, we would have expanded production there instead and utilized this electricity. It is this that nuclear power will enable.

The Sweden Democrats fundamentally believe that energy self-sufficiency is positive. The more we can increase the degree of self-sufficiency, the better. To some extent, electrification will occur, but it needs to happen at a pace that we can manage the transition.

Regarding the CFD levels, I can only state that the 80-öre level that the investigator proposes is the lowest in the world, not for nuclear power but for all types of power. There is no offshore wind farm anywhere in the world, as far as I know, that is below 1 krona per kilowatt-hour in CFD fee.

The alternatives are therefore definitely more expensive, and this I think is perhaps the most important point. Rather, we can, regardless of whether it ends up at 70 or 90 öre, state that offshore wind is significantly more expensive in all the CFDs that are available on the market in any country.

I must thank the Social Democrats for contributing to the expansion of the electricity system. It was a pity that it then had to be demolished after a while.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by saying that Tobias Andersson and I have sat on the same committee since he entered the Riksdag. I just want to praise his way of presiding over the Committee on Industry since he took over. There has been nothing of the sort that has disturbed this debate.

There is, of course, an ongoing discussion about what the bill looks like. There is something in it that I want to hear the Sweden Democrats' view on. The Member of Parliament himself was suggesting that he will have a one with a lock and ground source heating when these are taken out of operation. They will be in operation as long as that. At the same time, it says: "The loans will be repaid within the expected period of operation."

Is there any hint of what the government's view on this is? How long will these loans be allowed to be loans? Is it until the member themselves has a house with a lock and ground source heating, and when does that time occur? Is there really any deadline for when they should be paid off? I will start with that question.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question from Birger Lahti.

When it comes to what the actual intention is in this case, it is to be able to guarantee from the state's side that one can borrow the capital needed for the construction. The cost of capital constitutes a large majority of the costs to build new nuclear power. If we can share the risk and lower interest rates, it reduces the capital cost and the total cost, and it generates lower electricity prices.

In the models that will be negotiated, some will be the risk and profit-sharing mechanics, which are touched upon in the investigation, also for the loan. There should therefore be incentives to move from a certain share of state loans to increasing the share of commercial loans. We can also regulate this with the interest levels over time, so I see it as unlikely that the state loan responsibility taken early in such a project remains until the power plant is taken out of operation 80–90 years later.

I believe it is more likely that through the agreement with the specific partner, there is a profit-sharing mechanism based on the partner transitioning to commercial loans over time. Furthermore, we know that the absolutely most stable and cheapest power production is a paid-off nuclear power plant, so it is naturally also in the investors' interest to reach that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! I will now move on to a bit of the laws of physics to get this in place if it is to become a reality.

All examples from newly built reactors in the world today show that the minimum time from when an application is submitted is approaching 20 years. It is somewhere around 19 years. In Finland's example, the reactor was delayed by 14 years.

Is the government's assessment that Sweden could manage this within the timeframe that has been set? In that case, if it works, one becomes a world professional in building nuclear power.

Another question: Many countries have now, and I think it is honorable, taken a stand against the Russians' uranium. Do the Sweden Democrats and Tobias Andersson have the impression that the Russians' export of uranium has decreased since the sanctions were imposed? I have the impression that it has not decreased by a single kilo. It ends up somewhere in the world, and I want to assert that that export benefits the Russians today. It is bought somewhere else, because the uranium from Russia is the cheapest in the world. How do the Sweden Democrats view the problem regarding uranium when one is to operate future reactors?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am fully aware of the risks associated with large-scale infrastructure investments. Whether it concerns a road, electricity or energy infrastructure, or whether it concerns large-scale industrial establishment, there are great risks with that type of enormous project. We are talking about thousands of people who are to be in the right place at the right time and tightening the right nut at the right moment for this to happen in the way that is intended. I am fully aware of those risks.

I have also taken the time to visit all the Western countries that have recently built large-scale nuclear power. I have been in South Korea at KHNP. I have been in the USA at Westinghouse. I have been in Finland and looked at EFTS. I have been in the United Arab Emirates and looked at how they have built there under South Korean leadership and so on. The projects differ, and the risks differ. The pandemic absolutely did not facilitate the supply chains and so on in these projects; it was, for example, Westinghouse's problem in the USA.

What I believe is important is that Vattenfall and the politicians look at which supplier links these actors bring with them, what competence they have, what the value chains look like, and who handles the construction, whether they have previous experience of large-scale projects, and so on. These will be important factors in the decisions that are made in this. Then we can reduce the risks, as Birger Lahti is pointing out.

When it comes to uranium, the Sweden Democrats are the first party to state that we should never have banned uranium mining in Sweden. I am against Russian uranium. I am glad that we can buy Canadian or Kazakh uranium instead. But we also need to extract uranium in Sweden.

I know that several of us were at a seminar this morning with three different mining companies that are present in Sweden and which are interested in extracting uranium in Sweden, which unfortunately the Social Democrats with support from others prohibited during previous terms.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Tobias Andersson!

I actually had a similar question as Fredrik Olovsson, but I noted that he did not receive an answer. The question is: What do the Sverigedemokraterna want to do with 300 terawatt-hours of fossil-free electricity?

The whole basic idea of producing more fossil-free is, at least as I see it, to phase out fossil energy. But that is what the Sweden Democrats are obviously uninterested in doing. Tobias Andersson and the Sweden Democrats are clear that they want to brake and tear up the climate policy both in Sweden and in the EU. The Sweden Democrats' fossil-clutching has led to increased dependence on fossil energy, and they have created very great uncertainty regarding the entire green transition.

I noted the obvious schadenfreude of Tobias Andersson's colleague here in the chamber when Northvolt went bankrupt. Another colleague proudly asserted that they want to stop support for green transition in northern Sweden. Tobias Andersson repeated this here.

It is quite strange that one wants to subsidize the production of large amounts of extremely expensive electricity but does not want a transition from the fossil to the fossil-free. Tobias Andersson is welcome to answer a bit more closely on the question of what type of use one wants to see.

We already have a large surplus, so replacing previous production that has fallen below the age limit is not relevant. If that is the answer, one has no grasp of Sweden's energy balance. We have a large surplus, but at the same time, we have a large dependence on fossil energy. What does Tobias Andersson want to use the electricity for?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question from Linus Lakso.

I can start by repeating what I said in the exchange with Fredrik Olovsson on this theme: A large part of it is that we must protect the system that has become so neglected. We have the highest power shortage in Europe in SE4.

It is clear that we need to have more predictable power production to enable industrial establishments in southern Sweden. They cannot take place due to the power shortage, despite the electricity export from SE4. I think it is an important fact to establish.

When we talk about 300 terawatt-hours, we do so against the background of the analyses that exist from both authorities, industry organizations, and others, who have sketched out what needs exist over time from different industries. I have no reason to have my own analysis of the total electricity demand when there are those who ask existing industry how much it needs to have in 5, 10, 15 years and so on, and when the authorities sit and sketch out this. I believe they have a better basis than what I and Linus Lakso have. Against that background, I think it is reasonable that we try to meet them and ensure the conditions for that type of large-scale power production in Sweden until the years that are specified.

It is also possible to turn the question around, Mr. Speaker. Now I am receiving questions about that we want a lot of fossil-free electricity, what it should be used for, and whether we want something that in turn runs on fossil-free electricity. It is possible to turn the question around. When Linus Lakso and others push for the green transition at a pace that I think is too fast and which creates problems, one wants to do it without an electricity system that keeps up.

We have no own solutions for how we, without more regulatory power and base power in the system, can ensure the expansion of so-called green industry that Miljöpartiet would like to see. Somewhere it will become a challenge, and it is very possible that the green transition fails precisely because of the lack of a functioning electricity system.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Tobias Andersson, for the answer!

I can state that at least the industry I am speaking with has a consistent view that it is absolutely crucial that we stick to the climate goals for this to happen. But the Sweden Democrats do not want that, so that falls on its own absurdity.

We must stand firm on the climate goals and ensure that we can support that development so that this consumption can actually take place, because it is based on the fact that we reach the climate goals. Otherwise, we will not need that electricity. The reasoning does not hold up there.

We have also seen the result: Many investments have been stopped under this government. Uniper stopped the investment in green aviation fuel in Långsele, Flagship One stopped an investment in green shipping fuel in Örnsköldsvik, and for example, Volvo and LKAB have pushed back their plans for transition. The green transition is failing alarmingly under this government – and certainly much because of the Sverigedemokraterna.

I can partially begin to answer the questions that Tobias Andersson asked. We do not have a power shortage, but we have a production deficit in SE4. In that case, we need more production. I note that Tobias Andersson's answer is that one has to wait approximately 20 years for new nuclear power.

Miljöpartiet has, on the contrary, proposed what we call green base power – which the Sverigedemokraterna are now starting to copy, but with their own words. It is about gas turbines, it is about higher output from combined heat and power and hydropower, it is about more batteries in the system and it is about demand flexibility that can be achieved by controlling heat pumps and electric vehicle charging and so on.

This can be done quickly. It works here and now. It is also something that Skåne actually requests via its efficiency commission, which is furthermore led by a Moderate politician.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the questions and the answers from Linus Lakso!

I can only state that all serious actors see nuclear power as an enabler to even be able to get anywhere near the climate goals. It is somewhere there that I cannot reconcile the logic from the Green Party's side. They want there to be amounts of electricity for various green projects – not least for pure energy destruction by moving from electricity to hydrogen and perhaps back to electricity again. Then you lose 70 percent or something of the energy value.

There is no serious actor who believes that we can manage to become energy self-sufficient, something I otherwise support. I think it is positive if Sweden can increase its degree of self-sufficiency linked to energy. It means electrification of transport and industries and moving away from certain fossil power sources.

I see this as a valuable step from a self-sufficiency perspective and from a total defense perspective – not because I believe it saves the climate and the world. We can land on roughly the same thing, but from different starting points. This needs to happen at a pace that the industry and ordinary people can manage.

Nuclear power is an enabler for reaching the climate goals that Miljöpartiet holds so dear. But despite that, everything is being done to shut down, dismantle, and stop investments in nuclear power.

Mr. Speaker! There is no green base power. This is a made-up expression that people throw around. There are gas turbines that can be run on natural gas, biogas, and hydrogen, but there is no biogas and hydrogen to run them to the extent we need. It is natural gas. There is nothing green about it. Let us not try to sugarcoat the whole thing.

The type of production and the type of power supplement we need in southern Sweden is spelled gas turbines. But they will not be run on biogas and hydrogen for a good while. Either Linus Lakso knows this and pretends he doesn't, or he is not aware of it. It is okay for me as long as the gas turbines are put in place and we feed them, we run them, and we solve the system deficiencies that exist. But it will not be green baseload power, Mr. Speaker.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Like Birger Lahti, I want to begin by praising Tobias Andersson for highlighting the long-term perspective and how long we will have to live with the decisions we are now making in the Riksdag.

From Tobias Andersson's perspective, maybe it is something good. I am a bit more skeptical given the costs it also entails. I do, however, think it is worth pointing out so that everyone who listens to the debate or views it afterwards also realizes how terribly long time perspectives we are talking about.

I thought I would narrow the time perspective slightly. Today, a report from Energiforsk was released stating that the only thing that can meet the demand for electricity from industry until 2035 is land-based wind and solar power. This is therefore not just my conclusion, but Energiforsk has had four independent research groups look at these challenges.

When one listens to Tobias Andersson in the speaker's chair, however, it sounds as if no new wind or any new solar is to be built. How are we then to meet the needs in the industry until 2035? That is my first question.

The problem that Tobias Andersson has here is that the message is clear, if one listens to the energy companies and the industry: If we do not expand wind and solar now, there will also be no need for any nuclear power later.

How are we actually going to solve the problems in the short term? We won't have any new nuclear power in place in the next 10 years and probably not in the next 15 either.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin for the question!

If I start by stating what the Sweden Democrats want to do to meet the short-term need, it is absolutely not either a short-term or a long-term solution to add more weather-dependent power into our electricity system. We already have challenges. We have enormous costs linked to transmission. We have a power shortage, and we have an imbalance in our electricity system. To believe that it will be solved with sun or wind is naive. It should be enough to look at Spain to learn from the risks of such an action.

I know what volumes of weather-dependent power the Centre Party wants to inject into the Swedish electricity system. Had this occurred through a large expansion of primarily solar, the inertia would have taken a significant hit and the challenges for our electricity system would have been definitive.

What the Sweden Democrats want to do in the short term is primarily about increasing the output of hydropower. It is something the Centre Party says it wants to have, but it will be interesting to see how far the Centre Party is ready to go to simplify the permit processes and other things that regulate and limit hydropower today.

Through new turbines, we can increase the power output of both large-scale and small-scale hydropower. Through pumped power, we can ensure that the system is utilized even more efficiently. Through an expansion of dams, we can refill our water reservoirs further without making interventions in new rivers. This also applies to gas turbines – among other things through the already announced support programs and perhaps also other things. For example, a test project is being carried out in Rickard Nordin's constituency with Göteborgs Energi and Svenska kraftnät to enable this – together with better conditions for power and district heating.

Then we can get a power increase, and we can get increased electricity production. We can also ensure the capacities that the system currently has too few of, not least in terms of reserve power, to handle the weather-dependent electricity production.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Tobias Andersson is guilty here of the problem of not being able to distinguish between energy and power. When it comes to power specifically, I believe that Tobias Andersson and I are in complete agreement. It is indeed great if we can increase the power of hydropower and expand for pumped power and other things. Power and district heating are incredibly important.

When it comes to this, we in the Center Party have also presented a strategy where we demonstrate what potential exists. We could, therefore, by the year 2035, meet as much power demand as the government together with the Sweden Democrats are trying to do with this new nuclear power in approximately half the time and at a quarter of the costs.

The problem when the government presents proposals today is that it does so unilaterally against nuclear power. They are unable to look at the other alternatives and present proposals for those as well. Had the same conditions been provided for hydropower and power from district heating as the government now wants to give to nuclear power, this would have been in place.

This is the problem. One stares oneself blind on one side. The thing is also that it is not I who is saying this. It is four independent research groups that say that we need to meet the energy needs with more wind and with more solar.

I wonder what evidence Tobias Andersson relies on when he says that it is not needed and is also not appropriate. Which research groups has he spoken with? Which industry has he spoken with? Which energy sector has he spoken with? Everyone says the same thing, namely that if there is to be any point with nuclear power in the long run, we need wind and solar now. Otherwise, the need is not there. Then the companies that are to use the energy have moved.

I have two summarizing questions. What evidence is Tobias Andersson leaning on? The government has not investigated anything other than nuclear power.

Furthermore, we have the question of power increases in hydropower. On that, we are in complete agreement. If there is anyone who has pushed that issue in the Riksdag, it is the Center Party. If we need hydropower and power from district heating, why are they not given the chance to contribute in the same way as nuclear power is given the chance?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin again for the questions.

I note that the opposition is attempting to debate against a deliberate straw man. It is said that a "cream layer" (preferential treatment) is now coming for nuclear power. Why do we not handle all the other types of power in the same way?

Mr. Speaker! For goodness' sake! Let's do it. Let's introduce an application fee to state authorities of 100 million. That is exactly how it is for nuclear power. If you want to build a nuclear reactor, regardless of how many already exist on the site or the size, you need to pay 100 million to SSM. Then there is a review fee of approximately 100 million per year. That in itself constitutes 1 billion in costs for state oversight just from the review, not the licensing process, not the appeal, not the court processes. You pay 1 billion as an actor to the state to build nuclear power.

Set a 100 million application fee for a wind farm and see what gets built, Rickard Nordin. We guarantee the power output equally, or we can handle them equally based on what capacities they generate to the system. That is where we do not meet. We state that we need the capacities that nuclear power can deliver, and we know that offshore wind power cannot deliver the same capacity. We do not need to investigate that.

I do not need to listen to anyone who runs a solar power company, or a wind power company, because they will never be able to convince me that offshore wind power can generate the same system benefits as nuclear power – or for that matter, that solar power can do so. It does not need to be investigated.

Regarding the so-called independent voices in the matter, I consider SVT's segment on Sunday to be a good example of how independently one can present people who are obvious parties in the case and who for decades have been wrong on the facts in the area. We can now see that those who have ruined our electricity system have opinions on how we save the same, but I do not care much about this opinion.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The energy system is fundamental to our modern societies. It is central to how countries develop, how jobs are created, and how welfare and prosperity are secured. To step by step push out the fossil emissions from the energy mix is also important to strengthen our independence and our competitiveness so that we can do our part of the transition.

Sweden has for a long time been able to take pride in the fact that we have practically had a completely fossil-free electricity system. But in both the industrial sector and the transport system, we still use a lot of fossil energy. Taking new steps in electrification away from fossil imports is therefore important for Sweden. Therefore, more fossil-free electricity production was also needed.

In that part, we Social Democrats agree and have a common view with the government. The electricity system needs to grow significantly during the coming years. The electricity surplus that exists today is not sufficient if the transport sector electrifies and if the industry transitions. It is definitely not sufficient if we are to take advantage of Sweden's great and favorable conditions for new industrialization, large investments for new jobs, increased growth, and thus also greater prosperity.

A prerequisite for this to be successful is that the prices are competitive and that the system costs are low. Households must be able to afford to pay their bill, and companies must become competitive on global markets.

More electricity is good, but cheap electricity is a prerequisite for there to be as great a demand as we fundamentally want. Electricity in a more distant future is of course also good, but more electricity in the coming years is necessary for the industry to have the opportunity to drive in their piles properly. One must invest here, and households must feel security that the transition is good for them too.

Since the government is presenting a policy that ignores the need for cheaper electricity more quickly, we see risks with that policy. Like a long line of referral bodies, we see a policy that unilaterally provides large support and subsidies to one type of power, and it risks undermining all the investments in cheaper electricity production and in cost-effective solutions that can be implemented in the coming years. It is therefore not just us saying so, but it is the general picture also from those who want to see new nuclear power.

If you change the conditions on a market so radically, it simply has consequences. We are already seeing the result of the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas policy. It has resulted in a standstill in new investment decisions for energy production. This does not only mean that the electricity surplus will shrink moving forward and, in the long run, also increase our need for imports, but above all, it puts a damper on the companies that want to invest in electrification and in new activities, those who want to grow and develop in our country.

Sweden thus risks wasting an opportunity for low electricity prices and thereby for development and new industrialization. The government's path thus entails real problems and risks. At the same time, models, including models for state support, which assume that capabilities in competition can receive support between different suppliers and types of power, have been easily dismissed. A more technology-neutral and socio-economically efficient model would simply give Sweden more electricity faster. Swedish households would get lower electricity prices, and the competitiveness of companies would be strengthened.

Mr. Speaker! The bill that is now before the Riksdag also does not answer central questions that many people are asking today. What will new nuclear power cost in terms of investments and in ongoing costs in the form of guaranteed prices for the electricity that is to be produced? These are long-term perspectives, as before. It may be a question of CFDs that are to apply for 40 years in operations that are to run for 80 years.

The bill also does not answer who is to pay, that is, how nuclear power is actually to be financed. For us, a yes-vote to the bill today would be like buying a pig in a poke or writing a blank check to the government. We will, of course, not do that. We want to see a more balanced energy policy that clearly clarifies the conditions for investments in all types of power that now need to grow, not least those that can be established faster than nuclear power and that can deliver cheap electricity.

When we speak of risks for other power sources, we are also actually speaking about existing nuclear power. Nuclear power will play an important role in the Swedish electricity system for a long time to come. Power upgrades and life extensions of today's reactors are the first things that should be ensured. The government's investigators point out that it could amount to one-tenth of the costs of building new and that it would be socio-economically profitable. But if new nuclear power receives extensive support, those investments also risk being omitted. It would undoubtedly be an irony of fate if expensive nuclear power subsidies were to penalize cheap existing nuclear power production.

The same actually also applies to other investments, for example that which was spoken about earlier, namely upgrading our hydropower. Here, reports point out that there is potential to add new power by 2035 that corresponds to approximately one nuclear reactor. But the risk exists that this will not happen if other production receives large subsidies.

