New nuclear power in Sweden

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of Proposition 2023/24:19 New nuclear power in Sweden - a first step and for the proposal in Committee Report NU5 New nuclear power in Sweden. At the same time, I move for the rejection of all motions.

The proposition underlying the committee report describes and constitutes an incredibly important first step towards regaining a robust, competitive, and secure energy system, a system adapted to real needs and conditions, with the right power when we need it and where we need it, both today and tomorrow.

The opposition, not least the Social Democrats and the Centre Party, usually point out that there are no direct prohibitions against building nuclear power in Sweden and that it is up to the market to do so if they so wish. It is usually also added in the same breath, however, that nuclear power will constitute an important part of the energy system even in the future.

Madam Speaker! Those who know a bit more about how an energy system and its actors function realize that these mantras are either based on pure ignorance or constitute a way to mislead the voters, as nuclear power has long been opposed and hemmed in by a number of prohibitions and, above all, obstacles with the obvious purpose that it should be shut down in the long run.

It began with the Socialdemokraternas, Centerns and Vänsterpartiets closure of Barsebäck in the 1990s and early 2000s respectively. In a newspaper, it was among other things possible to read: Since yesterday's agreement between Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet and Centerpartiet regarding the closure of Barsebäck, criticism has emerged against the decision. In the electricity-intensive industry, there are fears of high energy prices, but Prime Minister Göran Persson considers this to be a completely unjustified concern: - The industry should not worry about increased electricity prices. They should ensure that they have energy-efficient processes.

In Persson's autobiographical book Min väg, mina val, it can be read: "Despite the great opposition, we pushed through the closure of the Barsebäck nuclear power plant." The great opposition from industry and electricity customers was also flanked by warnings from Svenska kraftnät.

Well, Madam Speaker! Persson's closest ally during this time, Centerpartiet, pushed through the decisions on the decommissioning of the reactors together with Vänstern. Persson further explains in the book that it is time for Sweden to transition: "Sweden wastes energy. One only has to look at how densely populated towns and even the countryside look during the dark season. Masses of lighting and masses of different light effects."

The Social Democrats, however, were not content with closing down Barsebäck. Through subsidies for renewables, primarily wind power, the introduction of a punitive tax on nuclear power, the so-called capacity tax, as well as goals for 100 percent renewable electricity production and pro-environment party activists in both the Ministry of the Environment and on boards, they began to systematically penalize nuclear power.

And what were the consequences? Well, Madam Speaker: the shutdown of additional reactors, reduced transmission capacity, increased weather dependency, raised prices and periods of power shortages in central and southern Sweden, failed business establishments, and the EU's worst power balance. These were some of the consequences, not least because, during their time in government, they also did not ensure sufficient transmission capacity and balance and reserve power. On the contrary, they instead introduced a penalty tax on combined heat and power and heat production. I would call it complete incompetence, even in this area. Social Democratic governments have certainly done everything they could to shut down well-functioning, efficient, and fossil-free nuclear power and simultaneously blame the market.

After the recent winters, a quarter of a century after the Barsebäck closures, it is clear that we in Skåne but also other parts of central and southern Sweden have been hit by extreme electricity prices and, in a worst-case scenario, could also have been hit by blackouts, that is to say planned disconnections. As it says in Svenska kraftnät's report to the government ahead of the last winter: "Increased risk may also exist for a situation where disconnection can become relevant, compared with a normal winter."

A landscape involuntarily without lighting could thus have become a reality. But extinguished lamps have not constituted the biggest problem. The skyrocketing and volatile prices have put both households and companies in a very difficult situation. It is also noteworthy that the electricity previously produced in Barsebäck was primarily replaced by coal power produced in Denmark, Poland, and Germany - environmentally friendly in Social Democratic terms.

Madam Speaker! The majority of the Swedish people eventually had enough and voted for a change of power last year. After 13 years in constant opposition, we Sverigedemokrater are now part of the government base in a number of important areas. The Tidö Agreement, the historic agreement concluded a year ago, is slowly, point by point, beginning to bear fruit. The three government parties Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna have now reached an agreement with us Sverigedemokrater on a number of extremely important measures to pave the way for new nuclear power in Sweden.

We have already changed the goal for the Swedish energy mix from 100 percent renewable to 100 percent fossil-free by 2040. It is a decision that clearly signals that nuclear power will continue to be an important part of Sweden's total energy production even beyond the year 2040. The bill contains a number of concrete proposals for necessary legislative changes. We have, in fact, not only been able to focus on creating incentives for new nuclear power, but we have also had to remove the obstacles that previous governments had put in place to prevent the continuation of and the expansion of new nuclear power.

