Research and innovation in the energy sector for security of supply, competitiveness and climate transition
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns research and innovation for security of supply, competitiveness, and climate transition. SD believes that an ambitious energy policy is required to reach the climate goals and wants to invest in groundbreaking technologies as well as energy efficiency 1. M believes that research is crucial for industry and competitiveness 2, and that it is good that the Energy Agency allocates funds to nuclear power research 2. V wants technology-neutral energy research aimed at renewable electricity. C welcomes the focus on energy research but demands cost-effectiveness and technology neutrality 3. L argues that the research should be adapted to security of supply and sustainability 4. MP wants to focus on electrification, circular economy, and green baseload 5. KD believes that electrification is the key to competitiveness and advocates for investments in nuclear power, batteries, and hydrogen 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Jessica Stegrud (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Research and development drive our society forward. Human curiosity and the desire to develop have taken us from the Stone Age and all the way into space. Our own country has been shaped by researchers and engineers who took on the task of making Sweden modern. There are an enormous number of aspects of this, of which we shall highlight some here today.
Society is never finished. We constantly have new areas to conquer and new technical solutions to present and implement. There are solutions that are sometimes rejected and solutions that, a number of years later, become obsolete and are replaced. And then there are solutions that last a long time, over time.
But remember the following: politics does not determine how far the research will go, nor does it determine how fast it goes. We cannot simply put money into a pipe and get out exactly the solutions we need at the other end of the pipe. That is not how it works, and it is an important reminder for those who build their politics on dreams and on solutions that do not yet exist.
With this established, the energy policy shift decided in May last year means that energy research shall focus on security of supply, competitiveness and sustainability with a focus on fossil-free types of energy. And that decision, Mr. Speaker, is significant. In addition to investments in undeveloped technology such as batteries, I particularly want to highlight one of the fundamental cornerstones of our energy system, nuclear power.
Mr. Speaker! Now, Swedish nuclear power is under development instead of decommissioning, and in 2023, the current government, in cooperation with us, asserted the so-called "thought ban." This means with great probability that we will have better solutions for nuclear technology within the foreseeable future. But I repeat what has already been said: We do not take any gains for granted in advance. And in the slightly shorter term, it may be a matter of refining the solutions we actually have.
If we could have turned back the clock to the turn of the millennium, perhaps some in here would have waived the politically steered investment in weather-dependent wind power and the parallel decommissioning of nuclear power. The consequences, Mr. Speaker, have indeed proven to be devastating. But again – that is not how it works. And in a situation where a relatively large share of electricity production in the coming years will be weather-dependent, it is also natural that we invest in developing the grids and study different methods to both store and transport energy.
What happens when politicians force through a development driven by extreme, unrealistic climate goals, imaginative political promises, and massive amounts of tax money? Then the risk is great, Mr. Speaker, that we land in costly failures such as Stålverk 80, Gobigas, Sekab or, to take a more highly relevant, even current, example, Northvolt.
It is difficult to describe Northvolt as anything other than a large, expensive failure. The result is a dramatic destruction of capital, disappointed and perhaps even deceived workers, and a significant blow to what we can call the image of Sweden. Who is happy today, apart from some of the venture capitalists and the former CEO who laughed all the way to the bank? No one, is the answer to the rhetorical question.
The Social Democrats boasted quite openly that it was the red-green cooperation that paved the way for Northvolt. To the direct question of how the investment would succeed given the shortage of competence, everyone answered: It just has to work! It just has to work – we shall be first. It is good to know for the future if the red-greens were to take back power. Then we will likely see new planned economy-style megaprojects that cost taxpayers billions of kronor with the motto "It just has to work."
We shall, I believe, try to avoid thinking top-down. We must beware of planned economic goals based on technologies that we cannot or that do not yet exist. It is simply expensive to drive the market toward unrealistic goals and to impose solutions on people that do not work. It is a bit like planting a large oak on a rock face; it is beautiful but easily blown over.
Instead, we should water the small seeds so that they can grow organically. That is the only way we create the conditions for tomorrow's gains and for tomorrow's energy systems. It is about building further, developing what we have and what we know works, and at the same time supplementing with new ideas at a reasonable pace. Let the chaff be separated from the wheat in a natural way!