We Social Democrats have also, in the preparation of this matter, pointed out that this type of law should also set caps on how extensive the support can become. The Government entered the mandate period with ideas that ten new reactors would be built. In this bill, it is written in several places that it might be about approximately half. But in the law, there is no limitation at all. It is an obvious risk if one still wants to signal that there is a cap that can make it possible for other types of power to fit in.

Since the economic consequences for both taxpayers and electricity customers can be significant with this model, we would, of course, want to have decisive influence and insight regarding the agreements that are proposed to be signed in the future between the state and the project companies. We believe that a cross-bloc agreement on energy policy would be particularly important to create legitimacy. That there is no such agreement is a democratic deficit, if the government chooses to proceed unilaterally.

It should also be said that the lack of breadth and long-term perspective is also an obstacle to investments in new power production happening at all. Stable conditions over time are important for these types of extensive and long-term investments.

This framework law does not mean that new nuclear power is being built. We actually question whether it is needed at all. It is rather a budget decision, contract signing, and then of course all the permit processes, solutions to insurance issues, final disposal issues, and all the other issues that will be decisive for it.

Thus, there is also fundamentally a possibility for continued joint work to find broad agreements moving forward. They shall be broader both in terms of the parliamentary basis, simply more parties in this chamber, and in terms of other types of power and parts of the electricity and energy system.

In our motion, we propose an energy preparation that, over the coming parliamentary terms, ensures that the political work of developing and building our electricity system is kept together in a broad political cooperation. It would be good for Sweden, Mr. Speaker.

We naturally stand behind all Social Democratic reservations in this report, but I move for approval only to number 1 and number 7.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said in the previous energy debate, it would have been much easier and much better for Sweden if it had only been about my sensible colleague Fredrik Olovsson. The problem is Fredrik Olovsson's far-reaching party. But I shall speak more about that later.

There is actually a question that I think the Social Democrats are completely avoiding. The analysis from the Tidö parties, the expert agencies, and the business community is that Sweden's greatest challenge is to ensure predictable electricity production in southern Sweden. Our proposal is known. We invest in proven nuclear power and 5,000 megawatts in our starting program.

The Social Democrats now seem to agree with the analysis that stable electricity production is needed even in southern Sweden. But then the Social Democrats should also have their own solution to that problem. It is also criticized here and now that there are only estimates of, but not exactly to the penny, what new nuclear power costs.

My obvious question to the Social Democrats becomes, of course: Can Fredrik Olovsson explain how one is to ensure planned electricity production of 5,000 megawatts in southern Sweden, and above all, how much it will cost?

Since the member is requesting exact assessments regarding new nuclear power, I request very exact assessments of what the Social Democratic proposal for more predictable electricity production in southern Sweden will cost and also what it will consist of.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would say the same about Mats Green. I certainly think that he is a good representative for his party.

The authorities that Mats Green refers to, as well as the researchers and the business community, all say the same thing: that we cannot wait 15–20 years to solve the problems seen in the shorter term. We cannot wait that long to rectify this and to obtain stable conditions for investing in new activities and new energy production. It is ultimately that which will be needed, regardless of how one views nuclear power further in the future.

The defense from Mats Green's Moderaterna and the other Tidö parties cannot be that it is impossible to do anything during a decade or two without us having to endure the situation we have today. That is not true. It is possible to do things. Some have already been raised in the debate here. Others are included in our motions on the energy area. It is about gas turbines, which preferably should be driven by biogas of course. It is about combined heat and power, it is about battery storage and it is about power electronics, which allow us to expand our electricity system and do so in a cost-effective way.

In this bill, there should of course be a solid basis from the government pointing to just that type of alternative solutions. It is part of the preparation that should be done. But here it stands in very general terms and without any real basis that this is the path to be taken, even though we know that it undermines other forces.

We have also already seen that the line that has been pursued during these nearly three years has resulted in a complete standstill in new investment decisions for energy. It is a problem that means that plans are now being postponed because one is not sure that one can invest in and develop one's business in Sweden.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! We do not get a single answer as to what it would cost, not even between the thumb and forefinger. It is deeply dishonest. Exact figures are demanded regarding nuclear power, which, moreover, exists. It is also the government and the Riksdag that will subsequently make decisions on the exact pennies. But one cannot even account for a single cost for the alternative that one claims to have. That says quite a lot.

Furthermore, there is no zero alternative. There is no alternative to nuclear power that costs zero kronor.

Fredrik Olovsson says that we cannot wait. No, that is exactly the point. We cannot wait for the Social Democrats to stop agonizing over nuclear power, as you have done for 50 years. LO says that we cannot wait. IF Metall says that we cannot wait. Svenskt Näringsliv says that we cannot wait. That is why we are kicking off the decision on new nuclear power today.

That is also why, in the short and medium term, we have stopped your punitive taxation of combined heat and power, which you wanted to tax away. We have paused your decommissioning of hydropower. We have also kicked off Kraftlyftet, which is about getting predictable and stable electricity production where it is needed most, namely in Skåne, the rest of electricity area 4 and Västra Götaland.

We are doing a lot of things in both the short and medium term. But we cannot forget the important long term. It is very good that you are now embracing the power sources that you did everything to force away during your eight years in government. You shut down nuclear power, you taxed away combined heat and power, and you tore out hydropower.

Again: What will your alternatives cost? State it for those listening to this debate, Fredrik Olovsson!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Mats Green is very pleased with the fantastic development that follows from the Tidö parties' policy. I could, however, report that we receive many reports that new energy production in Sweden is being abruptly halted. New investment decisions are not being made, and quarter after quarter during this period, people simply do not order new turbines, for example. It is a major problem. We have an electricity surplus. And we have old decisions that will be implemented. But that is all that will come now. It is a failing grade for the Tidö government's policy.

Furthermore, it is not only I who is saying that our path forward is cheaper. Everyone else says it too. There are many different scenario analyses. There is much about what the authorities say needs to be done and what will be cost-effective. Those were precisely the things I brought up. I believe that the government understands that it is such measures that need to be made and that it will be cheaper than the path that is being taken now.

Furthermore, we, who have not put large subsidies for one power source on the table, do not have the same need to give large subsidies to all others. In a functioning market, very much of that would happen anyway. But if one puts up so incredibly much money for one power source, it undermines all other investments. They simply will not be able to sustain themselves in the long run when they have to compete with a doped nuclear power. That is the background. Therefore, the queue to the Ministry of Finance and Mats Green with people and power sources who want support will become very long. And it will become expensive.

The focus should be on building the most cost-effective and stable electricity system that we may need in the future, and ensuring that it is socio-economically profitable. This is more about carrying out something that was agreed upon in the Tidö Agreement than actually achieving a truly competitive energy system for Sweden.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Fredrik Olovsson for his speech, which clarifies a bit where the Social Democrats stand on this issue.

I noted that the member was in Agenda on Sunday and gave a clear message to the Swedish people: We are reaching an agreement on nuclear power. We have the same view on what challenges there are and on the conditions for a competitive electricity system.

Nevertheless, the Social Democrats, at least as I perceive it, will vote against the committee's proposal today. With that in mind, I believe that one needs to find some form of way forward. I truly appreciate all the conversations we have between all parties to get Sweden's electricity system in order.

Yesterday we could hear our Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch, also my party leader, say that Sweden will host an international nuclear power conference in October. It is a golden opportunity to stimulate the willingness to invest in Sweden.

My question to Fredrik Olovsson is: Will the Social Democrats hinder nuclear power investments in the future?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Obstruct investments in the future? What we are talking about here is whether the state should provide extensive investments in a certain type of power. Since 2016, we have been broadly in agreement in the Riksdag that it is possible to also invest in new nuclear power. With the agreement that Moderates, Christian Democrats, Centre Party, Social Democrats, and Green Party then entered into, it was made possible to build up to ten reactors. That is, four more that can be built in Sweden. None of these parties had an interest in stopping that, nor did our party.

What it is about now is how much public support one should receive for a certain type of power. There, we are very skeptical. We fundamentally do not think that this type of support policy is particularly good. But if this is still to be put on the table, one must look at how all types of power will be given the opportunity to develop. The large bag of money that is now wanted to be given to a certain type of power will mean that there will be no investment in the other types of power, because the uncertainty will become so great. In the worst case, the companies that were supposed to have the nuclear power will not even exist when it finally comes to fruition in 15 or 20 years. The question is really how we now ensure that we get investments in all the energy production that we need during the coming years. Otherwise, Camilla Brodin's nuclear power will not be needed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Fredrik Olovsson for this answer.

There is some concern about what will happen in the future. My greatest concern is perhaps not how much it will cost going forward, but rather that it will cost an enormous amount for Swedish households and Swedish companies if we do not ensure that we have an electricity system that works. Here we need to make wise investments over time. There is also an international race for more nuclear power, and today we show – a majority in this chamber – that we are in that race.

I nevertheless choose to think I hear a bit between the lines that nuclear power will be part of the whole moving forward even for the Social Democrats, that it is details we are debating and that we agree on an electricity system that will be robust and secure in its delivery. But it is a bit sad that the Social Democrats cannot agree that the details we make decisions on today constitute an investment for the future for Swedish households and Swedish companies. It is about being able to rely on Sweden.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if I agree with Camilla Brodin that it is about details. It is about enormously large subsidies to a certain type of power, which risks undermining everything else. It is about hundreds of billions of kronor in support for I don't know how many reactors – it remains to be seen. It will be a cost for decades, perhaps until I am 100 or 104 years old, if I live that long. Tobias Andersson also reflected on those questions.

One should account for 80 öre according to the investigation, but in reality, it might be 1.10, 1.20, 1.30 or 1.40 in guaranteed prices for just this electricity production. We do not really know where the limits are. Unfortunately, we have not received some of those details from Camilla Brodin. If we had received them, it would not really have been the same thing. Then I would not have been able to say that one is buying a pig in a poke and that one is giving carte blanche to the government – a blank check to write out. Then we would have known, but today we know nothing. This is a deficiency if one wants to be clear, both if one wants investments in nuclear power and perhaps above all if one wants to ensure that the power system can be developed during the 10, 15 or 20 years when we will not have new nuclear power in place, even with the most optimistic assessments that Camilla Brodin can make.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Government has presented a framework for the financing of new nuclear power. The decision will be made later today. It will affect Sweden until the next turn of the century and beyond, as my committee colleague Tobias Andersson has noted. It is a necessary decision, because the decisions we make today determine whether Sweden in 20 years will be a country of high prosperity heading towards a bright future.

The decision today does not, however, only mean an investment in new nuclear power. It is a clear shift in direction. We will take a large step from the ideological to the functional power system. It is a return to the foundation that made Sweden's power system the best in the world, where society's needs and not wishful thinking dictate how the power system shall be designed.

Mr. Speaker! We shall invest in nuclear power, because its capabilities meet society's needs, which the alternatives are unable to do with today's technology. Nuclear power is not a solution one is forced into, but it is the best we have today to provide a good base production where hydropower is not available.

Of the other power sources, there is nothing that can replace nuclear power. Biomass power is fantastic and should be strengthened, but it cannot be scaled up to replace nuclear power. We can do better things with our forests than burn them. Solar power produces during completely the wrong time of the year. The volatility of wind power must always be compensated for with something else, and the negative consequences for neighbors make it sometimes difficult to place wind turbines where the need is greatest.

All these power sources contribute to an optimized power system, which I want to be very clear about. But it is not possible to use them as a base in an industrial country. For it to work, one must take enormous risks and rely on technologies that only exist on a lab scale or political regulations that deindustrialize countries – the latter is something Sweden, as a prominent industrial country, should not do.

When one speaks very non-specifically about batteries and storage as a solution, I can state that neither the technology nor the capacity exists. Svenska kraftnät states that it is completely unrealistic over a period of several decades to have large-scale long-term energy storage. What is meant when one speaks non-specifically about flexibility, energy efficiency, and smart grids is – to put it bluntly – electricity rationing. It is not a viable path if Sweden is to continue to be an industrial and welfare country, especially not if we are to be a fossil-free industrial and welfare country.

I have one thing to say. The different power types are, therefore, there for the power system, for industry and households, and not the other way around. It is not the power system, households and industry that should have to adapt to the power types, but the power types that should exist for society's need for electricity. The power system is not a charity organization for the power types. The power system also cannot simply be surrendered to power types that only produce electricity when they feel like it.

To unilaterally rule out nuclear power and focus solely on the alternative solutions is dangerous. Several have noted this during the past week. Denmark is in the process of abandoning a nuclear power ban that has been in place since 1985. Belgium revoked its decommissioning decision last week and will now invest in new nuclear power, and on Monday, Germany announced that it will stop opposing nuclear power in the EU.

The opposition has for a long time had a one-sided focus on only the weather-dependent power outputs. The problems have become so obvious that even they have realized that electricity is needed during calm, dark winter months. In that situation, the natural thought should be to turn towards the well-tested nuclear power that has given us stable, clean and cheap electricity for over 50 years, but no. The hatred of, and the obsession with, nuclear power is great.

Despite countless examples from the rest of the world – particularly Germany, which has a power system from hell, where they are almost driving their industry into bankruptcy – the opposition here chooses a dangerous policy that makes Swedes poorer and less secure.

Mr. Speaker! We within the Tidösamarbetet dare to admit that new nuclear power costs. So does all vital infrastructure that is to stand longer than until the turn of the century. But it does not stand against a free zero alternative, which none of the opposition parties actually dare to tell the voters and those who are sitting and listening here today.

In their experimental electricity system, hundreds of billions are to be plowed into extra power grids, and billion-dollar subsidies to weather-dependent power types that are to be built into every node. In addition to that, reserve power is to be built, which also obviously must be subsidized.

Again: There is no alternative to nuclear power financing that is a free zero-alternative. One is not honest with people if one claims that is the case.

Mr. Speaker! The greatest cost for the Swedes is not to build nuclear power. The greatest cost is not to build it. Then we must remember that our proposal on risk sharing is not money straight into the actors' pockets, like the electricity certificates for wind power. Risk sharing for nuclear power is therefore loans, which shall be paid back with interest.

We shall build new nuclear power because it provides the best power system. A system with nuclear power as the base provides the best overall effects. It gives the lowest carbon dioxide emissions. It takes up the least amount of land and requires the smallest amount of critical minerals. Nuclear power is what every environmentalist should fight for.

The reactors can be placed near the customers and deliver when needed, and they can be easily scaled both up and down. The electricity price becomes low and the volatility minimal. It lowers the costs for support services and also reduces the need for enormous power grids. That is what society needs. Clean, stable electricity when every household needs it and where every industry wants it.

Dear Social Democrats, and my sensible committee colleague Fredrik Olovsson! There are several sensible Social Democrats in the Committee on Industry, let me be very clear. You have agonized over nuclear power for 50 years now. The question is not about the money or the need. The alternatives are significantly more expensive and do not solve the problems, and the need for nuclear power is obvious. You Social Democrats know it.

The problem is that you have campaigned against nuclear power for 45 years and furthermore handed over your energy policy to the Green Party and the Center Party, who actually have electricity rationing as a core idea. You have already admitted that we were right and copied our policy regarding the justice system and migration.

I implore: Take responsibility for Sweden now, and release the rationing radicals on the fringes. Stand up for Swedish industry, Swedish welfare and Swedish jobs and give them the fundamental power they need. Copy the society-building energy policy.

Mr. Speaker! Four years and two months – that was how long it took to build Oskarshamn 3. In 13 years, twelve reactors were built in Sweden, and two were delivered to Finland. No one could build nuclear power as efficiently as Sweden did during the 80s, and no one has been able to build as efficiently since then. Unfortunately, we no longer have that capability. The fantastic nuclear power industry we had was not welcome by our four opposition parties on the left.

Through thought bans, stop laws, forced shutdowns, withdrawn research funds, and politically aborted projects, attempts have been made to strangle the Swedish nuclear power industry. Investors have learned: Building a nuclear power plant in Sweden is risky. At any time, the opposition parties may want to shut it down.

Mr. Speaker! Let me conclude by saying why this bill on nuclear power financing was needed. The industry must be able to be confident that the state ensures the basic infrastructure and does not try to torpedo it at regular intervals. We are now ensuring this.

New nuclear power shall be built for today's and tomorrow's Swedes. Every household and company shall have access to electricity – around the clock, all year round, and throughout the entire country. Sweden needs, in principle, freely flowing, fossil-free, cheap electricity. There are, Mr. Speaker, no rich low-energy countries.

With that, I move for approval of the proposal on state risk-sharing for new nuclear power.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M), Josef Fransson (SD) and Camilla Brodin (KD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! That we are not being told what it will cost has become quite clear so far in the debate. What I wonder is: Who is going to pay? If you look at the investigation's proposal, all electricity users are to participate and share the cost. But in the government's bill, that information is missing.

It matters regardless of how much one imagines it will become. The government's calculations are something of "feel-good" calculations. We are going to build faster than anyone else, at a cheaper price than anyone else, with an electricity price that is already higher than anyone else has projected, and so on.

But that does not answer the question: Who is going to pay? Who is going to pay the nuclear power tax that the government wants to introduce and which will remain for decades to come? Who is actually paying, Mats Green?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, it is the Swedish population that has had to pay for the Center Party's major obsession over the last 50 years, to phase out Sweden's nuclear power. Now it is about restoring the playing field.

Who is it that pays? Naturally, we are the ones who will then become the big winners in this. Furthermore, it is the government and the Riksdag that decide on the total cost to build up the nuclear power that gave us the world's cleanest energy system and the cheapest electricity prices, and ensure that this also applies in the future.

I still have to ask the question to the Centre Party, who only talk about costs. What is the cost of your proposed solution, and "solution" in quotation marks? Half of that solution is actually about electricity rationing. You call it energy efficiency.

More than half of the electricity you want is about consuming less electricity. That is what makes companies, primarily in southern Sweden, say: We cannot continue our operations. Rickard Nordin stands here and claims that his alternative is completely free. Again: If one claims that, one is misleading the voters quite grossly. The Swedish people have now had to pay the cost for the shut down Swedish climate-smart nuclear power.

This is, therefore, not a grant straight into the pockets of the actors, as the support for wind power was. These are loans that are to be paid back with interest. That is the big difference.

I repeat: What does your proposed solution cost, Rickard Nordin?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost: Between 2009 and 2019, the Moderaterna and Centerpartiet had the same energy policy. It was the Alliance's energy agreement, which then led further to another energy agreement that the Moderaterna eventually left. That is the truth if we are talking about what energy policy we have had.

If we talk about what the costs for our proposal are, we can solve the same problem as the government with the help of hydropower and combined heat and power. It costs a quarter of the price, and it can be done in half the time. The energy efficiency that Mats Green talks about as electricity rationing is profitable. It is not about someone doing less of something or consuming less electricity, because one does not need to use more electricity.

Mats Green wants us to burn money; that is what he says. We are to waste things, he means. We will not have worse comfort indoors. Industry will not do less. One simply uses better windows, additional insulation, better RPM counters in engines and other things. The Energy Agency has calculated this and furthermore said that it is profitable.

The problem that Mats Green has is that he does not answer the question. I asked: Who is going to pay? Among other things, it concerns the loans that are issued. They need to be paid back by someone, and the companies do that. But they do it with the revenue they receive from the tax that Mats Green and his friends are going to introduce. We therefore have Moderates who, in a government position, are prepared to introduce a tax that is to remain for decades. But Mats Green cannot answer who is going to pay the tax.

It is a very simple question that everyone listening to the debate has the right to have answered. Who is to pay the government's nuclear power tax? It is the one who in turn pays the companies to build the reactors. Is it such a difficult question to answer? One wants to introduce a tax, but one cannot say who is to pay it.

You get another chance, Mats Green: Who is going to pay the government's nuclear power tax?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! There is no nuclear power tax at all. There is no proposal to introduce any nuclear power tax. The nuclear power tax that existed, the Center Party wanted to multiply many times over in order to drive nuclear power out of Sweden.

This shall, of course, be paid in exactly the same way as all other state expenditures we have, with the difference that this shall be paid back with interest. Again: These are not grants straight into the pockets of actors, as the old electricity certificates were. These are loans that shall be paid back to Sweden's taxpayers with interest.