Mr. Speaker, from January 1, 2024, it will be permitted to build new nuclear power at more locations than those currently existing. The limitation that there may only be ten reactors is also removed. Investing in new nuclear power is initially very capital-intensive and requires long-term thinking. Therefore, we are now also issuing credit guarantees totaling 400 billion for those who wish to invest.

These first steps constitute a part of the way toward recreating what we once had, namely one of the world's best, competitive, secure-supply, and fossil-free energy systems where nuclear power, with all its positive characteristics, constituted an obvious part. The road here has been long and can perhaps be described as a struggle against all-powerful, ideologically blinded politicians who have not had Sweden's best interests in mind.

Madam Speaker! We Sweden Democrats went to the election to get order in Sweden again. Over the past year, we have worked very hard with measures and legislative proposals, primarily in the areas of migration and crime. And now the turn has come to the third high-priority area, namely energy and new nuclear power. And with the bill New nuclear power in Sweden, we are now creating an opportunity for Sweden to once again become a successful nuclear power nation.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mats Green and Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (both M) and Camilla Brodin (KD) agreed.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jessica Stegrud for the speech.

Madam Speaker! A couple of weeks ago, we had an interpellation debate with Ebba Busch, who is the Minister for Enterprise and Energy. She stated, in line with us Social Democrats, that much more energy is needed by 2030. Ebba Busch stated that it is a question of 50-70 terawatt-hours. We Social Democrats have set a goal that Sweden needs to increase energy production by at least 60 terawatt-hours already by 2030.

When reading the report, it appears that the focus lies on nuclear power. Jessica Stegrud spoke about it being nuclear power 2035 and onwards that can be put in place. But there are no answers from Sverigedemokraterna, as far as I hear, on how the goal for 2030 shall be reached. The investments that have already been made and the decisions that have already been made in companies to invest in green transition require more energy. If we do not reach the goal for 2030, we do not need nuclear power 2035 either. Then they have chosen other places than Sweden to establish their operations.

The Sweden Democrats have a responsibility, are part of the government base, and I think it is appropriate that the Sweden Democrats also provide answers on what additional energy is needed to reach the 2030 goal and how the goal is to be achieved.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is sad to say, but it takes time to rebuild a destroyed power system. We spent many years building up a well-functioning power system, which the member's party has done most of the work to destroy.

One cannot confuse an increased electricity demand with a power demand. It is primarily power problems that exist in southern Sweden. There are times when there is overproduction; with wind power, there is overproduction when it blows. Prices are dumped, and we get rid of the electricity cheaply to, among other places, Denmark. It is not a favorable situation. It is the power that must be regulated. And that is what this government is doing.

We have, among other things, traded reserve power - capacity - in the form of Öresundsverket. The previous government was careful to exclude the plant from the market. That is what can be done. The thermal power in the system contains a potential to expand its capacity. I believe we have to look for solutions locally. But it is, above all, no solution to bring in a lot of new wind power into the system, and we already see clearly the negative effects. It leads to volatile prices, unsuitable capacity, and an electricity production that goes up and down.

Madam Speaker! I would like to turn the question back to the member. You are also answerable. How have you intended this? How have the member and the Social Democrats envisioned the fantastic expansion that will be costly, expensive, and will not help the system as a whole?

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! We have had many debates in the chamber where it is claimed that it is politics that has phased out nuclear power. Old reactors have been shut down - entirely correct, but those decisions have been made on business grounds. The decisions have, therefore, not been made in the chamber.

But I can state that there is a history. Jessica Stegrud gave us a historical narrative in her speech. Let us look at a timeline from 2010. In 2010, we imported 2 terawatt-hours due to too low production. In 2020, we exported 20 terawatt-hours due to the green development with the help of, among other things, wind power. There is an increased production, and an energy efficiency has occurred. What we export is green electricity to other countries. I think we should be proud of the development.

Madam Speaker! I cannot see any other way to reach the goal by 2030 than to invest in offshore wind power. There are applications covering up to 90 terawatt-hours on the government's desk, which can be operational significantly faster than nuclear power can manage to get into production from 2035.