Mr. Speaker! We know that some in here are critical of the Tidö cooperation's initiative on new nuclear power. Some still live in the nuclear power debate from the 70s. It is their ideology, quite simply. They never wanted the type of power that would give Sweden a stable and, moreover, fossil-free electricity production during the coming decades. They did not want the technology that made Sweden one of the world's most modern industrial countries. And now they want to phase it out, for reasons that can be nothing other than purely ideological.
The Left Party and the Green Party want to shut down all reactors as soon as they get the chance. Social Democrats and Center Party members prefer to suffocate them to death a little more slowly so that one can then blame the market. They have done it before and intend to do it again.
The Social Democrats, who were involved in laying the foundation for the modernization of the engineering nation Sweden, will in reality drive forward a deindustrialization if they come to power again. With their policy, we will meet the same fate as our European friends, including Germany. It is an extremely unfortunate choice of path, especially when a new and more valuable world order is also taking shape.
A successful and competitive country needs a stable, reliable, and affordable energy supply. But building up what has been dismantled takes time and requires commitment. Here, the Sverigedemokrater, together with the government, are in complete agreement: Nuclear power is important for Sweden's future. Therefore, we are investing in its preservation and renewal. The legal hurdles have now been removed, and the investment in research has already resulted in a first spade in the ground for a test reactor in Oskarshamn. It is a milestone for Swedish nuclear power innovation.
Since it takes time, Mr. Speaker, and we are pragmatists, not fanatics, we see, for example, gas turbines powered by both biogas and natural gas as an interim solution and perhaps even a complement.
No, we know – natural gas is not orthodox fossil-free. But it is low-fossil, and it mitigates greenhouse gas emissions if we view northern Europe as a coherent energy system – and you do indeed like to do that in this chamber.
Mr. Speaker! A realistic policy in combination with a forward-looking spirit and engineering skills gives us the best conditions for an even better future.
With that said, Sverigedemokraterna supports the committee's proposal for a decision.
Mattias Jonsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Sweden stands today at a historical crossroads. We are beginning a transition that will shape our country's future: an electrification of our transport, industrial processes, and other societal functions.
This change is not just a technical shift but an economic, ecological, and social necessity. In order for us to be able to reach our climate goals of net-zero emissions by 2045 and at the same time create growth and prosperity for Swedish citizens, the electrification must be carried out in as efficient and rapid a way as possible.
To achieve this, we Social Democrats believe that a new, ambitious energy policy is absolutely crucial – a policy that enables us to increase our production to 300 terawatt-hours of electricity by 2045. Already by 2030, large parts of this increased production must be in place. That objective is something that the government completely lacks answers for.
It is not only the production itself that is important here, but also how the electricity is distributed. To manage the increased electricity production and the future demand, an electricity distribution is required that is both efficient and flexible and that has the ability to store and manage the electricity in a smarter way.
Another fundamental part of this transition is to continue prioritizing energy efficiency. We see that there are enormous opportunities to utilize existing knowledge and technology in a more efficient way. It is about developing solutions that can reduce energy use in the entire society, from households to industry, and in this way lower both emissions and costs.
At the same time, research and innovation in the energy field, which this report concerns, is a key to meeting the challenges of the future. For Sweden to be able to be a leading nation in electrification and fossil-free energy, we need to invest in groundbreaking technologies, for example, fusion power.
But it is not only new technologies for electricity production that must be developed. We also need to focus on strengthening research and innovation within the entire system: from power transmission and optimization to digitalization, balancing and, again, the important storage.
To ensure that we can truly carry out this transition effectively, we must increase our focus on developing robust value chains for batteries. Battery technology is perhaps the most decisive factor for being able to electrify both the transport sector and the electricity system, and therefore we believe that this research needs to receive even more resources.
At the same time, it is absolutely crucial that we also invest in research regarding hydrogen and e-fuels. These technologies can give us the opportunity to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels while simultaneously creating a more flexible and resilient energy supply.
But we cannot just look at the technology in this transition. We must also take into account what social impact our decisions and what we invest in will have. How does electrification affect our societies? What does it mean for the labor market, for our lifestyle, and for our local communities?
These questions are at least as important as the technical solutions. Therefore, we, the Social Democrats, believe we must also provide space for research on the societal effects of electrification and fossil-free status.
To get all these technologies to work in an efficient way, cooperation between several different actors is required. It is about creating collaborations between industry, academia, and public actors. We must create interdisciplinary research environments where we gather experts from different fields in order to thereby find the best solutions for our future electricity system.