I think it is very good that C now embraces combined heat and power, which is apparently supposed to solve everything, even though they wanted to tax away combined heat and power during previous terms and burdened it with one penalty tax after another.

Now you also advocate for hydropower, and that is very good. But your colleagues in Miljöpartiet, Socialdemokraterna, and Vänsterpartiet want to dismantle as much hydropower as they possibly can. Miljöpartiet is investing even more money in accelerating the removal rate in southern Sweden, where hydropower is needed most. You have no proposals regarding new base load in Sweden.

I have now answered Rickard Nordin's questions, and I need to ask the question again: What is the opportunity cost for your proposed solution, where half is based on households and companies consuming less electricity?

We saw how this went during the beginning of the energy crisis, when families turned off certain rooms and certain companies went bankrupt. Did it have any effect on consumption? Answer: no. The solution to Sweden's problems is not electricity rationing. Part of the solution is new, climate-smart, cheap, and freely flowing base load. Nuclear power is a large part of that answer.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mats Green, for the speech, which raised some questions!

I agree that energy policy should be society-building. That is essentially the whole idea. It naturally plays a huge role for our society how the electricity and energy systems are designed.

An important thing to keep in mind in this work is, of course, that it is an efficient, cheap, and competitive system. To achieve this in a modern world, several forces are needed. We shall use a mix of measures that ensure we bring down the prices for consumers and companies so that they become as low as possible. Then, as a consumer, one gets a small electricity bill to pay and more money left over for other things, and as a business owner, one can ensure that they can compete on the world market. In that case, one needs more than just nuclear power and hydropower; one needs to invest in many other things as well.

One thing that plays a major role is, of course, the grid investments that need to be made and which Mats Green brought up. There are quite aggressive expansion plans for the electricity grid. When one listens to Mats Green, it sounds as if one can now withdraw all of these. Now Svenska kraftnät and the regional grid owners can simply scrap the plans they have. I wonder if that is really Mats Green's view, because it sounded as if nuclear power would replace those investments.

It is also strange that the issue of energy efficiency is described in the way that Mats Green does. We have come a long way by making both our energy consumption and our electricity consumption more efficient. It is an effective way to make things cheaper. The Energy Agency says that every seventh kilowatt-hour is socio-economically profitable to save. It also creates space for those companies that want to invest and develop their operations in the short term before new power can be put in place. Why so defensive?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thought the main accusation today was that we in the Moderates and our colleagues are too offensive. But now, it seems, we are too defensive.

First and foremost: Surely no one is against energy efficiency! We have energy efficiency in Sweden. The market has achieved it, and technology has achieved it. Combined heat and power is a large part of this, but you wanted to tax it away. The problem arises when one tries to do this through political means, because it results in electricity rationing if one is to force companies and families to cut down on their electricity consumption.

Nuclear power is not the solution to everything; we have never said that. But let us remember that only during the time that has passed so far during our government's tenure, we have brought more weather-dependent power into the system, 6,000 megawatts, than our entire start-up program for nuclear power.

When it comes to the discussion regarding the grid, part of the problem is that our fantastic ancestors built a perfect power system where, in southern Sweden, there were a few large sites that pumped massive amounts of electricity into the entire system. If one is to have masses of small sites across all of Sweden, it will naturally require enormous grid expansions, and I am very skeptical of that.

It is clear that the networks will need to be expanded. But what is most socio-economically and environmentally justifiable is, naturally, to start from the large connection points we have – the large sites where there is already a connection to the main grid.

I need to repeat my question because I did not receive a single answer from Fredrik Olovsson earlier. What is your opportunity cost? Are you claiming here that your "proposal" for a solution to Sweden's electricity challenge costs zero kronor and is free? I know that Fredrik Olovsson does not claim this, because he knows that it costs enormous sums – significantly more than our start program for nuclear power.

What is your calculation of what your alternative, or the absence of an alternative from you, will cost? There is no free zero-alternative to nuclear power financing, my friends. Whoever claims that is misleading us.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is naturally extremely difficult to compare systems when the government, in its bill, does not state what the proposal to be voted through actually entails in terms of costs. It is not apparent either when it comes to the investment or when it comes to the level of the CFD contracts, the guaranteed minimum prices that are to be paid to the reactor owners over several decades.

In that sense, it is not possible to compare, because you have not presented any such proposal. It should be clear in the bill if you had weighed these things against each other. It is a deficiency in the preparation.

I want to return to another question that I raised in my speech. These subsidies admittedly affect other types of power, but I also want to highlight the profitability of the existing nuclear power when you provide large subsidies to the new. Here you write very broadly that the risk of competing against oneself is small. But there are other, independent reports that point to the opposite.

Mats Green rarely expresses any warm feelings for other power sources, but I think that the existing nuclear power must still be very close to his heart. The love for the reactors should surely make him worried at least a little bit. It would be, as said, a twist of fate if large subsidies for new nuclear power were to compete out cheap, paid-off, old nuclear power and perhaps above all the life extension and power increase that could be made on very profitable socio-economic terms. Or does Mats Green imagine that that too should receive large subsidies in the future?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! Fredrik Olovsson says that I should only hug nuclear power. I believe that those who are completely obsessed with nuclear power and only talk nuclear power are, on the one hand, the wind power companies, and on the other hand, the red-green opposition.

Fredrik Olovsson knows that I love hydropower. I also love combined heat and power, because I know how good it is. And sure, I have a fairly positive feeling even for nuclear power because I love Sweden. We are a welfare state and will hopefully be able to be a successful industrial country even in the future.

That this would knock out existing nuclear power is an argument that I have never even heard anyone put forward in all seriousness. I actually do not see any risk of that at all.

Sometimes it is argued in the debate from Fredrik Olovsson and his party's side that this risks knocking out wind power and solar power. In that case, I can only state: The only thing that knocks out investments in solar power is more solar power, and the only thing that knocks out investments in wind power is more wind power – this is because one then cannibalizes one's own profit margins. This applies particularly during the summer half-year, if one produces massively with electricity when it is needed the least, so to speak.

We are investing in all types of power. We have improved things for both wind power and solar power. We ensure that the municipalities receive the property tax for wind power, for example, and we look at how one can compensate neighbors for the consequences of wind power.

When it comes to nuclear power, it is about restoring the playing field because you shut down six of twelve fully functioning climate-smart reactors. That is why we need to do this, because nuclear power specifically has been singled out as the most loathsome of all types of power. That is why we need to do a restart of nuclear power for the sake of the environment, for growth, and for the Swedish welfare.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker and Member Mats Green! I will begin with what we absolutely agree on, so Mats Green does not need to feed it to me: There is no zero alternative to the system benefits that nuclear power delivers today. And if there is anyone who wants to build without support, it is not me, even if it were about nuclear power.

Mats Green represents a government party. Maybe we don't agree all the time, but the Moderaterna always safeguard market solutions. They work. They give the most bang for the buck. I was, of course, disturbed at the beginning by that Sweden has allowed a socially useful function such as electricity production and electricity distribution to become a market. I am very disturbed by, even though I myself benefit from it, that we have very cheap electricity in northern Sweden, also with negative prices, while the Smålanders and the Scanians mostly pay 8 kronor per kilowatt-hour. There is something sick in the system.

I want to ask the Moderaterna: Do the Moderaterna suddenly not believe in market solutions? Say that one were to go out and ask if anyone can deliver system services in 2035 that provide power balance – there is a lot of talk about power, but it is not many hours that there is a power deficit in price area 4 either. Do the Moderaterna suddenly not believe that someone would then step forward and say: For this price tag, we provide system services?

I believe it would be cheaper than what is being pushed through today.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! I like Birger Lahti very much. I usually say at Moderate annual meetings that state communism is underestimated, and everyone understands what I mean. For a good Moderate in general, and for me who nevertheless has certain conservative sympathies, it is clear that there are certain basic society-critical infrastructures where the public must always have a firm grip, even if it does not need to do everything.

I think I am as much of a market liberal as anyone. But can anyone show me any power system in the world that is built solely on a market basis? There is no such thing.

Again: We need to have a public grip and take responsibility for what the public sector has stepped in and shut down, above all nuclear power.

Then Birger Lahti speaks about system benefit. I also want to do that. That is my retort, I feel. We can be technology-neutral and power-source-neutral, and it would have been great if we could have reached an agreement with Vänsterpartiet that all power sources need to be treated equally. All power sources shall produce and deliver electricity around the clock, every day of the year, with the exception of revision, renovation, and operational maintenance. However, Vänsterpartiet absolutely does not want such an identical requirement on all power sources, because not all power sources are capable of delivering this.

I am prepared to say: We place the same requirements on all types of power generation to deliver around the clock, every day of the year. Why does Vänsterpartiet oppose that? Why does one only want types of power generation that only deliver electricity when they feel like it? That is not how you build a successful society, and in particular, not a successful industrial country, Mr. Speaker.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Mats Green for the answer.

I am convinced that we must have a system where the industry feels secure. I have met representatives for many heavy industries in northern Sweden who do not feel comfortable at all with what is happening. The electricity price risks being raised in a way that is not to their advantage for their plans for green transition. I do not know why Mats Green wants to make it appear as if we would not have understanding for it. It is clear that we cannot have a system where 50 hertz in the transmission grid would not work. It works today because there are technicians who make it work.

In Sweden, we also have hydropower, which we should be very happy about. There are countries that drool when they hear what it looks like in Sweden.

That we would be in a crisis in Sweden regarding the electricity system is not true. It is once again one of those lies that one tries to basely spin out time and again from the rostrum.

I actually received no answer from Mats Green to my question. I don't think Mats Green thinks that anyone would come forward if one went out and asked who could deliver system utility with power balance in price area 4 and sufficient production? Yes, we know that there are advantages to nuclear power, but doesn't Mats Green think that there would be someone who could deliver this if the question were asked? In five years, maybe someone will come and say: For this price tag, we do it.

From the government party's side, there is no price tag, just as many have pointed out. How much is this going to cost? It is still written in the stars how large the price tag will be for consumers and the state.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! All new power sources cost money at the beginning. Nuclear power does so because the risk with it is actually that Vänsterpartiet will come into government and shut it down together with colleagues in Centerpartiet, Miljöpartiet, and Socialdemokraterna. That is the risk there.

Of course, I have also met worried industrial leaders in the north. They are worried about the Left's budget proposal, where they put virtually their entire energy investment into increasing the transmission capacity from northern to southern Sweden. That is, of course, the last thing they want, as it would generate higher electricity prices. They are terrified of the Left's energy policy.

Again: Why can we not set the same technology-neutral and power-source-neutral requirements on all power sources? With the exception of revision and maintenance, you are to deliver electricity to Sweden's households and industries around the clock, every day of the year. Why should some be exempted from this?

It also cannot be that the base power – nuclear power, combined heat and power, and the fantastic hydropower, which you in Vänsterpartiet want to tear out – is only to exist to facilitate power types that only deliver electricity when they feel like it.

Mr. Speaker! That is not how we built a wealthy and successful Sweden. That is not how we will build a wealthy, successful, and fossil-free Sweden in the future. We need baseload power. This is not a post in the culture war between wind power and nuclear power, but it is technical facts and laws of nature. We need baseload power. Nuclear power is an indispensable part of the plannable baseload power. That is how it is.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I am not quite as impressed by Mats Green as a representative for his party as Fredrik Olovsson is. I think, however, that one should stick to the truth and not stand here and lie in the chamber.

There is no party that has proposed electricity rationing in Sweden. In my remarks, I usually try to clear up all the false claims that Mats Green makes up, but unfortunately, time usually runs out. I thought that we should talk a bit about costs instead.

Mats Green argues that other branches of the armed forces also cost money to build, and of course they do. But the interesting thing is what they cost – that is, how much. I don't know what one should compare them with. But it is a bit like if Mats Green were to attend a viewing of a luxury villa for 20 million and a viewing of a smaller residence for 2 million and think that both cost money, meaning he might as well strike at the 20-million-kronor villa. One gets a bit of a Lyxfällan feeling from Mats Green's reasoning. Perhaps it is "Daddy pays" politics that has crept in here.

Many independent analyses show that the difference between a system based on renewable energy with green baseload and one based on nuclear power is that the system with new nuclear power becomes radically much more expensive. The government wants, in this bill, that the difference should be paid with a penalty tax on Swedish electricity consumers. That is what Mats Green stands for and is trying to obscure and deny here in the chamber.

The guarantee price must be paid. It is highly likely there will be a difference between what new nuclear power costs and what the system price in Sweden will be. I want an answer to the question of who is to pay the penalty tax.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! I like houses with load-bearing pillars and load-bearing walls. When I buy a house, I do not want one that collapses as soon as it starts to blow. I do not think it is fun to live in a hole underground with a rammed earth floor. I want a robust house that is built on proven science. One knows that this works. One knows that this holds. Nuclear power is one of the load-bearing walls and one of the load-bearing pillars. We can also discuss building standards, and there I know what Miljöpartiet stands for. But when I look for a house, it is what I am prepared to pay for. I am not prepared to pay much more for a worse house.

This is not a punitive tax. If it were, then the electricity certificates in wind power would be a punitive tax, but no one claims that, because it is not true. These are loans that are to be repaid with interest, and unlike your electricity certificates, it is not money straight into the pockets of the actors.

Speaking of penalty taxes, Skåne in particular, but also my Småland and most of the rest of southern Sweden, are currently paying penalty taxes for an environmentally-partisan power system where there is only weather-dependent power, which results in volatile electricity prices that are mostly high. It is a completely unreliable system.

The system that Miljöpartiet wants does not exist anywhere in the world. Furthermore, it is completely incompatible with Sweden continuing to be this wealthy, successful, fossil-free industrial country. The power system that Miljöpartiet advocates for does not exist in the realm of imagination. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is a total farce. It is exactly the opposite. Mats Green stands here and argues against the Green Party and wants more controllable power. In his speech, he brought up Kraftlyftet, which is a direct copy of the Green Party's policy. What we had the year before was called Kraftsteget and contained exactly the same thing. Mats Green's government has therefore copied the Green Party's policy, because it actually works in reality. It is also exactly what the Skåne Impact Commission – which, moreover, is led by a party colleague of Mats Green – requests. It is about power that can come here and now, which is significantly cheaper than nuclear power and which can complement cheaper electricity from wind power and solar power. But that is what Mats Green stops.

I can take some voices from the right side regarding the government's extreme nuclear power subsidies. ”Stop billion-dollar subsidies to nuclear power,” write representatives for the Institute for Business Research and Timbro, calling the project ”planned economy.” PM Nilsson condemns the investment in new nuclear power in Sweden and says the price tag will be insanely large and that the timeline is completely unrealistic. Mikael Odenberg, former Moderate energy spokesperson, Minister for Defence and CEO of Svenska kraftnät, called the decision to stop 13 wind power projects in southern Sweden almost catastrophic and bordering on self-harming behavior.

This is a business policy and energy policy failure, and in terms of defense policy, it means nothing. What does Mats Green have to say about that?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! None of those Linus Lakso listed have anything against nuclear power. They all say that Sweden needs nuclear power. Then one must also remember that one of them sits on the board of a wind power company or works for a wind power company. Self-interest never lies. That is how it is.

Linus Lakso spoke about falsifications. But if wind power and solar power had been built quickly and cheaply, Skåne would have had Sweden's absolute lowest electricity prices, not Sweden's highest electricity prices. It is thus a direct and obvious error. Skåne's power commission absolutely does not say what Linus Lakso stands here and claims.

The Green Party is now talking about base load. That is very good. They denied the need for base load for 40 years, even though it is a technical fact, a law of nature. They say they want green base load. That is what we have wanted all along. They want hydropower and combined heat and power, they say – but they spent eight years in government positions dismantling hydropower. The Green Party allocates 50 million in its budget proposal to ensure that the dismantling of hydropower in southern Sweden, where it is needed most, proceeds significantly faster.

The Green Party [Miljöpartiet] penalized combined heat and power. They imposed a number of punitive taxes on combined heat and power, which made many plants economically unprofitable. Just a few weeks after we took power in 2022, we removed the combined heat and power-related punitive taxes. We put a stop to the decommissioning of Öresundsverket in Skåne. It returned to operation just a few weeks ago, exactly where it was needed most.

The power sources that the Green Party hated most – apart from nuclear power – that is to say hydropower and combined heat and power, they embrace the most now. I think that is very good. But I also believe that one needs to be honest with the historiography. We obviously need all base load, but nuclear power is indispensable and the largest part of a new, environmentally friendly, fossil-free base load for Sweden.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! I sent a text message to my wife this morning. In the text message, I wrote: Today I am going to have the most important debate I have had in the Riksdag during my time.

The debate concerns the financing and risk-sharing of investments in new nuclear power. I begin by stating the magnitude of the matter. If there is anything that can saddle future generations with debt or risk them having to pay the bill for something whose need is highly uncertain, it is new nuclear power.

That the government rushes a decision as if it were a matter of panic to get an agreement in place with someone who takes on the task of building and operating new nuclear power is so irresponsible that it is unparalleled. It is nothing less than nearly criminal to jeopardize gigantic investment sums where the bill falls on future generations and taxpayers. I cannot for the life of me understand this forcing when there is truly no reason for urgency in making this decision now.

We know that the development of wind and, above all, solar power is moving forward at a rapid pace. The prices for these types of production decrease every year. To, with a donkey's persistence, simply push ahead with a new nuclear power track, and at any price, is incomprehensible.

Mr. Speaker! I have by this time been involved in many debates about precisely the energy system and its future. Every time, criticism comes about how the Social Democrats shut down functioning nuclear power and how our electricity system has therefore become so bad that prices have skyrocketed and that everything is about to collapse.

I have said previously that I agree with what has been said about the two that were closed in Barsebäck. We even paid dearly for the first one. It is clear that those were political decisions. But I do not buy the claim that it was the same thing with the other four.

Therefore I ask: How can members of Parliament allow themselves to say whatever they want from this rostrum and get away with it?

Just take the power tax, or tax on thermal power as it is called when it comes to nuclear power. You cannot just point at the Social Democrats as the villains who taxed it. The Reinfeldt government increased the already high tax by an additional 24 percent in January 2008. Taste that, Moderates! Yes, it was increased further by an S-government in 2015, before it was lowered by 90 percent in 2017 by a government under the same leadership.

The cross-bloc agreement was completely abolished in 2018, and it happened under the same S-led government. It is seven years ago, my friends.

When one claims that everything that has happened with nuclear power can only be attributed to Social Democratic governments, it is therefore not true.

I have often said that as a politician, I am so honest that I am actually not a very good politician. Sometimes it is to my disadvantage that I am honest, and sometimes it can be to my advantage.

That the Moderates and the Christian Democrats dropped out of the previous energy agreement is actually just shameful. The criticism was about that they had written "renewable" instead of "fossil-free." This was supposed to have scared off investors for new nuclear power, and therefore these parties chose to drop out of the agreement. The Sweden Democrats and the Liberals were at least honest and had a reason why they did not join the agreement. It was in some way honorable and honest.

The reason why I and Vänsterpartiet could not join was a congress decision to phase out nuclear power quickly. And I had difficulty interpreting it in any way other than that such writings, for natural reasons, could not be included in the agreement. But today I could join writings that resemble those that were included then.

Let me return to all the mistakes that could be spelled "the Social Democrats." I too have plenty of criticism that could be attributed to S-led governments, Mr. Speaker. But if I ever do stand at the pearly gates and very likely end up in a dispute with Saint Peter, just as in the song by the troubadour Liikavaara-Frans from Gällivare, regarding which way I shall go, I want to be able to say proudly: Let it be the world it becomes for me. But if I risk ending up where I end up because of all lies or because I have been a hypocrite, that will be a discussion that I will manage with Saint Peter.

I will probably end up in the hotter part of other reasons, but that is of no consequence. Lying through life, in any case, will not be my reason.

Since 2018, nuclear power has had its taxes removed but has also received surcharges through requirements for independent hardening and the like. This has not exactly caused investors to flock to invest in this fantastic technology, which has essentially stood still for several decades. This is not something that can be used as a reason to point to a single government decision.