In conversations with representatives from virtually all industries and with the business community, there is significant concern. I personally feel a significant concern that we will not reach the goal by 2030 because all eggs are being put in one basket. How is it, Jessica Stegrud, that one blindly invests solely in nuclear power, misses the 2030 goal, and does not see that the 400 billion in credit guarantees can apply to other types of power beyond nuclear power, as the government and Sverigedemokraterna propose?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! With all due respect, the power system is a complicated matter. It is not easy to understand the whole.

I say again: That Sweden has moved from an importing nation to an exporting nation does not have to be a sign of health. It is not in this case either. When the wind blows, we must dump the prices and get rid of the electricity. It is not an optimal system, and it does not help the system to replenish with more weather-dependent and variable power.

Then it was the question of business decisions. Of course, it is a question of business decisions. But who creates the business conditions? Politics does. If one has not understood the consequences of, for example, the introduced and increased electricity tax, I do not know what one has to do in politics. It is politics that creates the market conditions. At the current moment, it is a question of a constructed market, which in periods has subsidized types of power that have not benefited the whole.

It does not help to feed a lot of non-dispatchable, weather-dependent power into the system when it is precisely dispatchable power we need. One has not looked at nuclear power unilaterally, but on the contrary. The goals of previous governments have been to phase out a reliable, long-term, and fossil-free power source, which has formed the basis for the entire electricity production in the system. They have wanted to replace it with weather-dependent power without presenting interim solutions in the form of reserve and balancing power, and so on.

My summary is that it is sad, but a deep ignorance has prevailed for many years. There must be an end to the naive politics, and today we take the first step towards a better politics.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is undergoing a significantly extensive re-industrialization. To realize the new jobs and increase prosperity, a broad societal effort is necessary. It is about investing in infrastructure, building new housing, ensuring functioning community services, and increasing the availability of fossil-free electricity at reasonable costs.

Electricity consumption is expected to double by 2045 due to the green transition and re-industrialization. This means that every single bit of fossil-free power that is possible to produce, both now and in the future, must of course be utilized.

During October, some of us in the Committee on Industry visited Canada and the USA. We visited companies that develop small modular reactors, SMR. They were extremely interesting visits, but after those visits, it was clear that this is not something that happens quickly. It will take time. I would appreciate it if, at the earliest, if everything goes well, it is in 2035 that we can have SMR reactors in place in Sweden. This is also in line with the assessment that I understand the government is making.

Mr. Speaker, we need an additional approximately 60, perhaps 70, terawatt-hours already by 2030. Nuclear power is not the solution to that challenge in the short term, no matter how much we wish it. The reinforcement of electricity production was needed now to ensure that Sweden's investments are not placed in other countries.

Renewable energy is then a real possibility that the government and the Sweden Democrats seem to turn a blind eye to when they provide credit guarantees only in the nuclear power area, amounting to a staggering 400 billion kronor.

We Social Democrats support the credit guarantees, but not solely for nuclear power because it may not be ready until 2035; instead, we propose that they should be for all fossil-free types of power so that the goals set for 2030 can also be reached.

We Social Democrats believe that nuclear power will continue to be an important part of the electricity system for a long time to come. Together with hydropower, it provides the possibility for balancing and stability in a power system that is increasingly based on weather-dependent renewable electricity production such as wind and solar power.

We also see opportunities in extending the operating life of existing nuclear reactors - provided, of course, that they can be operated safely and that necessary safety measures are implemented when investing in existing reactors.

Furthermore, we believe that the power increase in existing reactors can be a valuable additional source for the power system.

In addition to this, we are open to the possibility that it may become relevant to build new nuclear reactors in our country. However, we see experiences from other countries, for example Finland, which show that it both takes a long time and is very expensive to construct new conventional reactors.

That is why the question of smaller and cheaper SMR reactors has aroused ever greater interest, and more and more people are looking at what opportunities exist there. With this in mind, the previous Social Democratic government tasked the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority with identifying the need to develop regulations or other measures that could affect the possibilities of using both existing and new nuclear power, including SMR, based on both existing and new reactor technology.

Madam Speaker! I also want to convey our position on the municipal right of veto against the establishment of nuclear power facilities across our country. In our view, this right of veto fulfills an important function in ensuring democratic anchoring and the strong support from citizens for nuclear power in places where it is currently established. We believe that the municipal right of veto constitutes a reasonable balance between different interests. Furthermore, it has proven to be favorable for the Swedish nuclear power industry and nuclear safety work, but also for the electricity supply.

Madam Speaker! I also want to remind that there is currently no ban on building new nuclear power in Sweden, which it sometimes sounds like in the debate. We also had that in the broad political agreement from 2016. There is also no decision to phase out Swedish nuclear power by a certain date.