It is here, Mr. Speaker, that our energy and innovation policy plays a decisive role. We need a government that manages agencies such as Energimyndigheten and Svenska kraftnät in a way that promotes innovation and rapid solutions. Innovation procurement must be used, we believe, as a tool to produce new, efficient solutions for a sustainable electricity system. The research being conducted must be able to be quickly translated into social benefit, and we must ensure that the results from the research gain traction already during the coming years.
Another central issue concerns Sweden's ability to strengthen its global position in the energy sector. Research and innovation in collaboration with industry can give us a unique opportunity to develop new technologies that can not only strengthen our domestic energy supply but also give us a head start in the international market. This investment in research and development can become an important driver for economic growth and create new jobs and increased prosperity in our country.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we face an enormous opportunity. If we prioritize correctly, if we invest in the right areas and if we cooperate across all societal functions, we can create a future where Sweden not only reaches its climate goals but also creates long-term growth and prosperity for all citizens in our country. We have all the tools we need to succeed. Now it is about using them in the best way. Let us take this chance and put Sweden at the forefront of the future's electrified and sustainable society!
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take the opportunity to move for approval of reservation 1.
Kjell Jansson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal.
The purpose of the bill is that energy research shall be adapted to the new direction and be based on the three pillars that energy policy is built upon: security of supply, competitiveness and ecological sustainability.
Research for increased competitiveness is crucial for Sweden's future industry and for our companies that compete both here at home and on the world market. The EU has for many years lagged behind, primarily the USA, which has had an annual GDP growth of about 3 percent while the EU has been at about 1 percent over the last 15–20 years. It is unsustainable. One usually talks about sustainability, and this is not sustainable.
It is often said that the USA develops, China copies, and the EU regulates. That is something we are well aware of.
Taiwan, South Korea and Japan dominate the market for microchips, which is a high risk for world trade due to China's threats, particularly towards Taiwan.
The EU has produced the Draghi Report to strengthen the EU's competitiveness, which is absolutely necessary. We hope that it will lead to a positive outcome.
The EU's role should not be to step in and decide on detailed regulations, for example, that all public properties should have solar cells or that at least 25 percent of all park areas in urban areas should be covered by trees. It is not reasonable for the EU to handle that level of detail. Many cities in Sweden already have that amount of trees and others have slightly less. I think it is extremely nitpicky.
Mr. Speaker! Research and innovation are the foundation for ensuring that our technological development does not stall. AI is a new phenomenon, and it will become a minor revolution in development. Therefore, it is good that the Swedish Energy Agency has decided to allocate 700 million to research on new nuclear power. Previously, during the 70s and 80s, Sweden's engineers were world leaders in technological development. Many Swedish companies, for example Ericsson, ABB and Atlas Copco, to name a few, have led the development in their fields worldwide.
Mr. Speaker! How are we to develop our technical expertise and innovation? Yes, with high-quality research. We must also become better at prioritizing which educations we should have at the universities. There we have a lesson to learn. We need more engineers and technicians, especially within the electricity industry and nuclear power. More prioritization of technical educations is required, and more quality in the educations is required.
Then we can ask ourselves what the needs look like. There must be a demand for the competence that higher education provides. Mineral mining will in the future have a great need for well-educated and qualified personnel. In the best-case scenario, we can open new mines and extract new metals. They are needed, not least for the manufacture of batteries. If we are to reduce our need to turn to China, we must also prepare for the future. Sweden is very dependent on China today. The electrification and expansion of the power systems will also require highly qualified personnel.
Mr. Speaker! Nuclear power is crucial for Sweden's competitiveness. There must be reliable and fossil-free electricity supply in all weather, whether it is windy or warm summer days. Nuclear power will require extremely skilled personnel. Education of nuclear technicians has been almost taboo in Sweden for the last 10–15 years. It is important that we give young people hope for the future and lay the foundation for them to be educated in nuclear technology.
Mr. Speaker! What is required for Sweden to continue to be competitive on the world market? It is about well-educated people in the industry, cheap energy, fewer regulations from the EU and, not least, lower taxes on labor.
Birger Lahti (V)
Mr. Speaker! Now we are on research and innovation in the energy area.
Let me begin by relating to something that has been said in a previous speech. People talk about planned economy, but when it comes to nuclear power, one does not seem to have the same view on what constitutes planned economy. Then there are no inhibitions.