In an exchange with the Moderate member, I just pointed out that I can go as far as to say that the government should have calmed down a bit and reviewed what is available that could provide the same system benefits in just a few years. If a plan that works after 2035, with a robust electricity system, cannot then be presented, we could look at how much nuclear power the life-extended reactors can deliver.

We naturally agree with the government's view that, for both climate and competitive reasons, a substantial expansion of fossil-free electricity production in Sweden is necessary. However, we do not share the government's one-sided enthusiasm for nuclear power specifically as the answer to the challenges facing the power system and the electricity market.

It must be possible for the Riksdag to take a well-founded position on an investment in a specific type of production that is risky in several respects. In that case, the decision-making documents must be much more solid than those presented by the government in the bill.

A number of heavy referral bodies have, moreover, directed strong criticism at the consequences of the proposal. They argue that they are insufficiently clarified. This concerns, among other things, that it is not possible to know what the total costs will be, which has been raised in other exchanges of remarks. It is also not possible to know who will bear the costs of the tax increases that will be needed to finance parts of the proposal. In that case, we are, of course, talking about the guarantee amounts, not the investment amounts.

In our view, the scenarios presented by the government regarding how households may be affected rest on unrealistic assumptions concerning construction time, expected electricity prices, and several other parameters. Furthermore, there is a lack of such sensitivity analyses as a decent basis for decision-making should reasonably contain.

To this, I also want to add that the timeline for the expansion of nuclear power must be regarded as highly uncertain in light of the extensive delays that have affected various nuclear power projects around Europe. Those who have sought permits in the Western world are 19 years from start.

In addition to this, the bill provides no answers on how the market may be affected regarding either electricity prices, missed investments in other types of power, or the impact on electricity demand.

Mr. Speaker! We have proposed that the Riksdag should reject the bill. Regardless of whether the proposal gains traction or not, we believe that the Riksdag should urge the government to return with a more thoroughly elaborated impact assessment of the current bill. This analysis can then serve as a basis either for the proposed law to be scrapped, for a new bill, or to facilitate the assessment of the agreements that may potentially be signed with the support of the new law.

What feels strange is that when one tries to find substantiated facts showing why the government concludes that new nuclear power should now be built, one does not find these factual bases.

On April 26, 1,047 researchers wrote as follows: "That as those in power, ignoring research-based facts and dismissing scientific findings as 'opinions' undermines the foundation for a democratic and sustainable society."

The basis for the proposal that is now before the Riksdag has been questioned by almost all expert agencies. It is not reasonable to make a decision with such far-reaching consequences as the proposed law has, based on such a deficient basis. I have heard that some themselves realize that they will be buried. There is talk of the turn of the millennium or of a new century having begun.

That many might agree that my position could be called an opinion, including myself. I am a politician and a layman and must rely on researchers, science, expert agencies and so on, and from the overall picture form an opinion and arrive at a decision. But I at least have something to reassure my mind with when it comes to why I think this way. The question that must be asked of the government and the Sverigedemokraterna is: What reliable foundations do you base your opinion on? Is it perhaps the economists Henrekson and Sundén who are the factual basis?

Mr. Speaker! To clarify for all listeners: Sweden's population, Sweden's competitiveness and small businesses and heavy industry, which are important for our prosperity, deserve a more serious handling of our future when it comes to the energy supply. It is not serious that the parties governing Sweden, just because they have given promises that new nuclear power shall begin to be built during the mandate period, are prepared to sign agreements that guarantee the price of electricity from a power plant for decades, provide credit guarantees and take very large risks while research shows that this might not be needed.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally move for approval of our reservation 1 but also of reservation 5.

I also want to point out that I see it as a significant deficiency in the preparation of the matter that the Council on Legislation was not given the opportunity to review the bill. Against the background that the proposal may require that a new electricity tax be introduced and thus may affect individuals' economic circumstances, the Council on Legislation should have been given that opportunity.

The agreements negotiated between the government and the nuclear power company regarding this proposition winning support will contain the majority of the parameters that determine the outcome of the proposed law's application, not least when it concerns the impact on the state's financial commitments. Given the many uncertainties regarding costs and risks that still remain after the legislative matter has been processed by the Riksdag, I believe that it should be required that any agreements concluded with the support of the proposed law are also approved by the Riksdag.

Mr. Speaker! I know that I have exceeded the time. But as I began by saying, this is one of the most important debates. I am trying to persuade the Swedish people to see the risks. In doing so, I am not including my emotions – what I think about nuclear power – in the picture, but it is about the costs for future generations and for the Swedish people.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today is a historic day for Sweden. May 21, 2025, will go down in history as the day a new era for Swedish nuclear power began.

But before we throw ourselves into the future, I would like to ask that we take a quick look back. The year is 1954, and Sweden's first nuclear technology program begins. The Social Democrat Tage Erlander is Prime Minister. Quickly we move forward into the techno-optimistic 60s, and Sweden's first commercial nuclear reactor is inaugurated in Ågesta in 1964. The Social Democrat Tage Erlander is still Prime Minister.

During the 70s and 80s, a massive expansion of nuclear power takes place – a total of twelve reactors are built before 1985. Olof Palme and the Center Party's Thorbjörn Fälldin take turns holding the post of Prime Minister during this period. Despite the large expansion, a nuclear-technical skepticism now emerges, and a resistance to nuclear power arises. And so, the decommissioning also begins.

In the 1980 referendum, the choice is between three different alternatives regarding decommissioning. The Christian Democrats are not in the Riksdag at this time but support line 3: decommissioning within ten years and investment in other alternatives – thus, nuclear power's worst enemy.

We have since reconsidered our position, with sense and balance. We were critical of the decommissioning of Barsebäck and have consistently pushed the line that nuclear power cannot be phased out until equivalent alternatives are in place.

Then comes the fateful year 1999, when the first reactor in Barsebäck is decommissioned. After that, they fall one by one. Today, only six of twelve nuclear reactors remain – an expensive loss for Sweden. How could we end up here? Where are the concrete monsters when they are needed most?

You are aware of the contemporary history. The Christian Democrats, the Social Democrats, the Moderates, the Centre Party and the Green Party entered into the energy policy agreement in 2016. Nuclear power was to be allowed to remain, but in practice, the agreement implied a threat of its decommissioning. We also left the agreement.

One feels the wings of history – and now we stand here today.

Mr. Speaker! Today we are addressing the Committee on Industry's report on financing and risk-sharing for investments in new nuclear power. It is about creating an electricity system that allows us to meet both future needs and our climate goals – about moving from decommissioning to development.

Sweden has great ambitions for the climate. We are electrifying our industry and transport sector, and it will require much more electricity than we consume today. But it is not enough that the electricity we produce is fossil-free; it must be large-scale, stable, and predictable. There is currently only one fossil-free power source that meets that requirement, and that is nuclear power.

We have seen what happens when the power system becomes too weather-dependent – we can take Spain as an example. I landed on April 28 in a powerless Valencia. The power grid had collapsed, and 50 million people were affected. It meant no functioning payment systems and no refrigerators or freezers. Hospitals and airports were kept running with fossil fuel backup generators.

Thoughts turned to some kind of dystopian cyberattack like the one Spain was subjected to, but it turned out to be scarier than that. The outage was fundamentally due to deliberate, domestic energy policy decisions. According to the grid operator Ren and the first reports on the sequence of events, several strong oscillations in voltage and frequency occurred. Half an hour later, production fell off the grid, and blackouts in Spain and parts of Portugal, with ripple effects across the entire European grid, were a fact.

It sounds a bit as if the collapse was a bolt from the blue – it was forces beyond our control. The phenomenon may be unusual, but it is not the first time Spain's power grid has been subjected to such strains. Something similar happened in May 2022, and then they managed to save the system with only a 30-minute margin.

The problem here is not oscillations. The problem is how people have planned the power system. A power system needs to be able to handle all weather phenomena and operating conditions, and the weather-dependent power types do not quite have that characteristic yet.

Spain's energy minister would be right to look at Ukraine. Ukraine is a country at war, invaded by Russia, and yet the country's power grid remains. Ukraine's power system is based to 90 percent on base load: nuclear power, gas, coal and oil. And despite the ongoing war, the Ukrainian government has decided that 50 percent of the electricity shall come from fossil-free nuclear power in the future and 50 percent from renewables.

Ukraine shows that a robust, predictable power system is what withstands the toughest stresses. Ukraine has also understood that nuclear power is crucial for the climate transition.

Mr. Speaker! Today's electricity price situation is unsustainable. In southern Sweden, households and companies pay significantly more for electricity than is done in the north. We do not only have problems with high electricity prices, but they are also uneven and unpredictable. It hampers both household finances and the competitiveness of companies.

New nuclear power in the right place can reduce these price differences. Reliable power into the electricity grid benefits the whole country and creates security for both people and companies.

The report we are discussing today represents a financial framework that enables new investment in nuclear power. The market builds, but the state takes responsibility for the rules of the game – just as we have done regarding roads, railways, and electricity grids. Now we are doing it for an additional critical infrastructure, namely nuclear power.

I hope in the last instance that all parties in Sweden's Riksdag can unite on this issue. The impossible has been possible before. During the oil crisis of the 1970s, Sweden united across block boundaries. People took responsibility. It is time to do it again.

Mr. Speaker! There are critics who object to the committee's proposal. One hears them say that nuclear power is too expensive. But a shortage of power is even more expensive, for industry, for households, and for the climate.

You hear them say that it takes too long. Yes, it is quick to tear down, but it takes time to build new. Therefore, we must start today.

They say that it pushes out wind and solar power. No, the electricity demand is increasing. All fossil-free power sources will be needed. Nuclear power complements solar and wind but does not stand and fall with clouds or calm days.

Mr. Speaker! What we decide here today is a crucial piece of the puzzle in Sweden's climate transition, preparedness, and competitiveness. Today we vote to do what is required. Today we vote to take responsibility. Today we enable new nuclear power – for Sweden, for the climate, and for the future.

I vote yes to the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! I can begin by reminding Camilla Brodin that the largest power outage we have had in Sweden was in 2003. At that time, it was about a scram in a reactor, which was shut down. Then there was a fault in a substation which caused an additional two nuclear power plants to be shut down. This led to practically all of southern Sweden and also Själland being without power. That type of problem exists in all power systems, even in the Swedish one.

As Svenska kraftnät has said, this is quite difficult to counter. If one is to do it at every given occasion, it becomes very expensive. Such problems can therefore also affect Sweden. I do not think one needs to panic when it comes to precisely the Spanish system. But enough about that. This was more of an enlightenment.

What I am a bit curious about is what price tag the Christian Democrats can imagine for this. There are no sums mentioned in the bill regarding how much of the taxpayers' money the government can imagine contributing to this. The calculation example given in the bill concerns a purchase price of 80 öre, even though Vattenfall says that it probably needs to be at 1 krona or 1.10. We know that the global pricing is almost double that.

They count on seven years of construction time, even though the record in Europe is eleven, I believe. They also count on higher electricity prices than all other assessments in order to be able to keep the subsidy level down in the calculation example. That makes the examples that are in the bill, to say the least, rosy calculations.

Then my question is: Is there any upper limit to how much the Christian Democrats are prepared to pay with the taxpayers' money to get the new nuclear power plants in place?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! The opportunity cost is not zero. I have heard my friends in the government and the government base answer this question as correctly as it is possible. But the opportunity cost is, therefore, not zero. If one says that new nuclear power is expensive, one should look Swedish companies and households in the eye when claiming that there is no opportunity cost.

It is also a cheap insurance against high and variable electricity prices. Today, there is no predictability. One cannot predict what next month's electricity bill will be. This we must remove, and it can only be done if one also builds stable base power, especially in southern Sweden.

Here, the state needs to step in and co-finance with loans. The state needs to lend out money that is then to be paid back. We have heard Mats Green speak about this before. I believe that we will also get to speak about it further ahead.

When we debate here in the speaker's chair, the Swedish people probably think we have a bit of a hole in our heads. Sometimes it feels that way. We are discussing an electricity system that is to be robust and secure in its delivery. As politicians, we take responsibility for making decisions today that will be historical. The next generation will thank us because there actually were courageous politicians – just as I stood here in the speaker's chair just now and thanked the politicians who dared to be courageous earlier. It is thanks to them that we have an almost completely fossil-free electricity system.

But let me pose a counter-question. You released a report this year with an alternative strategy for Sweden's electricity supply. What would your alternative cost?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is not just a lack of common sense, if one wants to put it that way, but above all, it digs deep holes in the households' wallets.

The loans that Mats Green and Camilla Brodin are talking about must be paid back, and the profits that the loans are to be repaid with must be financed by someone. They are not financed by those who are to pay for the electricity, because the electricity will be too expensive to be sold on the market. The loans are therefore to be paid with the difference contracts that the government proposes. But what the government does not propose and does not talk about is how they are to be financed.

This is a very simple and basic question. Who is going to pay for these contracts? I have not received any answer to that.

The opportunity cost is not zero, says Camilla Brodin. No, absolutely not. But the government and Camilla Brodin have not answered what the cost is for the alternative we are now debating. This is the problem. This is what the Swedish people should be told. What does it cost?

We have pointed out the costs. Expanded combined heat and power equivalent to two nuclear power plants costs 3–4 billion. That is one-hundredth of the amounts that the government wants to lend out for new nuclear power, which in itself is based on optimistic calculations.

Increased output in hydropower can provide the equivalent of four nuclear reactors. The cost for that corresponds to approximately one-quarter of the money that the government wants to borrow.

Our opportunity cost is crystal clear. If we also add the profitable potential in energy efficiency – that is, that we do things better and smarter without it costing more and without reducing comfort – we can see that we can double the efficiency potential. This is super simple. I have presented our cost, but the government has not presented its.

My question remains: Who is going to pay, and what will it cost? This bill gives no answers at all to that. I think the taxpayers deserve to know that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for once again repeating what he believes we should stand here and say – exactly to the penny. He himself has no answers to give in return.

I think it would be tasteful if Sweden's citizens could be informed that Rickard Nordin and his party have produced a report where they have calculated that one should somehow build twice as much and that it should cost a quarter of the price. The interesting thing is that there is not a single researcher or expert who has ever highlighted this as a good example.

But regardless of the legitimacy of this proposal, politics is about the need to move from words to action. One question that we will not get an answer to now is: How is one to get their own slightly cobbled-together proposal, which no one supports, through with the rest of the opposition? The citizens of Sweden need to find out that, in that case.

What is known is that, with the decision we take here today, we will actually get new nuclear power in Sweden.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Camilla Brodin, for the speech!

Camilla Brodin said somewhere in the speech that we will see how the coming generation will thank this government for the decisions that are taken. I am going to say this: We will see who thanks whom in history.

Camilla Brodin says: The market builds. The state takes responsibility for the rules of the game. Is that how the Christian Democrats see this – that it is only the rules of the game that the state takes responsibility for? The state does not just step in and guarantee, so to speak, loan amounts. You guarantee the price. You create very large and uncertain financing models when you do not, as many have pointed out, know the amount. It was a Social Democrat who said that it is roughly like buying a pig in a poke. That is what it is about.

I have no problems, as I said, with landing on this if it turns out that Sweden needs it and that there is nothing else that can cover these system benefits – fine. But at this stage, one enters for an energy strike, a production strike. One gives large subsidies to get it in place without seeing if there is anything else. One does not go to the market. One says: The market builds. Is there anyone who can deliver the same system benefits for some other amount?

It is also called planned economy. We are accused of it many times. I think that this leans towards planned economy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Birger Lahti, for your speech! This is indeed, as you pointed out, perhaps the most important debate that you have been involved in here in the chamber. So it is also for me.

Birger Lahti spoke about the rules of the game and so on. I did not quite grasp the question, but I will try to summarize the whole thing.

Here we have moved from a completely renewable system to a completely fossil-free electricity system. This is, for example, part of why one has not previously invested in nuclear power.

We have also moved away from a system where we for a long time subsidized wind power to lift it up and for it to enter the market. The state actually stepped in and did it. We did it together with Norway. That is fine.

Here we need to see how we can have an electricity system that is robust, secure in its delivery, and so on.

This is the absolute boldest decision that we politicians can make. We are doing this right now by also providing loans so that one dares to take the risk that it nevertheless entails with rather capital-heavy investments. This is something that we should have done a long time ago. But now not a single day shall be lost, instead, we take these decisions today. I think that it is what politicians should do—be bold. They should set the rules so that one knows what one has to contend with when making these types of investments. Regardless of which industry one is in, one wants to know whether it is profitable or not to make investments.

With the previously pursued policy, it was not profitable, because then even nuclear power would not remain after 2040. We have changed that, and I think that is wise and good. We have courageous politicians sitting in the government today.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Camilla Brodin, for the answers!

I just want to clarify something regarding the electricity certificate system. Yes, it was a support system, but everyone knew who paid. It was the consumers who paid a few cents via their electricity bill. There was no bill for the state. It was a system that was built to encourage wind power or renewables – yes, absolutely. But one knew who received the bill. In this case, we do not know. We still have not received an answer. Many of my colleagues have asked: Who is going to pay? They have not received an answer to that.

My question was: Do the Christian Democrats see it as that the state only takes responsibility for the rules of the game? The state takes responsibility for the whole kit. One goes in with both the belt and the suspenders. But still, answers are missing to the questions: Who should pay? How long should one pay?

We can go back to what one usually calls a market economy. The Christian Democrats were themselves part of the energy agreement. They stepped out of it because it was a word that they were bothered by. That was what made it impossible to get investments in place. It was about renewable instead of fossil-free. The text was removed in 2018, when you thought that the text should be removed. There is nowhere it says that Sweden would be against calling it fossil-free. It has been seven years. Still, no one wants to invest without support.

I would even buy the support system, if that is what is required. But as I have said: One does not look at models where the market is allowed to emerge. Are you willing to present a system that provides the same as nuclear power? No, it has become a religion for this government to build nuclear power at whatever cost. The Swedish people should know that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Here, the member is asking some questions about the energy agreement. I have stood in this chamber quite many times and explained why we left that agreement in 2019.

When one makes an agreement, one "commits" to different parts. In this one, it stated that we would have up to ten reactors – that was possible. We had six reactors, so there was some room there. We did this so that we would save nuclear power and so that no more would be decommissioned in the future – nuclear power was being penalty-taxed. That was why we entered into this. Yes, the power tax was removed.

But think about when governments then come, when one has finally made this agreement, which actually does the exact opposite of what one has agreed upon! Take district heating, for example! Is it protecting power and district heating when one octuples the tax and has three months to transition? No, that is not particularly decent. When they repeatedly go against what we have agreed upon, one eventually gives up, because an agreement is worth nothing when they repeatedly break it.

We left it. We did it because we also wanted a completely new direction for the energy policy. It was actually harmful for Sweden.

It is quick to demolish, but it takes a little longer to build up. I am pleased that we have a government in place that actually takes its responsibility to build a robust and secure electricity system, so that tomorrow's generation will not have to hesitate about whether the electricity is there when it is needed and where it is needed.

Thank you for having a new government, and thank you for the question, Birger Lahti!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the speech, Camilla Brodin!

First and foremost, I want to mention Spain. I think it is grossly misleading to take that as an example of that renewables do not work, because there is no investigation that has established what the error was due to. I can state in this context that the same thing has happened in England – and also in Sweden. In England, for example, less accountable politicians and pundits were out blaming renewables, but it turned out to be a fault in a conventional power plant.

What seems to have happened is a so-called N−2 error, meaning that two major errors occur simultaneously without one really knowing what. It has also happened in Sweden when two nuclear power plants and additionally a thermal power plant stopped. It was due to an electrical fault in a substation, so it was not their fault, but we were incredibly close to a blackout in Sweden – largely because of the nuclear power, which stopped abruptly due to this. I think we should be a bit more precise there.

Camilla Brodin also took a bit of a leap back in history and went all the way back to the 50s. It is interesting. If we speak from those perspectives and look at the technological development, I think it would still be interesting to ask a question. One or two weeks ago, we had a debate about energy policy a bit more broadly, and there all parties in the opposition had a reservation about introducing better regulation of and a strategy for fusion power. The technology is still at the research stage, but it is moving forward. I believe we have all visited a leading Swedish company that works with this.