I truly regret that the Moderates and the Christian Democrats made the decision to abandon the broad energy policy agreement that was in place. We Social Democrats see great value in having political consensus across block boundaries on important issues such as energy, defense, terrorism, and for that matter, our pensions.

A new cross-bloc agreement on energy could provide the long-term regulatory framework that the business community demands and secure the supply of fossil-free electricity for the benefit of the climate, competitiveness, and Sweden's future as a welfare state.

Regarding the proposed legislative changes in the current bill, we believe that all necessary legislation linked to these proposals should be in place before the Riksdag takes a position on them. It is, in fact, so, Madam Speaker, that the government itself notes that supplementary investigations and potential constitutional support are needed, especially regarding preparedness and planning zones. The Council on Legislation and other important referral bodies, including Kammarkollegiet, have also pointed out the importance of supplements before it becomes possible to assess the establishment of any new nuclear reactors.

Against this background, it seems to be thoughtless, unnecessary and downright useless for the government to force through the current bill before several central issues have been clarified. This is the main reason why we move for the proposal in the proposition to be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to be clear that we fundamentally view certain parts of what the bill addresses positively. This applies particularly to the proposal to remove the limitation on the number of new reactors that may be built, which is currently ten. We Social Democrats have also proposed this. Given the technical developments, there are strong reasons to consider allowing actors to apply for permits to build power-wise smaller and modular reactors, so-called SMRs, but then where we already have nuclear power today. A limitation on the number of reactors hinders such a development. We want the government to return to the Riksdag with a bill with this orientation.

In our view, the government has not presented sufficiently strong reasons to abolish the limitation regarding where any new nuclear power plants may be established. We therefore do not support that part of the proposal in the bill. It is a poor proposal, we think. We believe that new nuclear power should appropriately be built where there is already acceptance, competence, infrastructure, and systems for fuel and waste management. It is precisely the same position that, among others, Canada has. They start in that way.

In conclusion, I would like to ask a question: Why is the government and the Sverigedemokraterna putting all their eggs in one basket and doing, as we hear, only investments in nuclear power, which is expensive and takes a long time to build, instead of also investing in power sources that can be implemented quickly and are more cost-effective? If we do not get this in place – and it is urgent – it is unfortunately likely that parts of the business sector in Sweden will move production to other countries. Then we will not need as much electricity in the future as is indicated in the proposals linked to the proposition that is on the table today. This naturally also applies to electricity in the form of new nuclear power.

Therefore, we move for the rejection of the bill and for the approval of our reservation 1 in the committee report.

(Applause)

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Mattias Jonsson has spent over ten minutes essentially saying nothing more than that the Social Democrats want a German power system, despite the advice from German experts to everyone being: Whatever you do, do not build a German power system, because it is dirty, climate-hostile, expensive and unstable. It is approximately this that the Social Democrats want to do with the Swedish power system.

I note that one actually does not want to say anything about what we are discussing today, namely new nuclear power, more than that one perhaps at best accepts that the Tidö parties do what is necessary for Sweden - invest in maintaining the nuclear power we have and invest in new nuclear power.

I have two questions for Mattias Jonsson. I will only state the facts. In 1999, Barsebäck 1 was shut down, in 2005 Barsebäck 2 was shut down, in 2014 Ringhals 5 and 6 were stopped, in 2015 Oskarshamn 2 was shut down, in 2017 Oskarshamn 1 was shut down, in 2019 Ringhals 2 was shut down and in 2020 Ringhals 1 was shut down.

What is common to all these closures? Yes, they were carried out under Social Democratic governments. Not a single reactor has ever been closed in Sweden under a Moderate-led government.

My two questions are the following: The Social Democrats say that they do not want new nuclear power in places other than those where there is nuclear power today. What are they saying with this? Yes, that Skåne and electricity area 4 should not have any planned electricity production at all in the future. How is Skåne and that part of the country supposed to manage? And how is their industry supposed to manage with that attitude from the Social Democrats?

(Applause)

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I am astonished when I hear Mats Green in this debate. He devotes a large part of this exchange to history. It is known to absolutely everyone which reactors we have had, which have been closed, and what the reasons behind each were. He wants to devote this debate to getting as far as possible from what is here and now. It is about looking back and about what is to come after 2035 and 2045. But we have a reality here and now, and here the government, Mats Green, or the Sverigedemokraterna have no answers whatsoever. He is putting all his eggs in one basket.