I hope that what I am about to say will be played back at some point in the future. I am convinced that nuclear power will not be the energy carrier of the future in 50 years. People will not trust a technology that is more expensive than other technologies. The functions can be solved with the help of storage and significantly cheaper production and systems. Nuclear power will not be an energy carrier in 50 years. I am convinced of that.
The proposals in the bill aim for energy research to align with the government's energy policy direction, something I am strongly critical of. To achieve a rapid climate transition, parts of society need to be electrified. The expansion of production and distribution of electricity needs to take into account that there must be enough electricity to electrify both the industry and the transport sector.
The government's unilateral focus on nuclear power risks becoming a very expensive affair that does not solve the energy challenges of the future. Nuclear power is not the answer to a sustainable and secure energy system, and one should aim to phase it out in the future in favor of investments in renewable, clean, and cheap electricity. It is also a flawed prioritization that characterizes the government's direction on research and innovation in the energy field. I mean that energy research in large parts should have a different direction than the one proposed in the bill. The goal should be that Sweden in the future shall have a renewable energy system where wind power, hydropower, solar power, bio-power, and combined heat and power supply Sweden with energy.
It is important that Sweden continues to safeguard its fossil independence and expands renewable production to manage the climate transition. The state's investments in research and innovation should be in line with this.
Both in the so-called Tidö Agreement and in the government's statement, it is made to appear that energy policy shall be technology-neutral. At the same time, the government allocates funds for nuclear power in the form of targeted credit guarantees and fast-tracks for permits. The government also proposes a special investment in research and innovation in the nuclear power field during the period 2025–2028. Then, it guarantees the price structure for new construction of nuclear power. It explicitly mentions nuclear power as one of the areas that should receive increased focus; on the other hand, wind or solar power are not mentioned. Thus, the government does not live up to the ambitions of technology neutrality that it claims to pursue.
Mr. Speaker! I believe therefore that the overall goal for research and innovation in the energy area should include that the efforts shall be directed towards areas that contribute to an energy system, that is, technology neutrality. It shall be sustainable and preferably renewable.
I naturally stand behind all our reservations, but I move for approval of reservation 2 in the report.
Rickard Nordin (C)
Mr. Speaker! There is a rapid development taking place within energy research globally. Both basic research and new innovations contribute to consigning fossil energy to history and pushing down the prices on sustainable alternatives. Sweden has all the prerequisites to be a part of this wave of innovation.
We in the Center Party welcome that the government highlights the importance of energy research to strengthen Swedish competitiveness, but we believe that cost-effectiveness must be a central target for the entire energy system. It is a crucial factor for Sweden's industrial competitiveness and for ensuring low electricity prices.
The government's energy research proposal shows a worrying tendency towards politicization and micro-management. It is a direction that concerns us in Centerpartiet. Research takes time to build up, and a jerkiness in energy research risks undermining important projects and ongoing work. There is an obvious risk that research areas will be excluded due to the government's political priorities, rather than scientific and socio-economic needs. We ask ourselves whether the government is truly interested in energy research in itself or if it is instead being used as a tool for a political agenda. Therefore, I also move for approval of reservation 3 in the report.
I think that Jessica Stegrud from Sverigedemokraterna had very many good points in her speech. Quite a few of the metaphors could have been said in a Centre Party speech. She said that we should not engage in planned economy, that we should let the small seeds sprout organically and a number of other different good metaphors.
Therefore, it is somewhat fascinating that the government, on political and ideological grounds, singles out individual forces both in energy research and in energy policy as a whole. That is, those comparisons unfortunately fall a bit flat. It would have been very good if they had applied in reality.
To achieve cost-effectiveness, all fossil-free power sources must be given research funds on equal terms. When focusing unilaterally on nuclear power, there is a risk of distorting competition and hindering the development of other solutions that can contribute to a stable and sustainable electricity system. This applies both in research and in different types of support systems. Centerpartiet requests a technology-neutral approach where the focus of research is the system's function rather than individual technology choices.
Energy research must also have a strong connection to the climate goals. We see that several large industrial projects will result in a significantly increased demand for electricity. If energy research is not adapted to that development, it risks having direct consequences for Sweden's ability to reach our climate policy goals.
We also consider that all environmental goals, not just the climate goals, should be guiding for the direction of energy research. Now, in 2025, it is time that we set a clear goal for a faster phasing out of fossil fuels. Sweden's electricity system is almost fossil-free, but emissions from fossil fuels are increasing in other sectors. The government's proposition has a clear bias towards the electricity area, while research on, for example, sustainable fuels is being sidelined. It is a deficiency that we want the government to rectify.