If we talk about a time perspective where the 50s are included and look 20–50 years ahead, this can become an alternative. It is actually a kind of nuclear energy extraction that is sustainable and can in principle be considered a renewable energy source. But Camilla Brodin and the government voted no to this. Why did they do that?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Linus Lakso, for the question!

I also believe that many of us have visited a company that researches fusion energy. They are taking baby steps forward, and it is going in the right direction. But if we talk to other researchers, we hear that that will be in place in 50 years. We absolutely must embrace new technology, but we must also try to see what needs to be done here and now. We must also see what we need to dig into a bit more precisely so that we do not make mistakes moving forward, but instead ensure that we still make wise and good decisions.

I am not closing the door, however, but I believe that we will certainly be debating just this question in the future as well. But I believe that we need to see legislation that makes it possible to embrace new technology in the future. We are therefore not hostile to technology in any way – absolutely not – but it is not this that we will build today. The technology is not finished, after all. On the other hand, it could absolutely become relevant at some point in the future.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Then I must unfortunately inform Camilla Brodin that we will not be building any conventional nuclear power today either. If you look at construction times across Europe, you see that it takes 14–18 years from the start of construction. Recently, Romina Pourmokhtari was out boasting that the permitting process has been shortened from 13 to 10 years. It is certainly possible to shorten it slightly—I won't claim that is impossible—but even if we shorten the process from 25 to 20 years, there will truly be nothing here and now.

So, the government is still answerable. One has perhaps begun to realize a bit that politics is needed here and now. Not least, one has copied the Green Party's green base force in the form of Kraftsteget, which we welcome.

We have, however, not received an answer to the question of who is to pay the nuclear power tax. I actually think that is extremely serious. And I do not know what is most serious, Mr. Speaker – Mats Green and Camilla Brodin perhaps do not understand the proposal, that is to say that the difference contract is, at least according to the investigation, to be financed by a tax. Here we get absolutely no answers.

When the government proposes something that may need to be subsidized with hundreds or perhaps actually thousands of billions, which a number of independent analyses show – yes, Niklas Wykman, that is correct – one should actually find out who is going to pay that tax. The taxpayers, in fact, will not get that money back in any way.

So, I would actually like to have an answer to that from Camilla Brodin. Is it the industry or the electricity consumers who are to pay? Is it to be spread out over the electricity price?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Linus Lakso, for many different questions in one and the same contribution!

When it comes to the fact that the expansion of nuclear power takes a long time: If one looks at all nuclear power in the entire world, one sees that the average time is somewhere around five and a half to six years.

We have stood here and debated permit processes in Sweden quite many times. I do not believe there is any party that does not want the permit processes to be shortened. What is this government doing? Well, they are working very hard. The previous government took a step along the way – absolutely – and we are picking up where they left off and will continue.

Why do we always hear examples showing that it would take a terribly long time? Why should Sweden always aim to be the worst in the class? With our engineering skills, we can actually be proud as a nuclear power nation and still show that it is possible to build, both in terms of time and in terms of cost. Why should one bring up a lot of other examples?

One might have to build several reactors simultaneously in order to be able to reach that goal, and that creates the conditions for this government right now. It is something that should have been done a long time ago. We also would not have had to shut down reactors in southern Sweden. Then southern Sweden would not have had the costs they have today.

It is easy to be wise in hindsight, but here we show that we have a completely different energy policy than Miljöpartiet and that it is moving in the right direction. One should not be able to doubt that Sweden now has a government that focuses on security of supply and robustness in the time we live in, with all the uncertainties around the world. That is the big difference between this government and Miljöpartiet.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! By far the largest support to a single company and to a single technology ever in Swedish history.

An ideological decision made without regard for either reality or actual needs.

A solution that does not address the problems that exist, neither in the short nor in the long term.

A planned economic decision without either reflection or evaluation.

A tax increase for generations to come of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of billions.

A tax increase of thousands of kronor per year for an ordinary villa household.

A blank check that the government is asking the Riksdag to issue, completely without transparency or the possibility of oversight.

A proposal that significantly increases the risk of corruption and where competition is practically lacking.

Moving forward with the proposal for nuclear power subsidies is technical and economic madness – especially as we have shown that we can solve these problems, in half the time and at a quarter of the cost, with the proposal that Centerpartiet has submitted. Unlike the government, we are actually able to account for the costs.

There are many ways to describe the government's proposal for nuclear power financing. The ones I just mentioned are some, and I could have continued for a long time. To completely, without evaluating the alternatives, want to lock oneself into a single technology, with costs that are unmanageable for generations to come, is irresponsible to say the least. Consider the time perspectives that previous speakers have spoken so passionately about! This is supposed to apply until we are all dead. Then one must be able to look at the whole.

How a Moderate-led government can embrace something so market-contrary is almost inexplicable. The voters have to pay for the government's extravagant election promises, regardless of what was said before the election. Then, apparently, no subsidies were needed, because as long as the reactors were allowed to be built just about anywhere and the energy policy goal was changed, the investors would be lining up. Now we have the result: No one wants to build – unless the taxpayers foot the bill and guarantee the return, of course.

Taxpayers will be left with a nuclear power tax for decades to come. Both Niklas Wykman and Ebba Busch will be approaching their 90th birthdays before the tax is abolished, at best. By then, it will likely have collected some thousands of billions for the nuclear power companies. It is far more than what the government states in its calculation examples, because those calculations do not hold up.

They expect to build faster than anyone has done in the Western world in modern times. They expect the construction cost to be significantly lower than what the companies themselves state. They calculate on faster permit processes than they themselves say is possible in their own communication. They expect higher electricity prices in society than any other market analyst does in order to minimize the need for support. They also refuse to say who will foot the bill. Should the industry be involved in paying, or should the households have to bear the entire bill?

Everything is done to make it sound as cheap as possible, but even then it is not cheap. The government talks about 80 öre. That is higher than the average price in southern Sweden 75 percent of the time. In the north, consumers would lose out on this 90 percent of the time. If we instead make more reasonable assumptions regarding construction time and other costs, nuclear power is profitable approximately 5 percent of the time; the remaining 95 percent is borne by the consumers. It is completely insane.

The government's nuclear power policy raises questions about the future energy system, about responsibility, and about our path towards climate neutrality. From the Center Party's side, we view with concern how the government unilaterally focuses on an energy source that is neither fast, cheap, nor risk-free to expand. If we look at the research that exists regarding large projects, we can see that it is only the Olympic Games that have become more expensive than nuclear power construction. If we look at the other end of the scale – at what has actually become cheaper than planned – we find solar power.

The referral bodies are clear; it is not only the Center Party that says this. Every single referral body points out that the underlying data is missing or misleading. Researchers are shouting themselves hoarse – to deaf ears – about the risks of everything from delays to increased costs. The energy industry warns of the consequences for both existing nuclear power and future electricity production. Rarely has a single proposal received so much criticism.

We stand in the middle of an energy transition where Sweden needs more electricity. Above all, we need electricity quickly, sustainably, and cost-effectively. To then place one's trust in that new nuclear reactors will solve the problems is to play a high-stakes game with both the taxpayers' money and the climate's patience.

We Center Party members are not against nuclear power in itself. Nuclear power is an opportunity but not a physical necessity, as a number of researchers wrote in DN Debatt recently. It can fulfill an important function, not least the nuclear power we have today, but building new nuclear power with hundreds – perhaps thousands – of billions in subsidies solves no problems in the short term. It takes decades to build. At the same time, we already have technologies today that are cheaper and faster and that can give us the energy security we need.

Centerpartiet has submitted proposals on this, with hydropower, combined heat and power, and energy efficiency as the basis. It is not only us who think so either. If Camilla Brodin had actually read the report and checked the references, she would have seen that this is backed up by, for example, researchers at Chalmers and the Swedish Energy Agency, who have produced these reports. Sveriges Ingenjörer has presented the figures regarding the potential in hydropower. It is nothing we have made up.

What is missing, however, are reasonable references to research in the government's proposal. One has a separate investigation that is not supported by any research whatsoever.

This is not about technology. It is not about economics. It is about politics. The government went to the election on a promise to build new nuclear power, and now it shall be built – whatever the cost may be.

The government likes to talk about technology neutrality. This is incredibly fascinating. The Tidö Agreement states that one should focus on technology neutrality, and Ebba Busch usually talks about capabilities rather than platforms, but now they are doing exactly the opposite. They are not focusing on capabilities but on a single platform without even looking at the alternatives.

Unlike the government, we in the Center Party believe in the power of the market. The state should set the rules of the game, not point out winners in advance. We have shown which alternatives exist but have not said that they are the ones that should be given direct support.

With the government's policy, investments in other power sources have been scrapped. We know that in the short term, more wind and more solar were needed; it is this that can solve the situation. Researchers also say this very clearly. Four independent research groups from Energiforsk, including the most nuclear-friendly research groups we have in Sweden, say the same thing.

The risk is that these investments will not happen now. Who dares to invest in anything else when one knows that in a few years, according to the government's plans, one will be outcompeted by subsidized nuclear power that gets paid even when there are negative prices and it is not needed?

The National Audit Office has directed criticism at previous governments' energy policy. That criticism is a gentle breeze compared to what is to come, for such a substandard impact assessment as that in this proposal, I have probably never ever seen.

Sweden has for decades built its strength on a broad, robust, renewable and sustainable energy system that is fossil-free. We have utilized the fantastic conditions that nature has given us, which allow us to be competitive. Regardless of what the government says, we rank at the top internationally. A lie does not become true just because it is repeated.

In one respect, the Tidö government now wants to raise people's electricity bills and tear down the energy system that we have so diligently built up. We are going to build the same kind of nuclear power as everyone else, and then we will also have the same electricity price as everyone else.

If Ebba Busch now desperately wants a nuclear power plant, I can suggest that Marviken's nuclear power plant is out in Hemnet for 5 million. It is significantly cheaper than the hundreds of billions of taxpayers' money that one now wants to spend.

Let us focus on what actually works, what is climate-smart, and what can be expanded now! Let us focus on what lowers people's electricity bills and does not raise them! Let us focus on what strengthens our energy security and does not make us more vulnerable! Let us reject this bill once and for all!

I move for approval of reservations 1 and 8.

In this speech, Birger Lahti (V) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin for an interesting speech.

There is really no reason to restate that Rickard Nordin and I have very different views and see reality in different ways on this issue. What I do find very interesting, however, is how the opposition to the bill that we are debating here today will try to reach a consensus on an alternative.

In the energy policy debate here in the chamber a while ago, I highlighted what different ambitions the four opposition parties have. How much solar power is needed, and by which year? How much wind power is needed, and by which year? How much grid is needed, and by which year? How many gas turbines are needed, and what should they be fed with? There are four different answers to all these questions, which concern all energy policy from the four opposition parties.

The only thing they actually agree on, Mr. Speaker, is that they oppose this nuclear power financing proposal here today. At least the Social Democrats are starting to loosen up a bit – there might still be a need for nuclear power in the future, but there must be certain caps on the state's commitment.

I want to ask a question about something that I find interesting in this context. This was the reason why I took the floor from Rickard Nordin; I could also have done it from Birger Lahti or someone else. Will the Center Party accept a Social Democratic prime ministerial candidate who chooses not to tear up what we are deciding on today?

Regardless of the objection that came from Rickard Nordin, the chamber will this afternoon – unless there are more than three who press the wrong button or who have forgotten to come here – approve this proposition. This means that we are creating the conditions to conclude agreements with nuclear power companies regarding new production of nuclear power plants in Sweden, regardless of what Rickard Nordin thinks. If – God forbid – there is a change of power at some point in the future, the next government can choose to let this remain. How does C act then?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! First, I can state that when I count the number of mandates in the Riksdag, I see a majority for strengthened hydropower, power increases, pumped storage, and other things that are much more cost-effective than the government's nuclear power proposal. I see the same majority for power increases and support for combined heat and power. I see the same majority – perhaps with some difference, but it is still a clear majority – for energy efficiency. I see it also for offshore wind and for solar power.

Gathering a majority in the Riksdag for alternatives is, therefore, not difficult. It is quite easy if one compares the different parties' energy policies. I have no problem agreeing with many parties in the Riksdag on energy policy. We may not agree on 100 percent, but if we can solve 80 percent, it would be very welcome, not least for those who deal with hydropower and combined heat and power.

I am answering for the Center Party. What the Social Democrats do, Fredrik Olovsson and the Social Democrats must answer for. We are clear. We vote against this bill, just as the other opposition parties do. For all decisions made in the chamber that we vote against, we also have the freedom to continue to be against them. I also think I have heard that very clearly from the Social Democrats.

For our part, our primary prime ministerial candidate is Anna-Karin Hatt. We do not run for election for any other party's sake. We run for election for our party and for our policy, and we know, backed by researchers and an agency, that there are much more effective ways to solve the problems the government is now trying to solve with billions in nuclear power subsidies.

Let me go back to Tobias Andersson so that we can have a continued good exchange of remarks: Who is going to pay for the subsidies? I still have not received an answer to that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by pleasing Rickard Nordin by stating that I, Niklas Wykman and others, held a press conference just 150 meters from here last week where we, among other things, presented exactly the short-term solutions Rickard Nordin is calling for regarding both power increases in hydropower and combined heat and power – if now Rickard Nordin happened to have missed it. This package on exactly the theme the member is requesting can be read about on the government's website, and it is quite concrete and will be further concretized.

Regarding the Social Democrats' actions, I am aware that the Centre Party and the Social Democrats are two different parties. Sometimes it is very clear, sometimes less clear. Yesterday, the Centre Party said that they intend to try to put a stop to this in the future, if there is a change of power. Is that an ultimatum? Will they tell Magdalena Andersson or whoever is the Social Democrats' party leader on the day the Tidö parties hand over the keys to Rosenbad that the Centre Party will not vote yes to a prime ministerial candidate who does not actively tear up the nuclear power financing that the chamber is to make a decision on today? It would be interesting to know. Is this an ultimatum that will be posed to all future prime ministerial candidates?

Regarding the researchers Rickard Nordin has repeatedly mentioned, I can state that neither Chalmers' nor Blekinge Institute of Technology's papers have been scientifically reviewed or even peer-reviewed by others at the institutions. I think it is relevant since these input values have been questioned by the energy companies and others. So, many people have many opinions, and they are welcome to do so. But they do not convince me.

Regarding the cost, Rickard Nordin knows that it is not about any thousands of billions, which he throws around. The investigator has a maximum ceiling on the loan portion of 600 billion, and it is paid back. According to the calculation in the CFD, it amounts to 50 kronor per household.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, a few agency assignments will neither solve the removal of hydropower in southern Sweden nor the situation for the trout in the north. Nor do they release the potential in combined heat and power. For the time being, it is only words on paper.

If the government had been serious, they would have given the same conditions for the optimization and power increase of hydropower and combined heat and power as they did for nuclear power. But of course, then there would have been no nuclear power because these solutions are so incredibly much cheaper and faster.

Sveriges Ingenjörer agree with the Center Party as well as the Swedish Energy Agency, Chalmers, KTH and a large number of researchers. Almost no one supports the government's and the Sweden Democrats' proposal. Some of the referral bodies do, and it is they who get to build the nuclear power plants and those who profit from them. They are the only referral bodies that are positive.

That it should cost 80 öre per kilowatt-hour for a difference contract, CFD, is a calculation example. It says nothing about what the upper limit is. And the loans shall be repaid and covered by the nuclear power tax that is proposed. The bill does not say who shall pay this tax. It is said that a tax will probably be introduced, which the investigation also suggested.

If we are now to make the largest state investment ever, the Swedish people deserve to know what it will cost and who will pay. The government and Sverigedemokraterna are completely without an answer to that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! We have a historic decision to make today. A proposal is finally on the table regarding how we shall create the conditions to establish a stable energy production throughout the country. The proposal meets both the needs of the business community today and tomorrow and enables the electrification and green transition that many in this chamber want to see and that, above all, the climate work we are conducting needs. Today's decision is also in line with what is now happening in a number of European countries, which is good.

It is not the first time we have debated energy in the chamber, and the reason is obviously that we continue to have problems with the energy supply in Sweden. One fundamental problem is that there are large imbalances between the country's northern and southern parts. While southern Sweden has a well-developed grid but lacks energy production, the country's northern parts have a well-developed production but a less well-developed grid.

As was just mentioned, the government presented a mandate last week to Svenska kraftnät that the authority shall supplement its planning by also looking at how the national grid can be expanded in northern Sweden. As it stands today, the transmission grid ends in Porjus in Jokkmokk Municipality, and that is not reasonable.

The imbalance between the country's northern and southern parts poses a problem for our electricity supply, for our competitiveness, for our ability to deliver on the energy policy goals, and actually even for our Nato commitments. In addition to this, we see how a failing production and transmission capacity has consequences for both the electrification of existing industry and the new industrialization of the country that we hope for.

Expanding the transmission grid in northern Sweden solves part of the problem. But it is clear that we also need to address the deficiencies in the country's southern parts, not least in light of the new security policy situation.

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the production of energy, the government has changed the direction of energy policy since it took office. The goal has been to increase the production of fossil-free energy at competitive prices. Thanks to the absolutely crucial decisions we have taken in the energy area since the government took office, we now stand equipped to tackle the historical shift that electrification and the green transition entail.

The opposition is painting a not entirely truthful picture today of what the government has done beyond the decisions on new nuclear power. The government has also presented a number of measures that meet the situation we have to handle here and now. It is about energy efficiency, about how district heating and combined heat and power can contribute to the larger system, and about an overview of the price areas, which sometimes make electricity incredibly expensive, especially in the southern parts of the country. It is also about financial compensation to wind power municipalities as well as a number of other measures.

When it comes to nuclear power, we have decided to allow new nuclear reactors and that nuclear power shall be established at new sites. We have also decided on a roadmap to expand fossil-free nuclear power, which we are debating here today and which in my eyes is perhaps the single most important thing Sweden can do to live up to its commitments in the global climate work: to move from fossil to fossil-free energy sources. That nuclear power is crucial in that respect cannot be ignored. Nor can energy production be transitioned any other way so quickly while maintaining delivery and operational safety goals.

Using gas turbines as a transitional solution has been highlighted here, and we can do that. It is good that those alternatives and technical solutions exist, but now we actually have a proposal on the table that would not only make it easier to implement transitional solutions but would permanently create a stable energy production even in the longer perspective.

One can, of course, have opinions about the design, but that there is a serious, well-balanced proposal that signals the state's willingness to take risks and expand fossil-free energy production is absolutely crucial. It is crucial to be able to meet the needs of all of Sweden, but currently especially southern Sweden's, for own energy production and thereby meet the needs of the business community, which lays the foundation for the welfare we have today in Sweden and which in any case I wish we will continue to have.

We are talking about opportunity costs. If we do not move forward with this, I am afraid of what it will mean for Sweden's productivity, the business sector and job creation, and thus for the Swedish welfare.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the proposal in the committee report and of what my Moderate colleague called freely flowing fossil-free electricity.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This is likely the most irresponsible decision that the Swedish Parliament has made in its history. The Tidö parties' plan is, therefore, to throw hundreds or, more likely, thousands of billions of the taxpayers' money at something that, according to a unanimous group of experts, was not needed and which also slows down the climate transition.

The electricity cost could become 1,000 kronor more expensive per month for households for 40 years, if they are the ones who are to foot the bill. The worst of it all is still that it does not contribute to us reaching our climate goals, but rather contributes to increased emissions because new nuclear power takes far too long to get established.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we in Miljöpartiet will do what we can to put a stop to the madness and instead steer towards a sustainable and reality-based energy policy. A vote for Miljöpartiet in the next election is therefore a vote for a no to 1,000 kronor more in electricity costs every month, a no to skyrocketing carbon emissions, and a no to uranium mines that destroy the Swedish countryside.

Mr. Speaker! The government seems to completely lack the competence for this type of decision, which is incredibly crucial for Sweden's future. We have an energy minister who cannot distinguish between power and capacity in the electricity grids, we have a financial markets minister who could not distinguish between electricity and energy during the inquiry in the Committee on Finance, and we have a Prime Minister who believes that Sweden had a fossil-free energy system in the 70s, which is very far from the truth. Ideological blinkers now mean that a plan has been mapped out that is totally unrealistic in terms of both time and cost and which completely lacks sensible consequence analyses.