I am deeply, incredibly worried and concerned that the opportunities that exist in the green transition are not being seen. I am extremely concerned that one is not listening to what the business community says about what needs to be put in place. I am extremely concerned that one is not taking the offshore wind power applications, totaling approximately 90 terawatt-hours, that are on the government's desk seriously and making the decisions that are needed to increase Swedish electricity production. Instead, one gets stuck in historical descriptions and in something that lies further ahead than the need that exists here and now.

Of course, we see that the nuclear power we have today is needed for a very long time to come. We see that there may be an opportunity to extend the lifespan of the reactors that exist. There are also studies indicating that SMR reactors can be an incredibly interesting path to take, which we also point out. But however much we would like it, they do not solve the problem by 2030.

That is why the exchange of remarks is going the way it is right now. It is about the time beyond 2035, or else it is historical description. One has no solutions here and now.

(Applause)

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Mattias Jonsson does not want us to stand here and talk about history. What he is saying is: Do not torment me with more factual knowledge, because I cannot handle it! It is because we have decommissioned six of twelve fully functioning reactors in Sweden that we are now in the shit. Pardon the choice of words, Madam Speaker, but that is what we are doing energetically in Sweden. That is why this government needs to push through more decisions on new energy in eight months than you managed during eight years.

When it comes to offshore wind power, as Mattias Jonsson spoke about, we have given the green light to more offshore wind farms in eight months than you managed in eight years. This is the truth.

Then I get no answer from Mattias Jonsson on the big question. It is said that we should not build more nuclear power in places where we do not have nuclear power today. That means, then, that Skåne and other parts of Sweden in electricity area 4 should never have any planned electricity production at all. It is roughly the same thing as saying that we should not have a single industry in Skåne, Blekinge, and large parts of Småland, including the extremely productive Gnosjö region, which I have the privilege of representing.

This is, therefore, a nuclear power debate, and Mattias Jonsson says that we must talk about the future. That is what we are doing, and that is what the proposal for new nuclear power in Sweden is about.

I still want an answer to the question, Madam Speaker. Why do the Social Democrats not want any predictable electricity production in southern Sweden?

I also want answers on how the Social Democrats stand regarding the Miljöpartiet spokesperson Daniel Helldén's ultimatum that there shall be no new nuclear power in Sweden and that Miljöpartiet will never accept new nuclear power in Sweden if they were to cooperate in government with the Social Democrats. Does Daniel Helldén's ultimatum apply, or is it what Mattias Jonsson tried to present here today?

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The claim that we do not want to hear history repeated, but it is clear that we can talk history. How did it look in 2016? We concluded the energy agreement, and Mats Green with party comrades blew up balloons and said that this saves Swedish nuclear power. That was exactly what they said. They were incredibly proud of that agreement.

We also, in response to the last question, had the Green Party (MP) included in that energy agreement, which was intended to save Swedish nuclear power, as the Moderates (M) expressed the matter. I am not in the least worried that it will not be possible to find new energy agreements, certainly with the bourgeois parties and with the Green Party (MP), which aim for both the short and long term.

But again - we have a situation today with substantial surpluses in energy production. We see that we have enormous needs until 2030. Just take Västra Götaland, where - according to what the business community says when you talk to them - decisions already made in the boardrooms mean that we need to increase electricity production by somewhere between 15 and 17 terawatt-hours until 2030. It is here that the answers are not found. The only thing being done from the bourgeois side is to put all eggs in one basket, invest in something that comes further ahead and turn a blind eye to the reality here and now. It makes me incredibly concerned.

I would very much like to see the Moderaterna and the other bourgeois, for that matter, open up for broad energy agreements, solve the issue in the short term and find solutions for the expansion of nuclear power in the long term, but not that one presents a proposition in this way which in the short term will have consequences that we will suffer from for a very long time to come.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mattias Jonsson, for the speech! I notice that the Social Democrats have nevertheless come to their senses a bit more and welcome nuclear power. It is something different from what we have previously been able to hear. I remember that at one time, this was part of the various discussions before the energy agreement.

I think it is sound. It is good for Sweden that we have shifted the focus in the debate and that we can put the emotions aside a bit and look at the laws of physics and see how a power system needs to be built to stand robust and stable.

However, I do not think I heard any answer to the question that my colleague Mats just asked, namely which side the Social Democrats intend to take when the Green Party paints the red line that there can never be any talk of new nuclear power if they are to sit in a government. My question is therefore: Where do we Social Democrats stand in precisely this issue?