There is an ambiguity in the bill regarding the electricity system perspective specifically. Here, the government should clarify what is intended, so that the authorities can more easily assess also what level of goal fulfillment they achieve.
Furthermore, the balance between grants for basic research and innovations versus technologies that are close to market introduction needs to be clarified.
Energy research must have a clear purpose: to develop tomorrow's technologies and solutions for Sweden's and the world's energy needs. But a major problem in Swedish energy policy has been a jerkiness created by short-sighted political decisions. We want a part of the energy research to be allocated funds for precisely policy development, especially with a focus on socio-economic cost-effectiveness.
We also lack important parts that are completely crucial for achieving a phase-out of the fossil. We want to see more focus on faster phase-out of fossil fuels. Furthermore, there should be a clearer focus on energy efficiency, energy storage, and flexibility. If it is given a clearer role together with research on bioenergy, we can both reduce emissions within the transport sector and strengthen Swedish resilience.
We want to see energy research that is technology-neutral, cost-effective, and clearly linked to climate and environmental goals. We demand a holistic approach that ensures Sweden can be a leading innovation nation and at the same time strengthen its competitiveness.
A government that takes the entire energy system into account and safeguards Swedish innovation and competitiveness could have performed significantly better than the current one does. It is time to redo and do it right.
Louise Eklund (L)
Mr. Speaker! With the government's energy policy direction proposal, Sweden has made a realignment of the energy policy. This means a shift towards focusing on what the energy and power system shall perform rather than what types of energy and power it shall consist of. I return to this often.
However, it means that even energy research needs to be adapted to the new direction. It should, as has been mentioned here earlier, be based on the pillars that energy policy is built on, namely security of supply, competitiveness, and sustainability. Research and innovation are needed to be able to increase our chances of reaching exactly those energy policy goals. It is needed to ensure a secure energy supply and competitive energy prices.
We need to replace fossil fuels with fossil-free energy while ensuring that industry is given good conditions to grow and remain competitive. This means that energy research also needs to focus more clearly on the energy and climate policy goals mentioned here. The initiatives that are funded should maintain very high quality and contribute to Sweden being able to remain one of the world's leading research and innovation countries, even in this area.
The measures shall also be directed towards areas that contribute to a secure energy supply, to strengthening Swedish competitiveness, and to the most socio-economically efficient climate transition.
Mr. Speaker! In Swedish energy research, the lack of research and innovation in the nuclear power field stands out. We must now ensure and prepare for a doubling of electricity consumption in Sweden by 2045. There, nuclear power actually plays a central role.
It is clear that nuclear power may not exist forever, but it will exist in Sweden for a very long time to come. In order for that sector to be able to create more long-term conditions and grow, research and innovation regarding nuclear power also need to be expanded, precisely in order to be able to strengthen national competence. This has been neglected for a long time. Activities have been limited by the lack of both research and educational infrastructure. This has led to diminished interest from both students and researchers and educational institutions to conduct that type of energy research.
It is obvious that the national competence needs to be built up again in light of the new energy policy direction. Over the last three years, research and innovation efforts in the nuclear power area have been expanded. We will continue to prepare in the area, so that research can contribute to the energy policy direction and to Sweden's future energy supply.
Linus Lakso (MP)
Mr. Speaker! We face a great task when it comes to transitioning to a sustainable society. We need to urgently phase out fossil fuels and build a resource-efficient, long-term sustainable and robust energy system. It is crucial to limit several system-threatening climate and environmental changes that we face. But it is also about strengthening both Sweden's resilience and competitiveness.
Investment is needed in several important areas regarding research. It naturally concerns electrification, which is one of the major parts. But closely linked to that is a circular economy. We need to be very careful, not least with the rare earth metals that we need for those technologies. We also need research on how we can circulate them, but also on how we can develop, for example, battery technologies that are not dependent on specifically rare earth metals. And we need to see development in the area of efficiency, both at the technology level and at the system level, to manage this transition.
Mr. Speaker! In the bill, the government writes that the new energy policy direction means that the focus shall be on what the energy and power system shall perform rather than what types of energy it shall consist of. I do not know whether I should laugh or cry. In fact, the exact opposite is being done. Actually, the only and totally single-minded focus that is had is on nuclear power, and not just any nuclear power, but it is precisely fission power that is to be had.