Mr. Speaker! Before I move on to what is most grave regarding time and cost, I want to clarify a few things. The government argues as a reason that we have a broken energy system and that it is not possible to expand renewable energy, but this is contradicted, not least by Svenska kraftnät, Energimyndigheten, Chalmers and several other universities and most recently Energiforsk, which have shown that it is perfectly possible to expand the energy system significantly in the coming decades and thereby reach the climate goals with renewable energy in combination with green base power, as I call it.

We do not, therefore, have a broken energy system. During the electricity price crisis in 2022, we had the lowest prices in the EU and the largest electricity surplus, and last year we had a power surplus 90 percent of the time. One can read about this in the bill, where it states that Sweden's electricity system, in an international comparison, is secure, cost-effective, and environmentally sustainable.

The problems we had during the years 2021–2023 with the cost crisis were due to Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the energy war against Europe. Since then, we have seen that prices have gone down, together with and thanks to the fact that we have expanded renewable energy. One should then conclude that it is Europe's dependence on fossil fuels that is the fundamental problem and try to reduce that dependence, but the government is doing exactly the opposite. It is increasing the dependence on fossil fuels and thus also the emissions.

As has been said, it works perfectly well to phase out fossil energy by expanding solar and wind together with technologies that balance such a system. By green base power, I mean increased capacity in hydropower, more flexibility and power from combined heat and power, energy storage in the form of pumped storage, heat storage and perhaps even hydrogen as well as gas turbines powered by biogas produced by Swedish farmers instead of Russian fossil gas, which the Sverigedemokraterna want.

It is also about demand flexibility, smart management of electric vehicle charging, heat pumps and so on. This is entirely possible. It is proven technology. I have traveled around the country and looked at the pumped-storage power plants we have, the thermal storage that has already been built, the battery storage that is being rapidly built up and so on. They exist in reality. I have visited those places.

Mr. Speaker! A vote for Miljöpartiet in the next election is a yes to an environmentally friendly and well-functioning energy system with low electricity prices and a competitive green industry, electrified transport at low operating costs, a comprehensive program for energy efficiency, more sustainably produced energy from sun and wind, and an energy system balanced by green baseload power.

Mr. Speaker! I shall speak a little more about which costs we are actually talking about and making decisions on here today. If one compares the system costs for a renewable system with the system costs for a system with nuclear power, as for example BTH – with figures from the International Energy Agency – Chalmers, KTH, the Institute for Business Policy and Svenska kraftnät have done, one sees that the additional cost amounts to between 1,000 and 5,000 billion, over the system's lifespan.

Svenska kraftnäts long-term market analysis shows that the electricity price will be 20 öre higher per kilowatt-hour with expanded nuclear power compared to if we expand renewables. SNS Konjunkturråd points out that new nuclear power is the most expensive option and advocates instead for a market-based expansion, where land-based wind is the cheapest.

If we break down the costs for households, we see that it amounts to 1,000 kronor per month and households for 40 years. The question that we have not received an answer to, Mr. Speaker, is who is going to pay and what are realistic assumptions.

I asked the Riksdag's investigation service to calculate a few different alternatives. One can base this on slightly more realistic assumptions, such as an electricity price of 50 öre going forward, which is fully possible if we expand the renewable, and a cost for new nuclear power of 150 öre, which is well in line with that which has been built around Europe.

We have, as we said, not received an answer as to who will pay, but if one does not place the cost on all electricity consumers but only on households – I do not think the industry is so eager to pay for this – it amounts to a cost shock of between 30,000 and 36,000 kronor per year for a villa owner, calculated on a villa that consumes 20,000 kilowatt-hours – if we are to have ten new reactors, which the government wants.

There is no ceiling in this financing model, even though 5 gigawatts are mentioned. If we calculate for four reactors, it becomes 15,000 kronor per year for a villa owner. These are, therefore, astronomical amounts, which the government cannot answer as to who should pay or how they should be financed.

If one instead calculates the cost per kilowatt-hour, it is rather about 20 öre per kilowatt-hour for 5 gigawatts and 50 öre per kilowatt-hour for ten new reactors. I do not know if the business community is so eager to pay those costs in the end.

One can naturally speculate and wonder about future electricity prices, but if one calculates based on the figures I mentioned, this is the result.

Mr. Speaker! The probability that the government's nuclear power project – if it comes to fruition, which I do not believe – would stay within the specified timeframe is well, in principle, non-existent. We can look at what has happened when nuclear power has been built around Europe.

In France, Flamanville 3 was recently completed. The plan was a construction time of 5 years starting in 2007 and a budget of 40 billion. The result was a construction time of 17 years, and the actual cost is estimated at 200 billion kronor – five times the original budget.

In the UK, Hinkley Point C is being built. Permission was granted in 2012 and construction began in 2017. The plan was to be finished in 2025. Now the forecast is around 2030, meaning a construction time of at least 13 years, and the cost has skyrocketed to 600 billion for two nuclear reactors.

In Finland, construction of Olkiluoto 3 began in 2005 with a planned start of operations in 2009. The start of operations instead became 2023, 14 years delayed, and the construction time ended at 18 years. The planned budget was 37 billion; the final bill is estimated at 125 billion.

These are actually not exceptions. Broader compilations show that nuclear power projects in particular suffer from the worst delays and cost overruns of all projects in all categories.

Mr. Speaker! Can new nuclear power actually contribute to meeting the climate transition?

Sweden has national climate policy goals for 2030, 2040, and 2045 and a specific goal for the transport sector. In addition to this, we have a number of EU goals for 2030. The majority of Sweden's climate policy goals presuppose a rapid electrification, which in turn requires more electricity and more power in the near term.

The government's plan is equivalent to two large-scale nuclear reactors by 2035, but that timeline has been condemned by many referral bodies. Not even the government's own nuclear power coordinator believes in it.

A study from the Copenhagen Business School and the Technical University of Berlin shows that nuclear power projects in the EU have been delayed by an average of eleven to twelve years. In that case, the government's project will be finished somewhere after 2045, i.e., after Sweden is supposed to have achieved climate neutrality. With that time aspect, new nuclear power will not be able to contribute to any of Sweden's climate goals – neither by 2030, 2040 or 2045.

But the climate problems with the government's nuclear power support do not stop at it becoming too expensive and too late. It is unfortunately worse than that, Mr. Speaker.

The proposed state support for new nuclear power will actively counteract the expansion of the energy we need here and now. It will crowd out investments in other fossil-free electricity production such as capacity increases and life extensions of existing electricity production, including hydropower and existing nuclear power, but above all in new renewable energy. Referral bodies have underlined that this increases the risk of power shortages in the near term and slows down electrification.

Naturskyddsföreningen has calculated the climate effect of this delay and shown that if we phase out fossil energy significantly more slowly, emissions will be 220 million tonnes higher. This corresponds to four times Sweden's annual emissions.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Riksdag is wisest to reject this bill. I move for approval of reservations 1 and 4.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! The fragmentation within the opposition is extensive, to say the least. This debate has shown that very clearly.

One can start with the pure formal question, where the Social Democrats' Fredrik Olovsson more or less says that this bill perhaps actually wasn't needed and that this could have been solved in another way. One can possibly think that he has a point. We have thought that it has been reasonable to go to the Swedish Riksdag with this to make a decision in a democratic manner.

But that is not my point here. The point is that the Social Democrats' assessment is that this bill is probably not so important, while what we hear from Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet, and Centerpartiet is that this is the worst thing that has happened. It is a rather large span between them, one might say, from the somewhat downplaying and potentially debatable position that this might be a step but not the whole step that needs to be taken, to the position that this is the worst thing that has happened. There is a very large rift there.

Another thing that is surprising, Mr. Speaker, is the very negative attitude towards nuclear power that the Center Party, the Left Party, and above all the Green Party express. A fairly common assessment is, after all, that Sweden has and, above all, has had one of the world's best electricity systems. Put quite simply, it is often said that the hydropower in the north and the nuclear power in the south have built one of the world's best countries to work and live in, which has also been able to have much lower emissions than other countries. Yet, nuclear power is described as something utterly terrible. There is no end to the list of problems that nuclear power entails. There is some kind of pride in the fact that we have and have had one of the best energy systems, which has built one of the world's highest standards of living. But still, there are only problems, as many as there are, when one talks about nuclear power.

There is another thing worth reflecting on when listening to the most staunch opponents of this. Reference is made to reports, quotes, and researchers, and the picture being painted is that there is a compact opposition to new nuclear power in Sweden. There is no limit to how miserable it is with a little new nuclear power in Sweden.

The problem that the people who express these views can at least reflect on is how they view reality and how the people who actually live and operate in the economy relate to this.

We hear positive signals from the Swedish trade union movement regarding new nuclear power. Are they completely wrong?

We have seen one large and proud industrial company after another write that new nuclear power is needed in Sweden. Are they completely wrong?

We have seen the many important and fine traditional industrial companies in the merger Industrikraft say that they are even prepared to invest in and be involved in operating nuclear power. Are they completely wrong and Miljöpartiet, Centerpartiet and Vänsterpartiet completely right?

In the working and producing Sweden, there is a very large demand for more base load and more nuclear power, but in a rather high tone and occasionally a bit mockingly, all their assessments are underestimated, even though it is they who go to the industrial jobs and even though it is they who try to compete on the international market.

All the households that say that more basic power is needed into the system are dismissed in the same way – those who have the volatile electricity prices and the tough challenge that it is very expensive to use electricity when one needs it most. Are they all wrong too?

My assessment, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a considerable fatigue regarding this tone in the debate. People are waiting for and longing for a solution – not more of this bickering.

New nuclear power is a matter of security more than anything else. It is security for Swedish jobs, security for the climate transition, and security for the household economy. It is also a matter of security for our Swedish security that we have a stable, robust, and reliable electricity system that can withstand different types of external shocks and problems or challenges. In the worst case, it must be able to be restarted quickly, but above all, it must be able to withstand different types of uncertainties.

Now we also have a secure model for the financing of new nuclear power. It is a model that safeguards the taxpayers' money, stands guard over the public finances and creates transparency and clarity. This applies to today's bill, the regulation that exists and the questions that receive their answer – as other questions receive their economic answer – in the budget bill that we later lay before the Riksdag.

It is then negotiations, and we shall have an approval from the EU. It is absolutely a complicated process. These are large investments. They require much reflection, competence, and choices of path. But in reality, where it actually happens, we can state that we are already underway. Vattenfall has, as an example, already formed a project company that is ready to build. They have said that they will submit an application this autumn. To the question about the shovel in the ground, they answered that they do not quite understand the question, because they are already underway and preparing their site in Ringhals for new reactors.

This can happen thanks to the fact that we in Sweden finally have an energy minister and a government that looks at the strengths of all types of energy. We also finally have a majority in this chamber that is prepared to provide long-term conditions for what is best for the Swedish energy system. It is about the fact that we have provided better conditions for wind power and for increasing the local acceptance for this.

Much has been said in this chamber today about the improved conditions we are preparing for district heating and power heating and which we are doing for hydropower. Area by area, we are strengthening the Swedish energy system without ideological blockages or straw men.

Mr. Speaker! It is very simple. All types of energy have their flaws and their merits. Base load such as nuclear power has the very clear merit that it can always produce. It adds many support services into the system. It helps to stabilize and build resilience.

Wind power, for example, can have the great advantage that when it is very windy, electricity can be produced at a very low marginal cost. On the other hand, it has the problem that it does not deliver the same support services, and it does not deliver when it is not windy. The point here is not to put all eggs in one basket, but the point is to maintain the basic strength we have had in Sweden.

We have built one of the world's most successful export countries. We have built one of the world's best countries to live and work in. We shall keep our hydropower and even make more use of it. We shall keep our ability for nuclear power production. Of course, we shall embrace and complement it with the new. We have stood on two legs very clearly. Now it is better to stand on three legs or more, but not create risks and uncertainties.

I have received some criticism before for having spoken about this unicorn. But we are not ready to bet on that unicorn existing. It could be that in the future we get new technologies and better ways to store energy. There are long lead times on that. Much of this is still research and in the experimental stage.

It is a gamble to tell the Swedish people that we can say with certainty that this is coming and that we therefore do not need to safeguard our core forces, that we do not need to take care of our base power in southern Sweden and do not need to strengthen our basic capacity in the electricity grid. It is a gamble with Swedish jobs, Swedish households, Swedish opportunities to export and Swedish companies.

The basis for this model is quite simple, even though one can obviously think that individual details are complicated. It is about taking advantage of companies' capacity for competence but also companies' drivers to be efficient and manage things in as efficient a way as possible, and then, together with the state's ability to borrow much more cheaply than an individual company can do, cast this together into a functioning whole – a whole consisting of companies' constant striving for efficiency, companies' high competence when it comes to building and operating various functions in our electricity systems, and the state's ability to borrow cheaply and provide long-term conditions.

The main part of this is about loans that are to be paid back. One can have slightly higher costs during the construction phase, and then the state receives slightly higher revenues as the loans are paid back.

Mr. Speaker! Various different speculations are being presented regarding what this will cost. The assessments that have been made so far show that, provided we get a lower electricity price than what can be expected and imagined – which would be good for Swedish industry, Swedish jobs, Swedish wages and Swedish households – it can cost some tens for an apartment household or some fifties for a villa household. It is in those magnitudes we are talking, given the proposal that has been in the investigation.

We already feel the cost of not doing this to a fairly large extent: volatile electricity prices, great uncertainty for households, and problems for companies to connect to the electricity grid. We are aware of and have seen the vulnerability that has emerged in Europe with dependence on gas deliveries from, for example, Russia.

The person who says "let us just do what is cheapest, fastest and easiest" already has the answer key. It is an increased European dependence on Russian gas, volatile Swedish electricity prices and problems with connecting to the power grid. Is that really, Mr. Speaker, what we want in Sweden? Shall we do more of just that? We have tried it, and we know what we have gotten.

It was better before. It pains me as a forward-looking person to say. But the electricity system actually functioned better before one started decommissioning the nuclear reactors.

Mr. Speaker! We have talked quite a bit about the costs of the volatile electricity system we have received. Let me, as Minister for Finance, mention one more thing.

When one gets very volatile prices in a market, different types of financial products are needed to manage it. Companies and households cannot withstand any amount of volatility or how large price changes are. In that case, one acquires different types of insurance for it – derivatives, for example.

I have seen people who engage in this type of derivatives trading with [the] ability and [the] courage to defend the volatile electricity system we have received. They absolutely do not want nuclear power, because then there are no derivatives to sell. Instead, the economy's capacity would go to the workers in the factory. These people want it to go instead to the finance wolves who sell derivatives.

It is clear that one then wants a volatile electricity system that provides very fluctuating prices, because then one can sell more derivatives. This is what we have received in Sweden because we have decommissioned baseload power. The previous government had to provide liquidity support on a crashing derivatives market of 250 billion kronor – 250 billion kronor in liquidity support to a market that has stopped functioning, simply because it is far too volatile.

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that one must look back. The decommissioning of Barsebäck and the closed nuclear reactors have created different types of problems. We aim to recreate a Swedish core strength: a reliable and secure electricity system that gives households what they need, that gives companies the right conditions, and that stands guard over the green transition.

It is time to set aside ideology and talking points. The model being debated here today has received a "comfort letter" from the EU which roughly means that in its current form, it is useful for the purposes intended.

Vattenfall is already underway with its work. An application is to be submitted. They have announced that they will do so. Other energy companies are interested in this. Large parts of the trade union movement are positive towards new nuclear power. The business community is pushing for this. Several large Swedish industrial companies have in different ways said that they may even be prepared to invest or be involved in operating this. The Swedish people are on board with this. They want more baseload power.

What is it that we are actually waiting for? I have a clear appeal to the Social Democrats, namely not to let the Center Party and the Green Party be intimidated. You are better than them. Everyone can make mistakes, but moving forward, one can also choose to do the right thing. Sweden needs more backbone. Nuclear power is important. That is how we have built one of the world's best countries, and we can continue to do so.

(Applause)

In this speech, Lars Engsund, Mats Green and Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (all M) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for participating in the debate. It is far too rare that the ministers come here when the bills are to be debated and decided.

I can also join in on why we should have a strong, stable and competitive electricity and energy system. It is naturally completely central. But the competitiveness in large measure is about what prices and costs companies and households face for the electricity they buy and for the costs associated with the delivery – it is a whole. Having low system costs is crucial for households' ability to manage to pay their electricity bills and for companies that are to meet international competition. Therefore, it becomes so central to pose the question to the Minister for Finance and to the government, and to the members who are to vote on the bill, what it will cost and who will pay.

I understand that it is difficult to answer the question today, but if one moves forward with those types of propositions and considers this to be the start – or at least an important milestone – on the way to new nuclear power, one should also be able to answer the questions. It is, after all, about hundreds of billions of kronor and in any case about many billions in annual costs to pay for the price guarantee that the reactor owners will receive. These are important questions.

I also think it is important that the government answers the question of how the possibilities for other types of power to develop should be solved with that type of very extensive subsidies. We already see today how investment decisions are not being made for new energy production because there is so much money specifically for one type of power that one is then expected to compete with. It would be important to also receive a statement on that point from the government, that is, that you are not satisfied with supporting nuclear power so unilaterally.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first and foremost say that I think all of Fredrik Olovsson's questions are relevant, and each one of them deserves an answer. I see on my ticking clock that 1 minute and 49 seconds will necessarily not be enough to provide all the answers. At best, they are formulated in other contexts.

Mr. Speaker! Let me also say that this was exactly the thought that drove me when we began to develop a concrete proposal. Instead of locking ourselves in rooms and negotiating over ambiguities, we have presented proposals. It concretizes the debate and the discussion, it makes it clearer for the Swedish people, and it makes it easier to hold people accountable. That is good.

Just as has been said several times in the debate, there are three different types of costs that must be weighed against each other. A zero alternative: to have what we have today, that is, not to add more electricity production into the system and to maintain a heavy weather dependence. This results in volatile prices and connection problems to the power grid. This entails very large socio-economic costs beyond what happens in the power system itself, because it affects households and affects industry and job creation.

The second option is to hope that new technologies emerge. We hear a lot about this – the unicorn. Superbatteries and huge storage capacities are supposed to come. All of this is a very large risk; it might not happen or will come much later than what was envisioned. It can also be expensive, and here there is genuine uncertainty regarding the costs. Since the technology does not exist, it is not possible to price it, and we are not prepared to gamble in that way.

When it comes to this model and the public finances, it is primarily about loans that are to be issued and that are to be paid back. The investigation shows in this way how the public finances can even go slightly into the plus in this. Even though it is not an end in itself, the following applies, namely to safeguard the taxpayers' money, maintain order and regularity, and have stability in our economic systems.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I still believe it would be of great benefit if the government and the parties that are to vote for the proposal state what it will cost and who will pay. It should not be so difficult when one thinks that one has come far in the process.

There is no one advocating for a zero alternative. Everyone wants to develop our electricity system in different ways, and we want to do it as cost-effectively as possible. Nor is it any science fiction that we are striving for. It is not so much about new technology, but rather about buying things that Swedish metalworkers already do in Finspång in the form of gas turbines. Or it could be things from Hitachi in Ludvika, which receive the largest export orders ever because other countries are developing their electricity systems – while we mostly talk about them because investment decisions are not being made for new electricity production.

It would be important to know how the government intends to solve the problem. The large subsidies to one type of power mean de facto that others do not dare to invest and do not dare to come forward. The Finance Minister, the head of the department that Niklas Wykman works in, said just recently that it was ruled out to give the same support to offshore wind power. The government has admittedly rejected most of the applications, but there are some left that have received permission. And there are reasonably others who could contribute.

If we are really to speed up energy production in Sweden, if industry is to feel that they can be sure of receiving deliveries over the next 10–15 years, other forces must deliver. Neither I nor Niklas Wykman will back down from this. It is also a clear message from referral bodies, from industry, and from the unions. Solve the problems even in the coming years.