Can we trust that your party has Sweden's best in mind and will work to ensure that the Swedish electricity system has the characteristics that this government wants? Or will you choose the short-term power-political solution and choose the Green Party over common sense—if one were to ever get the chance in the future, that is?

We Christian Democrats naturally have the ambition to continue governing for many years to come given the electricity system we have and the powerful measures that are needed. It would, however, be an important declaration for Sweden's inhabitants and especially for the business community to know what different parties have for long-term visions. Can the business community in Sweden get a statement from the Social Democrats that nuclear power is here to stay?

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats have a responsibility. They have a responsibility because they left the energy agreement, in which the Green Party was also involved. That agreement did not prohibit new nuclear power. It was the Christian Democrats and the Moderates who withdrew from it and put Sweden in a tougher situation.

We are talking about the business sector. The business sector demands answers here and now. I have repeated it a few times. Measures are therefore required in the short term, up until 2030, and it is urgent to get decisions in place. What the government parties and the Sverigedemokrater are doing is to focus solely on the long term. It is deeply worrying, and the Kristdemokrater should also think through in what way they are to solve it and in what way they can provide answers to the business sector in the short term.

We Social Democrats have not said no to new nuclear power previously. We did not say it in the energy agreement. We are not saying no to new nuclear power now either. But new nuclear power does not solve the issue in the short term.

When it comes to the 400 billion that go solely to nuclear power, there is a difference between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats. We believe that the credit guarantees should go to all fossil-free types of power to drive forward so that one both reaches the goal by 2030 and also enables the expansion of nuclear power in the longer term. One can almost feel that the Christian Democrats have ended up in some kind of nuclear socialism here.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the non-answer I received regarding the Social Democrats' position on a potential cooperation across party lines and a clear line on the existence or non-existence of nuclear power.

But if we are to talk about the energy agreement anyway, there are actually a number of different reasons why it was abandoned. It is about having brave politicians who dare to stand up for an electricity system that must function and be stable and robust. We saw that we received an agreement that would not work. Point by point, they dismantled the electricity system.

In the agreement, a number of different things were stated, including that there should be a maximum of ten reactors at existing facilities, but in not a single scenario presented by the Swedish Energy Agency was nuclear power included. Only that which concerned the one goal, namely 100 percent renewable, was brought forward. That one as a governing party is not clear in its agency mandates is quite illogical if one now has an agreement. Furthermore, the legs are cut out from district heating's role, despite it being explicitly stated that one should safeguard that role, and it is also one of the energy sources where we could increase in the short term in the current situation.

To have the Social Democrats octuple the tax, so that one had three months to transition, is not to adhere to an agreement. And when one did not keep the agreement point by point, why should we then remain in this agreement and stand up for something that has not been kept? This is about what the Socialdemokraterna did during the last parliamentary term, and they must be held accountable for it right now.

We have started cleaning, but we have hardly reached the hall.

(Applause)

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! That hall extends all the way to 2035, and we need to open some doors in the hall until then.

From the Social Democrats, we have repeatedly emphasized that we want a broad energy agreement. We can come any day of the week for talks to reach a broad energy agreement. We believe that it is incredibly important for our country. That is what I say in response to the question. I also expanded the answer to Mats Green earlier when it concerned Miljöpartiet: We had a common agreement.

Then, of course, one can in hindsight have views on what was included and what was not, and one can in that case negotiate about it. But the Christian Democrats still put their signature on the agreement and stood up for it and for it to be good for Swedish power production.

We would like to see an expansion of nuclear power, but then at existing facilities where there is nuclear power today. We say that we can raise the ceiling for the number of reactors to a maximum of ten, which we have also proposed. We say no to a free establishment of nuclear reactors all around our country, just as I said in my speech. One reason that was not mentioned is that the security policy situation may complicate the expansion. I believe it is correct to start that way.

I believe that Canada has landed on a wise conclusion, namely to start building SMRs at existing facilities. That is approximately the path we need to take. But we must not miss the 2030 target, as there are already investment decisions in many companies. For example, Volvo is entering and investing 5 percent in Västvind. They point out that it is incredibly important for their operations that offshore wind power is expanded. We cannot manage to reach the goals if we only lean on nuclear power – we must also expand offshore wind power in the short term. Otherwise, we risk businesses leaving the country.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mattias Jonsson, for the speech! I must return a little to the mantra about business sense. I thought of starting with this by laying down nuclear power on business grounds, as the member spoke about several times in his speech.