It is an extremely narrow way of thinking. It is a totally politicized research, which furthermore counteracts the goals that the government itself says it wants to achieve. When it comes to secure energy supply, we see in Ukraine that it is not nuclear power that has made Ukraine safer, but rather distributed energy solutions. This is also stated, for example, by FOI, the Total Defence Research Institute. Strengthened competitiveness is not achieved with expensive electricity but with cheap electricity. The same applies to a socio-economically efficient climate transition.
With this said: I think we absolutely should have research on nuclear technology. It is very surprising that one can be for nuclear power but not see that there is other interesting technology in progress. I am thinking of fusion power. It has, in itself, been in progress for a long time, but so has it been with other energy sources. Solar cells already existed in the 80s, but then they were undeveloped and very expensive. Since then, we have seen a dramatic development. There is potential for such a development also for fusion power, even if it lies a bit further in the future.
It is precisely a long-term perspective we need to have when we talk about research. Perhaps fusion power is not as far off as we previously thought. In fact, quite large breakthroughs have been made in just fusion power, and many of the members of the Committee on Industry have visited a leading company in Sweden that deals with this. Despite that, no special investments are being made in fusion power, which is strange.
Mr. Speaker! A key issue for Sweden's climate transition and future competitiveness is electrification. Regardless of which direction Sweden takes in the future, we see that renewable energy sources are developing rapidly. This is also the trend in Europe. In 2021, 39 percent of the EU's electricity supply came from renewable energy sources. In 2023, it had increased to 45 percent.
In the Swedish Academy of Sciences' basis for the government's innovation bill, it states that since these energy sources are on the rise, a systems perspective is needed that includes controllable energy sources, energy storage, and flexibility. We believe this is a significantly wiser area to spend money on than a targeted investment in fission power, which does not have the future ahead of it. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 7.
Under a collective name, we call these technologies green base power. This includes controllable technologies such as increased capacity in hydropower, more flexibility and capacity from combined heat and power, energy storage in the form of hydrogen, pumped storage, heat storage, and gas turbines on renewable fuels. Demand flexibility and system flexibility, such as smart control of electric cars and heat pumps, are also included. Special efforts are needed to bring forward these technologies even faster than what is happening today.
We think it is completely wrong to remove that the research should also achieve the environmental policy goals. The challenge with biodiversity is just as serious as climate change, so this is a step in the completely wrong direction. Furthermore, it is a bit strange that what was initially a planning goal has now become a goal of a certain amount of consumption. A planning goal means, in my view, that one enables a certain amount of consumption, but that the market then gets to decide how much electricity Sweden needs in the future.
Larry Söder (KD)
Mr. Speaker! As a nation, we are undergoing a climate transition where we need to electrify our transport sector and our industry. Secure electricity supply and an efficient electricity system will be crucial, and all fossil-free power sources will be needed.
Electrification is the very key to strengthening our competitiveness and our security of supply and to phasing out fossil fuels for the climate transition. Phasing out expensive, imported fossil fuels reduces our vulnerability to high energy prices and to disruptions in a sensitive global situation. It is an understatement to say that more research in the energy field is necessary to carry out this transition as quickly and effectively as possible.
Increased investments in energy research are an absolute necessity. In December, the government therefore submitted the bill Research and innovation in the energy field for security of supply, competitiveness and climate transition, and the Riksdag simultaneously decided to increase the appropriation for energy research for 2025 to 1.6 billion kronor, which is an increase of approximately 200 million kronor.
The energy policy direction focuses on increasing electricity production, stabilizing energy prices, and simultaneously enabling an efficient climate transition. More fossil-free electricity where and when it is needed.
It is now important that the direction of energy research is in line with this policy. The research that is funded needs to contribute more to the energy and climate policy goals and the expansion of electricity production. The Government therefore proposed that the research should focus on five prioritized areas: a resilient and robust energy system, well-functioning energy markets against doubled electricity use, skills supply and skills development, increased utilization of research and innovation in society, and prioritized value chains for electrification – nuclear power, batteries, and hydrogen.
A special focus on research and innovation in the nuclear power field is prioritized because this has simply been neglected in Sweden previously. Therefore, the government has allocated 600 million kronor to nuclear power research during the period 2025–2028.
Progress in energy research is our leverage into the future and towards a rapid climate transition. Sweden needs not only to be at the forefront of energy research but also to have the ability to implement new knowledge quickly. We are in a new era, and it is of the utmost importance that we remain flexible towards the progress of research.
I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.