Of course, you want to build nuclear power – do it! But no one will escape the politics, and in this case, it is about getting more cheap electricity in place faster.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! I see it in no other way than that there is a broad consensus between us to strengthen Swedish energy production broadly. As recently as last week, the government presented a number of measures and a number of necessary prerequisites to better utilize hydropower and district heating. There is a broad consensus on this.

There is a lot of discussion about nuclear power because there are old battle horses and ideological contradictions here. Regarding the other types of energy, there is a broad consensus. On the other hand, we need to state that we must provide base load into the system. We have relatively much electricity when it happens to blow and the weather conditions are right. But what this is intended to solve is that we should have a stable electricity system that also works when it is not blowing.

Then there was the question of the costs. Since there are many discussions, we can take a deep breath and reflect on what the cost is and not let wild fantasies define the answer. Among other things, calculations have been made for CFD. Have we received lower electricity prices than expected? The calculations from the Ministry of Finance have shown that it could amount to some tens per month for an apartment household and some fifties for a villa household. Should the electricity price become radically even lower, it would of course mean large profits for households and industry. Then one would have to pay a little more for the insurance.

Let us go with the investigation's cost increase options – we take the worst possible scenario – that it will cost 600 billion kronor according to the investigation. For the sake of simplicity, let's say we can run this for 60 years. Then the cost is 10 billion kronor per year.

Before drifting away into a mass of complicated models, one can see it as simply as possible. If it costs 600 billion kronor to build, then that is the cost. One can run it for 60 years – let's say that for the sake of simplicity. And then you just divide 600 by 60 and you get an annual cost. I am not saying that this is the real cost, but it is hard to believe that it would be more expensive.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by clarifying to Niklas Wykman that I and the Center Party are not against nuclear power. What we do have something against are unilateral subsidies at the expense of households. What we also have something against are several billions in tax increases, which the households will have to pay for the difference contracts. To be against tax increases and subsidies is something the Moderates usually are too – but obviously not here.

During the election year, one could read an article in Dagens industri with an interview with Ulf Kristersson. There it stated that Moderaterna were not willing to stand behind state subsidies for nuclear power. Instead, they wanted to change the goal formulations, and they have now done so in their direction proposal. They also wanted the underlying legislation to be changed, and they have also done that.

As late as the election year 2022, the Moderaterna actually said that we would not have any state subsidies for nuclear power. What, Niklas Wykman, is it that has changed since 2022 that now justifies us having the largest state intervention and commitment for any infrastructure project ever in Swedish history?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not intend to enter into any competition with Rickard Nordin regarding political archaeology. We can look at reality instead. There are very volatile electricity prices. It is sometimes difficult to connect to the power grid. Households are very worried that it is expensive to use electricity when one needs it most. And things have happened in Russia, in Ukraine, and with the Swedish energy market.

It is possible that one wants to take their starting point in old quotes and other things. But it is probably more reasonable to look at reality and then design the policy based on how it actually looks.

The message from reality is unambiguous. We need more baseload power into the system. But I have respect for those who say that one should build gas turbines and so on. Many countries around Europe are not as distancing from carbon emissions as we are in Sweden. I stand behind, for example, our high ambitions in the climate area fully. Therefore, nuclear power is an attractive alternative as baseload.

When it comes to basic infrastructure in society, the Moderaterna is a party that believes the state has a responsibility. Energy systems, roads and hospitals together provide something more than the ice cream trucks. We are a country, and we do things together.

We secure things for our citizens and create safety and security. Infrastructure is one thing. Energy supply is another. Equal opportunity for school and education is a part of Sweden. It is worth something. That is the moderate stance on this. I am not ashamed of it at all. We take that responsibility, also in energy policy. It is clear that we must have a functioning electricity system. And it is clear that ultimately it is a state responsibility.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is not a story that goes back very far. It is what the Moderates said in the last election campaign. It was said that they were not prepared to stand behind state subsidies for nuclear power. And now they are proposing the largest subsidies ever, in a single project. Can one not trust what Ulf Kristersson says to the voters? That is the big question.

It is clear that everyone thinks it would be good to have less volatile prices, if we can increase the power capacity in southern Sweden and solve all the other problems that Niklas Wykman points out.

The problem is that if it is nuclear power that is to be the solution, we will not have any solution in place for the next 10–15, perhaps even 20 years. It is a gigantic problem.

It is something that the voters, not least in southern Sweden, must take with them into the next election campaign. For the first, it is not possible to trust what Ulf Kristersson says, because the conditions change radically after the election. For the second, the only solution one has will be delivered in decades.

There are other solutions. Niklas Wykman spoke about the alternatives earlier. But the zero alternative is not what anyone is proposing. The technology alternative, with future technology, is not what anyone is proposing either. On the other hand, there are many who propose that we should utilize the technology that already exists in a better way. It is about the combined heat and power in the south, about the hydropower in the north, about efficiencies and other things. This is also backed up by research and authorities. What is not backed up is the government's policy, except by Niklas Wykman and his colleagues.

My question goes back. What is it that has changed since Ulf Kristersson said that we should not have any state subsidies for nuclear power, which he did during the election campaign? Can his words not be trusted?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me return to my speech. People are tired of this endless back-and-forth – who said what and when – in political language and in conflict-making.

We have a reality to deal with, Rickard Nordin and Centerpartiet. There, we have very volatile electricity prices. That creates problems for households and connection problems for companies. We also have a climate transition to take responsibility for.

I have all the respect for the fact that one can go back and look for different quotes and put them into another context. The problem with that is that it doesn't matter. The problems remain. It is an aggressive Russia, which lives on selling raw materials and which has energy export as a very important source of income and uses it in its war. And we have a weather-dependent electricity system, which creates major problems for our consumers and producers in the Swedish economy.

We need real solutions, not political one-liners and quarrels of various kinds. That is why I am pleased that the Social Democrats have, despite everything, gradually approached a position that means we can build new nuclear power in Sweden. It is unfortunate that it will not be a full "yes" vote here today, but I am pleased with the openings that exist moving forward.

One can trust Ulf Kristersson. These are not large subsidies to a single branch of the armed forces. It is about loans that are to be paid back. And a price mechanism and a profit-sharing mechanism shall ensure that the projects can be completed and that the profits do not become too large. It is about order, security, and stability.

Centerpartiet may not want that electricity system. That may be the case. But when it comes to whether it is a solution or a problem, I think it must be troublesome to be Rickard Nordin. Think of all the voices calling for broad agreements, from unions to industry – Swedish job creators. Why are they calling for broad agreements? They do so because they are afraid of Centerpartiet and Rickard Nordin.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker and Minister Wykman! It was interesting to hear the speech. I would also be able to sign on to much of it. However, I react to the Minister's reference to the fact that households need basic strength. What households need are low energy prices. That is what is decisive for how households view what comes from the outlet.

When it comes to the pricing we apply for electricity, if one were to safeguard households and low electricity prices, one would have introduced the Beacon model a long time ago. I have tried to form an opinion on whether it is even possible. Do the pieces exist? Someone has invented it, and it is no secret that we have hitched on and call it Sweden prices.

It is said that if one challenges the system and says that one intends to introduce a fifth price area for the export part today, one could, at best, implement it after a year. But that is something they have not wanted to do, because it obviously also brings money into the state treasury with this system.

Let us say that reactors are being built. I have been into the fact that it is not a matter of religion for me to say no because I do not like nuclear power. But this system, to process it so quickly and the cost is uncertainties. But say that now a new reactor is being built and it malfunctions on the continent. Then Swedish consumers will have to pay a high price for the same electricity that comes from that reactor, and it will not stop at the 80 öre. If they on the continent are then prepared to pay more for that electricity, it becomes marginal pricing again.

Isn't that a system failure or a problem if the households are to get these low electricity prices?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Birger Lahti, for the question!

I really appreciate the conversations we have had about various things. Sometimes it sounds like we stand very far apart from each other. We don't necessarily always do that, at least not in terms of the fact that we need electricity in Sweden. Then the path there can be a bit different.

Birger Lahti puts his finger on a significant problem. That a number of European countries have not managed their electricity systems in a good way has had very large consequences, also in Sweden. But one must say in all humility that we have not either managed our electricity system in the best way. If we did not have the dependence on other countries, in order to be able to import when our own production falls short, the exposure would of course be smaller. But by having disposed of much of our base load through the extensive nuclear power shutdowns we have made, we have also created a greater dependence on other countries.

At bottom, I am a person who believes that mutual dependencies, whether it concerns fellow human beings or neighboring countries, build more strength. Alone is not strong, but together one makes things better. I do not think that one should shut down the idea that we should help each other in Europe and stand strong together.

What Birger Lahti is talking about regarding the electricity price areas concerns European regulation. It is clear that it has become more difficult to manage for Sweden because base load power in southern Sweden has been shut down. One has encountered both transmission capacity problems and more volatile prices. Therefore, it is now very important that we can provide more base load power in southern Sweden. If this problem does not cease completely, it will at least be mitigated.

With this bill, we are all people of Skåne. We see the problems that people have in Skåne, and we meet them with this proposal. We have listened to the wishes of Carl Johan Sonesson and others. We are moving forward broadly with proposals regarding combined heat and power, district heating, and other things that shall help the people of Skåne out of this very problematic situation.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.

There is something that bothers me a bit in this discussion. Yes, we have had net imports of electricity. I do not remember if it was 2023 or 2024 when it was approximately 140 hours; otherwise, it was net exports. But that answer is not enough to explain these high prices. We are infected by high prices, just as the Minister mentions; there are countries that have not managed their system in a good way, and it rubs off. But I can never argue to consumers who ask that the problem would only lie in this. There is obviously reason for what the Minister says, but it is not enough.

The problem will persist regardless of whether reactors are built in bidding zone 4. If the problems with marginal pricing persist, even that electricity will cause one to pay high electricity prices in bidding zone 4 due to the system we have for prices. However, I agree with the Minister that we stand strong together and should not cut cables. But that would not change the price for our export electricity with the pricing system that we have advocated for. That is something one does not want to touch, however, because money comes to the state treasury with this system.

How do the Moderates view the fuel for nuclear power? Russia is the largest uranium exporter and has the lowest prices. Even if we and the other Europeans do not buy their uranium, their exports have not decreased. It ends up somewhere. This cycle means, I want to assert, that Sweden's import of uranium has a connection to the fact that the Russians are still making money on their uranium. Does it not disturb the governing party that this is how we get our uranium?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first and foremost be very clear that the government has no pecuniary interests in maintaining a poor electricity system. On the contrary, deficiencies in our electricity system hit the public finances hard in the long term as well. They make us less productive, less working, and more vulnerable as a country. Even though I did not understand exactly what Birger Lahti was referring to, I want to say that there are no hidden motives concerning increasing revenues to the state with a dysfunctional electricity system. I do not believe, in the name of honesty, that Social Democrats or others would want to engage in that either. It is a significant problem that it looks the way it does.

Regarding pricing, we are now looking at the electricity price areas, as we have announced. It is important. But it must nevertheless be pointed out that if one does not want large price fluctuations within the country or between countries, one must have more base load in southern Sweden and a functioning transmission capacity. That is the core of the problem with the EU rules hitting Sweden so hard, especially southern Sweden, as they do now. It must also be pointed out that a poorly functioning electricity system affects the entire country and all citizens, both through the generally poorer capacity the country receives and through various types of fees and taxes that are added due to dysfunctionality.

When it comes to Russia, I can tell Birger Lahti and this chamber that we are pleased with the broad support that exists to counter the Russian war and the Russian economy. Here we stand united, and that is what we shall continue to do. Uranium is an issue that is not relevant for the Swedish market. But here it must be noted that Russia has many other large export revenues that also come from the energy sector, not least from gas and oil. Building new nuclear power in Sweden is also a way to make Europe and Sweden less dependent on Russian gas. It is a hard blow against the Russian war economy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to extend a big thank you to Niklas Wykman for participating in the debate. I think it is very good when ministers do so.

I want to start a little bit with the historical description. Let us go back to the time when the Moderaterna ruled last time, that is, the alliance period. It is the time that Niklas Wykman seems to dream himself back to regarding the electricity system. But then Sweden was on an annual basis dependent on imports of, among other things, German and Polish coal power. One only has to go back and check the statistics for how the energy balance looked then.

Then Niklas Wykman says that it is important to expand the electricity system. There we can also check how it is going in reality. When we handed over government power in 2022, we had the largest electricity surplus and the lowest electricity prices in Europe. We also had a historically high expansion rate of approximately 3 gigawatts per year. Now it has collapsed. Since the government took over and up until this year, it decreased by 50 percent, and it looks like it will decrease even more, perhaps by 75 percent, by next year. There, the development is going in completely the wrong direction. Furthermore, we have an increased fossil dependency, contrary to what Niklas Wykman says he wants to achieve, through heavy subsidies to fossil fuels, of which 50 percent are of unknown origin and perhaps come from Russia.

Niklas Wykman also says that the alternative way to balance the renewables, that is, green baseload power, does not exist. In that case, I can tell Niklas Wykman that I have devoted myself to traveling around and looking at the facilities that exist all over Sweden and the technologies that are already used for production. I will tell a bit more about that in my next turn, because my speaking time will soon run out.

Finally, I want to ask again a question that we have not received an answer to. This will be the last chance. Who is going to pay the penalty tax for new nuclear power?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Something that Miljöpartiet and Centerpartiet have in common – apart from being a big problem for the Socialdemokrater, of course – is that it is political archaeology that applies to them. One must look back and have much discussion about what has been. The reason why we do not really feel the need to participate in this, Mr. Speaker, is firstly that it does not solve any current social problem, and secondly that everyone who wants to know what has gone wrong in Sweden can read Göran Persson's memoirs, where he very carefully and boastfully goes through how one, for example, shut down Barsebäck and how it has continued in Sweden since then. It is recorded from the highest levels, so it is not such a great idea to talk more about it. They are familiar figures. The person who was behind it has also boasted about it for their own sake. It is clear that everyone who wants to can read up on it.

Our work is about solving the problems Sweden has. It is a matter of volatile electricity prices, problems with connecting to the power grid and a European dependence on Russian gas, to mention three significant examples. This creates difficulties for, among other things, the green transition, new jobs and higher wages in Sweden.

I have listened to Linus Lakso's previous arguments regarding the costs of this. He speaks of tens of thousands of kronor per year and household, several thousand billions and so on. This is a very limited program. It aims to make it possible to build the equivalent of four full-scale reactors. According to the investigation's main assessment – the cost-increase option – it is a matter of 600 billion kronor. If one imagines that they are operated for 60 years, it is 10 billion kronor per year. I am not saying that it is the exact cost, but it is very difficult to understand what other costs one finds beyond the total cost of building the reactors. But perhaps Linus Lakso has a gifted answer to that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I note that I did not receive an answer to the question of who will pay the penalty tax that is to cover the CFD contracts, or difference contracts, as they are called.

The results you get depend on what figures you put in. In that regard, the government has put in "feel-good" calculations regarding both the cost of new nuclear power, the construction time, and future electricity prices.

One can always manipulate a calculation. But I have asked the Riksdag's investigation service to put in some more realistic figures. Those were the ones I referred to in my speech. Then we end up at those amounts.

Especially if the costs are to be placed solely on households, it is a matter of it costing perhaps 1,000 kronor or more per month for a year for 40 years.

I will also tell a little bit about what actually exists in reality. I would recommend Niklas Wykman to leave the Stockholm city limits and his office and travel around.

I have, for example, visited Göteborg Energi which already has gas turbines today, and it works. I have visited Skellefteå Kraft which increases the power of the hydropower in Rengård in Skellefteälven.

I have visited Mälarenergi, which has already inaugurated a heat storage facility that can make combined heat and power more flexible. In Finspång, the gas turbines are manufactured. In Ludvika, the power electronics that can balance a system with a lot of renewable energy in terms of power electronics, rotating mass, voltage regulation, and so on, are manufactured.

I have visited Vattenfall's pumped-storage power plant which is being resumed in Juktan in the interior of Västerbotten.

These are technologies that exist and that work. They are not unicorns. Those unicorns are probably more likely to be found in Niklas Wykman's office in his calculations of the costs.

This is the last chance to answer. Is it the households or the industry that should pay? Who is it that will have to pay the nuclear power tax that this will entail?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! There might even come a travel diary from Linus's travels all around Sweden. I believe that most of us who devote ourselves to trying to improve Sweden could also be involved in writing such a diary.

When it comes to the costs, there is again talk of thousands of billions. It creates a concern that Linus Lakso perhaps has not understood all parts of the proposal.

There is a profit-sharing mechanism consisting of three parts. One should be able to get access to cheaper loans. One should have a CFD that ensures that one can move forward with projects and carry them out. Then there is also the part with the risk and profit-sharing mechanism.

If, for example, there is an investment of 300 billion, Linus says that it should lead to thousands of billions being paid. What a risk- and profit-sharing mechanism aims for is that it should not be so.

If it turns out that the projects are very profitable, will the interest on the loans be raised or the CFD be lowered? In that way, more money will be returned to the taxpayers.

There are three different types of mechanisms here. In the best-case scenario, it is that Linus Lakso has omitted the third and final mechanism. If one were to pay in thousands of billions for investments of a few hundred billion, we would in such cases be talking about a very high return.

There is a limitation on high returns in the third leg of the proposal. If the return were to turn out to be very high, a repayment would then occur. Perhaps Linus Lakso has not fully taken that into account in his assessment of this.

Linus Lakso, however, still has the big test ahead of him. If he is right, why then do so large parts of the Swedish trade union movement and so many large old Swedish industrial companies, the Swedish business community and Swedish energy companies have it wrong?

It is a heavy task for Linus Lakso to explain to all successful Swedish companies, large parts of the Swedish trade union movement and Swedish business why he is right and all of them are wrong.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Josef Fransson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating NU20, Financing and risk sharing in investments in new nuclear power. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report in its entirety.

I mean that it is an important step on the way for Sweden to obtain a new predictable and environmentally friendly power so that we can recreate a robust energy system with competitive prices.

One can also say in this context that we actually never would have needed to be here. We are now going to provide some form of support to nuclear power, even though we are discussing a bit regarding what that support will entail. It depends on previous political mistakes.

Statliga Vattenfall could have easily renewed its nuclear power park successively, among other things with the money that was plowed into the Nuon deal or on German coal power.

The Social Democrats' and the Centre Party's historical opposition to nuclear power has cost Sweden countless billions. Unfortunately, they continue on the same path today.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to react a little to the alternative policy being presented. It is the policy that the opposition stands for when one thinks of voting against the path to new nuclear power here today.

I am going to read a passage from the joint reservation from S, V, C, and MP. It states that ”it is very doubtful whether nuclear power specifically should be the given choice to meet the challenges and reach the goals that the government lists in the bill when there are simultaneously several alternative solutions. These alternatives include increased output in hydropower and combined heat and power, a more flexible electricity use, gas turbines powered by renewable fuels and various forms of energy storage”. This was, therefore, a quote from the reservation.

I mean that these are not alternative solutions at all. Technically, a lot can be achieved. But if you add economy as a factor so that the industry can have competitive prices, this is about as realistic as a child's fantasies about pink flying unicorns.

I will try to break down the alternatives a bit. We begin with increased capacity in hydropower and combined heat and power, which aim to regulate wind power in a more efficient way.

It is clear that it is possible. But I find it difficult to see that, at least in the near term, it can help the balancing of wind power more than on the margin. It also takes time to build up.

Rickard Nordin previously mentioned in the debate that there was potential to increase the output in Swedish hydropower plants by the equivalent of four nuclear power plants or 4 gigawatts.

To begin with, it is not any new energy that is being added, but it is only about when the power is used. But what Nordin seems to have completely forgotten is the time horizon. This is nothing that one does in a heartbeat.

This is nothing that one does before new nuclear power is in place. It is about a number of decades before one can reach such a goal. In a report that dealt with exactly this, 2050 was mentioned.

It also comes with a number of other challenges and consequences. It is not so simple that one can just throw oneself into such things without really delving deeper.

I will move on. From the opposition, there is talk of more flexible use as an alternative to nuclear power. Again, it can cut peaks and reduce troughs in usage at the margins. But in the big picture, it definitely does not solve Sweden's need for predictable power. This is especially true from one season to another. It may possibly be from one day to another.