Let me quote: "The Green Party and the Social Democrats agree that nuclear power shall be replaced with solar, wind and other renewable energy. Vattenfall's plans for new nuclear power are cancelled and the old nuclear power is subject to tougher requirements." This was written by the Green Party in a press release in connection with the agreement with the Social Democrats in 2014.

I can also say that the electricity tax, which was introduced in 2000, has been increased on three occasions during the Social Democrats' time in power. At most, it constituted approximately one-third of the operating costs for nuclear power.

Miljöpartiet has further expressed the following: "We shall ensure that nuclear reactors are closed during this mandate period. That is also what will happen."

You have probably heard this to death, but I myself have served as an investment controller, including with nuclear power calculations. I know what the political decisions have done to the so-called business viability. That the Social Democrats do not want to talk about history is fully understandable, because it is Social Democratic policy that has led to the difficult situation in southern Sweden, where there is now not enough predictable power.

The members of the committee ask for an interim solution, which naturally must exist, but I want an answer to the question: What reserve power do the Social Democrats envision in southern Sweden? Wind power is not the solution to the power problems that are constantly recurring.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! What Jessica Stegrud is talking about regarding the energy tax is completely correct. The largest increase was made during Fredrik Reinfeldt's time. Then there was again an energy agreement, where it was agreed to reduce that tax. This was done to create better conditions. The waste fund for nuclear power was also adjusted at the same time, which also created better conditions for nuclear power.

But once again, it is not possible to get around this situation - we need more energy here and now and in the short term. In that case, I think one must be able to manage to have two things in mind at the same time. It is about developing and allowing investments to take place regarding nuclear power at existing sites on the long-term plane, but it is also about being able to expand all fossil-free energy that it is possible to do here and now, so that we also reach the goal for 2030 and so that we meet the increased needs in the green transition. And that is where the answers are not found.

We may not be very far apart regarding the long-term, as the bourgeois parties and the Sweden Democrats see that nuclear power is an opportunity when it comes to reaching the goals of doubling electricity production by 2045. But when it comes to the short-term, there are no answers from the bourgeois side, while we have a focus on this, among other things, in the matter of the credits. Do not lock them solely for nuclear power, but keep them open for all fossil-free types of power, so that we can reach the 2030 goal!

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is impossible to get an answer. What kind of predictable power do the Social Democrats want to see in southern Sweden? Volatile and weather-dependent wind power is not the solution for southern Sweden, either in the short or long term. These are purely technical questions, and the Social Democrats give no answer.

I am still fascinated by the enormous enthusiasm for offshore wind power. We see, for example, how the fishing industry on the west coast will completely collapse if these projects are rolled out on a full scale. It pushes aside cultural industries and fishing industries. It creates environmental problems. It lowers property values. But above all, it does not help the energy system.

It is often said: Wind power can have its place in the system, but then one must be very careful with balance and reserve power. And in that regard, the Social Democrats have no answer at all.

I note, in any case, that the member now at least acknowledges that the electricity tax has had an influence on the nuclear power calculations. It is thus the politics that affects the business decisions.

Much is said about how wind power would be incredibly fast and profitable. As mentioned earlier here, the Social Democrats have not managed to say yes to particularly much wind power production during their latest government period. We also see how project after project is now failing in terms of profitability. One of the largest projects in the world is located in Markbygden in northern Sweden. When it comes to phase 1, one is now facing reconstruction and has debts of 6 billion. It is not fast, environmentally friendly, or cheap.

I ask the Social Democrats once again to answer the question: Where is the reserve and balancing power to come from?

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! There is a new announcement in the chamber today from Jessica Stegrud. When I have listened to the Sweden Democrats, I have in any case heard statements that existing wind power may well be demolished. We shall not invest in wind power. In this debate today, Jessica Stegrud says that wind can be an alternative. It is still a step forward, I may say.

Then it is not true that the fishing industry is going under because of offshore wind power. These are propaganda statements that are quite serious. We need to have more offshore wind power. We have a park off Öckerö where it could be built. It would provide four terawatt-hours. The business sector is coming in and investing in this, because the need is seen here and now.