The truth is that the price elasticity is close to zero when it comes to electricity. Hospitals, industries, schools and so on cannot, to any decisive extent, plan their consumption based on the electricity price, they need the power when they need it. The price mechanisms in a market do not work for electricity in that way. Please, let it go and move on!

Then one mentions gas turbines powered by renewable fuels again as an alternative to nuclear power. Previous debaters have already asked the questions. But I would have liked to see that one told and put figures on it. Where is the gas going to come from if it is not natural gas?

The potential of biogas is highly limited, and therefore only hydrogen remains. Again, it is not a technical problem. It is possible to regulate with hydrogen and gas turbines. But it is associated with large investment costs as well as massive energy losses.

Producing hydrogen, storing it, and then using it to reproduce electricity in a gas turbine involves energy losses of approximately 70 percent.

If we have an average electricity price of a few kronor in Sweden, such an investment could certainly pay off. But can we have such high electricity prices? Will any industrial companies be able to operate in Sweden then? Last year, Sweden's average electricity price on the spot market was around 60 öre, maybe slightly more.

Please tell us in detail, you in the opposition, what you mean by green gas and how it is to be produced! How is it to be used, and in what quantities? Then I and we others here in the chamber would have the opportunity to review and analyze the proposals coming from you. Then it will also become obvious how unrealistic this is.

Mr. Speaker! I move on to storage, which is also mentioned as part of the alternatives to new nuclear power. It can mean many things. Our hydropower dams are stored energy, and I actually believe myself that the low-hanging fruits are found just there when it comes to increasing storage capacity. But I do not believe that is what is meant in the reservation, rather it is more about hydrogen and batteries.

I have already mentioned hydrogen, so now I thought I would say a few words about batteries. To those of you who argue that batteries would be a solution to fluctuations in electricity supplies and use this claim in your argumentation, I would like to say: It is completely out of touch with reality!

If one makes the slightest effort to calculate this, large-scale storage in batteries does not appear to be a particularly pleasant alternative at all. It is extremely resource-intensive and extremely costly. When I myself try to make calculations for such an investment, I end up at at least a good bit over 10 kronor per kilowatt-hour, if one imagines that a wind farm is to be supplemented with batteries in order to be able to deliver a steady current. It is therefore needed to have more than 10 kronor per kilowatt-hour in order to be able to finance the investment.

Again: Forget it and move on! Batteries will never be able to be used for anything other than very specific system services such as power regulation on a second level.

Then we come to wind power. It is not mentioned in the reservation today, of course, but in previous energy debates, it is constantly this wind power that keeps coming back. It is astonishing to see how the opposition calls for more wind power to solve the problems that wind power has caused.

Today, it has been said that companies need new energy faster than the ten years we expect it will take to build new nuclear power. But even if it were true that one could build out such large amounts of wind power in such a short time, it would not solve the power situation.

Now I am going to tell you one thing, and I hope you prick up your ears. If you look at the statistics on energy additions from wind power and Swedish exports, that is, net exports, of energy, you see that the correlation is very high. It is clear that there are variations from year to year, but in principle this applies: When we install more wind power in Sweden, the export increases by approximately the same amount. Look at the last ten years and you see an almost perfect correlation! How then can new wind power solve today's problems for today's industry? The conclusion is that it does not.

I must mention something about solar cells as well. We have an environmental party here in the Riksdag that thinks we should have a goal of an expansion of 30 terawatt-hours of solar power by 2030 at the latest. That would mean an installed capacity of a bit over 30 gigawatts. That means that on a sunny summer day, when industry is closed and we are lying on the beach soaking up the sun, the solar power will, during a certain hour, deliver a power equivalent to 30 nuclear power plants. On a warm summer day, the consumption is perhaps 12–13 gigawatts. Is it then appropriate to push in 30 gigawatts of solar power beyond what cannot be regulated with, for example, wind power and hydropower? No, it is not.

Regarding solar power in general, I always think it is important to point out that solar power delivers during the summer months. During the winter months, solar power delivers practically nothing at all. But it is in the winter that Swedish industry and Swedish households are in the greatest need of energy and power. The conclusion I draw is that solar power in Sweden can never be anything other than a hobby. It is total madness with large-scale solar power in Sweden.

Finally, I would like to say something about costs. The opposition has devoted almost the entire debate to demanding answers on what the expansion of nuclear power will cost. But the most relevant question in this context is: What is the social cost of a dysfunctional energy system? It is high. It keeps ticking.

It is about missing investments in industry, among other things, but also about housing and other things. It is about tens of billions annually in missing investments, and we are losing jobs and growth. That is where the debate should also land: The opportunity cost of not building nuclear power or new base load power is very high.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Josef Fransson!

The presentation constantly lands on the point that all power sources except nuclear power are bad. That is the interpretation one makes when listening to Josef Fransson's speech. I did not intend to request a reply, as I am so hungry for the long debate, but I could not help but ask a question.

The committee completely saws off the possibilities of increasing the power of the hydropower and says that it would take decades. Then I ask: Does Josef Fransson know how long it took for Skellefteå Kraft to double the power of a hydropower plant in Skellefteälven from the time the decision was made until the station began producing double power? Let's hear it!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Josef Fransson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The answer to the direct question is: no idea.

All power sources are bad except nuclear power, Birger Lahti says that I have said. It is actually not what I say or what anyone else in here has said earlier either, for that matter.

It is about the fact that Sweden's energy system needs new base load. In that regard, nuclear power is a very attractive alternative linked to cost and furthermore combined with very low emissions. Nuclear power is environmentally friendly. The alternatives are coal, oil, and gas, and we have collectively decided here in the chamber that we do not want to invest in that. That leaves only nuclear power. It is the only type of energy that is scalable in the way that we need today.

Let me go back to Skellefteå Kraft and their expansion. It depends on what conditions one has. They might have had very low-hanging fruit by replacing old technology. There may be additional such cases where one can make investments that yield results very quickly.

But if one is to expand an entire river, it does not help to build on a hydroelectric dam. Then one might get too much water in the next hydroelectric dam. Then one must rebuild it, and so one gets too much water in the next hydroelectric dam. Then one might get far too rapid fluctuations in water levels, and one can have potential water hammers and such things to deal with.

Overall, it is not as simple as the opposition wants to make it out to be. It is advanced and complex, and it will take time. In the report that I believe Rickard Nordin referred to earlier – I hope at least that it is the same report – it was mentioned that four nuclear power plants in capacity could be in place around 2050. One must also keep in mind that it is not any new capacity. It is just that it has been moved from one point in time to another to solve wind power's inherent problems.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Josef Fransson, for the answer!

Four years is the answer to the question of how long it took from the time Skellefteå Kraft began seeking permits to replace a turbine until the power was doubled. Rengårds kraftstation is the name of the station – you can Google that after the debate. And there are many such examples.

No one wants to build a new river. It is not on the map; I believe everyone agrees on that. But there is great potential in hydropower, as the member himself pointed out, if one has an entire river system with many power stations and operates them jointly. There is much to be done, and I do not claim that everyone will do it in four years. But the member said that it will take decades before effects are seen, and that is not true either.

That is why I reacted and requested the floor. One cannot simply paint a black picture. I have said it before: One can say whatever lies one wants in the speaker's chair and get away with it. Therefore, I wanted to say that it is not true that it would take decades. There is an effect to be taken.

I asked a question to the government party Moderaterna which I now want to ask the Sverigedemokraterna, who in many other contexts rave about market mechanisms and market forces. Say that one had gone out and said: Who can deliver these system services in price area 4, and at what price tag? There are many different systems. I don't know at all what it would involve, but nuclear power is not the sole answer to that question. But say that one were to test asking if someone wanted to calculate this and what price it would then become. Do the Sverigedemokraterna not think that some actor would then say: "We can fix this, and it won't be with nuclear power"?

Let me be clear: I am not saying this because I do not believe that nuclear power also has its advantages, but because I want to save money.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Josef Fransson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am completely convinced of this: If we had had a nuclear-friendly attitude broadly across the party lines over the last decades and not totally crushed and destroyed Sweden's electricity market with wind power, if we had had stable electricity prices and a stable policy, nuclear power would have stood on its own feet. That no one has dared to invest in nuclear power in recent years, at least not independently, is due precisely to that: political uncertainty and that one does not know where the prices are headed.

For a while we have had very low electricity prices. Then we shut down a lot of nuclear power plants, and suddenly the prices become very high. Then, when the prices shoot up, perhaps it does become a bit more interesting to invest. But then the political uncertainty still remains. What happens if, God forbid, the red-greens were to win the next election? How many more years can we manage while Swedish industry stands and waits to receive power allocation despite that we export? For every new wind turbine we install, we export just as much. But the electricity does not stay in Sweden. It is more or less unusable in Sweden as it stands. Look at those figures!

As said: There is no intrinsic value in nuclear power. There is intrinsic value in base power, and there, nuclear power is – unfortunately, if one has that perspective – the only alternative that is scalable and more or less emission-free.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! Last year, 7 percent of all Swedish-produced electricity came from the nuclear power plant in Oskarshamn. There, in my home municipality, is also all of Sweden's high-level nuclear waste in the interim storage facility Clab. Without Clab, no nuclear power plant can be operated.

We also have the world-unique Äspö laboratory and the capsule laboratory for the research on the final repository. There is also the home port of M/S Sigrid, the ship that transports all the nuclear fuel.

Without this electricity production, without the buffer, without the research and without the ship that is in Oskarshamn, Sweden would be poorer in electricity.

At home, we are proud of what we contribute. It is created by companies and employees in good cooperation with politics and for the benefit of all of Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! In Oskarshamn, we have agreed to have broad political unity on issues concerning nuclear power. We put safety first and place great emphasis on democratic anchoring, science, and research.

For example, the nuclear waste has taken a lot of time from the municipal executive board, the municipal council and the municipal administration. Naturally, it has had displacement effects. But we have taken it upon ourselves to take these issues most seriously and take our share of the responsibility. Politics nationally should also do so.

But, Mr. Speaker, over time we have unfortunately seen how nuclear power has instead been used as an accessory to mark ideological identity, create conflict and win opinion, perhaps some single percentage point for the one who is close to the parliamentary threshold. It is unworthy. Swedish nuclear power deserves greater respect – for several reasons.

Firstly: Nuclear power is associated with risks for people, animals, and nature. We know this as those who live nearby and who have the geographical area responsibility. Safety must be prioritized. We take the risks very seriously.

In Oskarshamn, we know that it is possible to supply Sweden with nuclear power in a way that is safe for the surroundings. But the levity with which some politicians treat the issue of nuclear power is not serious – neither scientifically nor democratically.

Secondly: Nuclear power is necessary for welfare, jobs, and growth. The need for electricity is great and will become even greater. Minimizing the importance of nuclear power is not grounded in reality. Sweden needs more nuclear power, not less.

Thirdly: Nuclear power is a science for producing electricity. It is not a religion to worship or an ideology to set against others. It is fully possible – and necessary – for Sweden to invest in several types of energy simultaneously. To present it as either-or benefits neither Swedish nuclear power nor our energy supply.

Mr. Speaker! Cross-bloc agreements, handshakes, are required to guarantee investments in Swedish nuclear power. This has been repeated by representatives of the business community. Long-term perspective is required, that one knows that political decisions are firm, for long-term investments to materialize.

Mr. Speaker and honorable colleagues! I grew up with a single mother who, throughout my entire upbringing, worked out at Simpevarp, at OKG. She took the bus at a quarter to seven from the city, every morning. She was an interpreter and translator, and also a guide.

I have myself worked at SKB, Svensk Kärnbränslehantering. During a couple of summers, I was a guide in the Äspötunneln. There, together with my colleagues, I received large numbers of visitors who wanted to learn about how Sweden handles its used nuclear fuel in Oskarshamn.

It is hardly a secret that I – like many in Oskarshamn and others here in Kalmar County – have close ties to and contacts with nuclear power and other industries at home: Scania, Saft, Press Kogyo, Liljeholmens and many more. I am proud of that. I am also proud to be an elected representative from this region, to have the mandate as a representative to work for our issues here in the Riksdag, issues that fundamentally concern jobs and welfare throughout Sweden.

But sometimes, Mr. Speaker, I have been told, somewhat contemptuously, that I am indoctrinated and that we in Oskarshamn would be bought by the industry. It is a cynical and disrespectful way to view us, not least in light of everything that Oskarshamn contributes to Swedish electricity supply, GDP and growth, and which all Swedes benefit from.

But above all, it is wrong. We are not indoctrinated or bought. On the other hand, we are more well-read and aware – because we have to. It is about our local area, our nature, our streams, our gullvivegläntor and our cairns – many of which we have in Småland. It is about the sea and the forest where we hike. It is also about those we love – our children, families, friends and relatives.

We are not stupid. We may not be city dwellers, but Stockholmers are actually not smarter than people from the countryside. Of course, we want to live safely and securely.

That is also why we attach such great importance to safety, with everything that it entails. We attach importance to the nuclear power industry's own safety work, to independent audits, to science and academia, to the role of the media, to the expert authority SSM, to the county administrative board's safety work, and so on.

We also attach great importance, Mr. Speaker, to the statutory right for our municipality to have influence and control, which I have previously raised here in the chamber.

Transparency, trust and anchoring are necessary for security and thus for nuclear power as such. I truly wish that politics nationally would take note of this. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is just as deplorable to listen to political representatives who want to phase out nuclear power and turn a blind eye to the consequences for jobs and welfare as it is to listen to those who present new nuclear power as something that can be slapped up anywhere and turn a blind eye to the safety commitments that are required. But most deplorable of all is the absence of a common sense of responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! We live in a democracy, and this government will not be in power for another 80 years. Nor will the next Social Democratic-led government. Governments come and go, but nuclear power remains. Large investments over upwards of 80 years require long-term rules of the game. Those who are interested in Sweden having nuclear power should invest their time in reaching a consensus on these issues and reflecting on how we can create broad support around this. That is the only way we can secure Sweden as a nuclear power country.

Unity is achieved through patient work for knowledge and anchoring, by building trust and transparency, by making handshakes and honoring them. The one who bickers, is unserious and seeks quick points serves the interests of the nuclear power opponents, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Many times I have listened to what certain government representatives have said and wondered if they understand what a disservice they are doing to Swedish nuclear power and to us in Oskarshamn.

Mr. Speaker! "Unity" must be the keyword. Fundamentally, it is about the Social Democrats and the Moderates needing to reach an agreement and stick to it. If something is to last over time, conflict is not the solution. It is possible to reach an agreement. In Oskarshamn, we rule together, as do we in several places around the country.

Nationally, we have had good meetings where we have agreed on the legislative changes regarding civil law that are now being implemented. Dialogue between our two parties is also ongoing regarding nuclear power. A lot of work has been done to get here and to seek common ground. I welcome the new melodies that have begun to be heard. I hope that they will yield results.

Today's situation, which has emerged only in recent months, is admittedly pleasing but still insufficient, because the majority's announcement today in the chamber ignores the market's perhaps foremost principle: Companies that want to invest are required for it to become business. The state cannot solve the task without a business sector that trusts the rules of the game in the long term. Without such, it matters little or perhaps not at all how much money the state puts in. Then it is the taxpayers who end up paying for the risk-taking. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we must learn from history instead of repeating it.

Nuclear power and the energy supply should be seen as the very definition of what we as a country need to work on in the long term and collectively, so that the business sector receives long-term rules of the game, just as they have requested. The companies can and want to step into the equation. The state will not manage it alone, as said.

I really want to believe that the Moderaterna have it in them to show sufficient respect, also nationally, for us Social Democrats, the people we represent and what we bring to the table so that politics can produce clear messages regarding the long-term conditions. The business community then gets what Jacob Wallenberg and Jan-Olof Jacke from Svenskt Näringsliv requested in DN Debatt at the end of November: a crystal-clear joint message on the future of nuclear power and wind power.

Mr. Speaker! The message that the Swedes should receive today from the government should be that there will be a handshake with the Social Democrats, where both nuclear power and wind power are invested in. It is required to achieve the unity that is necessary. A handshake on nuclear power and wind power would create the type of cross-bloc anchoring among the Social Democrats and the Moderates that is required and that the business community has requested. In that way, broad political unity would lead the way for the business community. In that way, the taxpayers' wallets can also be shielded to a greater extent.

Mr. Speaker! No matter how much one sees the advantages of nuclear power, which I truly do, nuclear power is not built in a day. When nuclear power was built in Oskarshamn, it took time. Many years passed between the government bill and the finished reactor. That is not strange. It is an advanced and potent technology we are talking about. But as is known, we need more electricity here and now. Everyone knows that, not least Swedish consumers and companies. Therefore, wind power was also clearly needed, preferably offshore. Wind power is significantly faster to build. That cannot be ignored.

Mr. Speaker! The citizens and the parties in the labor market expect us elected representatives to cooperate to solve our time's great problems, such as the energy supply. Democracy must deliver, especially in times like these. Neither Swedish nuclear power nor the country's citizens benefit from nuclear power being a punching bag in the debate. We know this in Oskarshamn, which has lived besieged through decades of political trench warfare.

The lesson of history is that the Social Democrats and the Moderates need to agree on a holistic approach to guarantee Swedish nuclear power. It is not enough to point fingers. The conditions exist to reach an agreement, if we both want to.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Engsund (M)

Mr. Speaker! At a parliamentary seminar earlier this year, I met Björn Rosengren. In the middle of his speech, he happened to say: I laid down nuclear power, and that was just stupid.

Let us set aside the tragic chapter in our electricity system's history. The red-green's policy has contributed to the decommissioning of well-functioning base load, especially in Southern Sweden. We shall instead focus on where we stand here and now. We see an electricity system that inflicts volatile prices and power shortages on companies, especially in Southern Sweden. Visit them and ask what the problem is, and you will receive a clear answer: Do something about it now!

There are no examples in the world where energy poverty brings prosperity to society. We need to understand that we cannot rely on weather-dependent power sources. It does not work. People talk about how expanded weather-dependent power sources, primarily wind power and solar power together with power electronics, battery storage, and hydrogen storage shall deliver the power we need and provide the electricity system with the characteristics and support services needed in a robust electricity system – this instead of reliable, 24/7-producing baseload power.

Mr. Speaker! When will this arrive? Where is this? What will it cost? Do you have a handle on the magnitudes in the systems? No, the truth is that one simply does not have a handle on either magnitudes or physics. You cannot cheat the laws of nature. We need basic power. Basic power has served us well for decades.

The type of issues being discussed today with volatility, power shortages, and so on, did not exist before weather-dependent power entered our electricity system. The electricity system functioned perfectly well with only base load. Base load is a prerequisite for us to be able to have weather-dependent power in the system. Look around the world, or look at Germany! It does not work. Coal-fired power plants have had to be restarted to replace decommissioned nuclear power.

Mr. Speaker! As a former engineer in the nuclear power industry, I would like to try to kill two clichés that are used frequently. It is said that nuclear power is expensive and that it takes a long time to build. References are made to Finland 5, Hinkley Point, and Vogtle in the USA. Have you been there and asked what the problems were due to and found out why those projects went wrong? Has anyone looked at what happened in Sweden between 1966 and 1985?

If you compare projects with one another, you must have a basis for comparison. You must compare pears with pears and apples with apples. Do not forget that! Projects that go poorly are usually due to a lack of control over state management, construction, and logistics, and not having secured your supply chains, to name a few examples. I have visited Finland 5 and Vogtle in the USA and gathered knowledge and experience. It is unambiguous that these problems exist and existed in those projects.

Mr. Speaker! As I mentioned just now, something happened in Sweden between 1966 and 1985. We built eleven reactors in Sweden. Asea Atom delivered on time and within budget. It took 50 months to build Oskarshamn 3.

Financing and risk sharing in investments in new nuclear power

We should be able to make the same journey again. The knowledge exists, and the technology exists. Our largest reactors have world-class performance when it comes to safety, economics, and operational availability. Let us get started and do the same thing again! This would generate tens of thousands of jobs in our country.

To achieve this, leadership and cooperation between politics, finance, and industry are required. Fortum and Vattenfall are unequivocal: Without a financing model, there will be no new nuclear power.

We have done it before, and we can do it again.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)