There is, once again, something that sets us apart. We both, I believe, have a view of nuclear power as an opportunity forward. We acknowledge that we do not solve the effect in the short term. The problem is that the Sverigedemokraterna and the bourgeois parties have no solution at all in the short term. We have solutions with all types of fossil-free energy, which need to be implemented. We also open up for credit guarantees there so that we can increase the volume in energy production, so that we manage the green transition and so that we retain jobs and get other investments here to our country. The Sverigedemokraterna and the government parties lack those answers.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! The member displays a fantastic ability to be both for and against. One is for new nuclear power, yet one is also a bit against. One is for the new technology – such as small modular reactors – yet one is also a bit against. One is for Sweden to have new nuclear power, but one is not quite willing to contribute to it.

Can one say more clearly that one is completely comfortable sitting in the back seat and letting others take the direction and drive? What do the Social Democrats want with the energy policy? The member is welcome to answer that.

Now I believe we are on the third exchange of remarks on the same theme. From where do the member and the Social Democrats intend for southern Sweden to get its electricity in the future, when Skåne is no longer allowed to have more nuclear power? How are we to manage that? The member is welcome to – it is the third time now – return with a more concrete answer.

(Applause)

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Already during the Social Democratic government period, we commissioned an inquiry into new nuclear power - it was also linked to small modular reactors. I think the Social Democrats' energy policy is crystal clear. We are investing in all fossil-free energy production. We have set a goal for 2030. It is lacking from the bourgeois parties. If there is a willingness to invest in nuclear power, we Social Democrats see that it is possible. We Social Democrats do not say no to credit guarantees, but it should not apply to only one type of power.

It surprises me that representatives of conservative parties repeatedly say that there should be technology neutrality, while at the same time locking themselves into a single type of power generation. What we need to do is to expand all fossil-free energy production, so that we also reach the goals in the short term.

There are no answers there, and that also applies to southern Sweden. There are a number of applications for offshore wind farms to also provide southern Sweden with more electricity production. When will those decisions be made? I pose that question back to the Liberal representative in the speaker's chair.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! As has been mentioned here earlier, this government has, in eight months, pushed through more offshore wind farms than the Social Democrats did in eight years, so I believe we can put that question to rest.

However, I am astonished. What is your answer to the business community in Skåne? What is your answer to Pågen in Malmö, to Lindab, and to Polykemi, which for a number of years have struggled to get enough electricity to be able to expand and create more jobs in southern Sweden, in Skåne? Why can we not get an answer? What is the long-term plan in the Social Democrats' energy vision for southern Sweden and for Skåne specifically? We keep returning to that question. Where is the effect supposed to come from?

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! No matter how much one wishes and even though it is almost Christmas, it is not possible to achieve what is requested from the bourgeois parties - nuclear power in the short term. There is not a single answer to this, but one looks forward toward 2035-2040. We also open up for this by building more nuclear power. We have never said no to new nuclear power, but we miss the target for 2030. What happens between 2030 and 2035?

We in this country risk losing thousands of jobs, because one is solving something that lies ahead in 2045 but not the need that exists here and now. We can have wishful thinking. This before Christmas, we can send out wishes to get nuclear power in place earlier, but it is completely impossible. Even the government notes that it can happen at the earliest in 2035. We can have wishful thinking about that, but it is a reality.

I find it very difficult to understand how it can be so hard to accept the reality we are in right now, which means that we need to increase electricity production. And then it is other fossil-free power that must be added here and now. Then one can certainly look towards nuclear power after 2035.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the government bill on new nuclear power in its entirety from the Tidö government.

Madam Speaker! We gather today to debate whether nuclear power shall be allowed to be a part of Sweden's future energy mix. But this is not solely a nuclear power issue. The question is significantly larger than that. It is not about a single type of power or about a reactor in a single location. No, the question is about whether Sweden shall take the first step back to a power system based on technology and engineering, that is to say, the world's best power system.

The power system is the backbone of modern and developed society, and nothing indicates that it will change. Too few understand that this is a completely crucial infrastructure. The food we consume every day is a clear example. What happens if the electricity is not there? Well, we will not be able to pay for our purchases in the store because the server is dead. If we have food in the fridge, it will soon go bad when the fridge no longer works. If one is to cook something, it is best to have a gas stove or a grill because the regular stove will not work without electricity. And if one is thirsty, it is a matter of saving, because no more water will come out of the tap when the pumps stand still.

This is what is most important in today's debate, namely that a power system must function, because we cannot afford for it not to.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish power system was once built as a system. Hydroelectric power was placed in the north for natural reasons and supplied the heavy northern industry. The surplus was sent south, but it was not enough to cover the demand. In the south, nuclear power was therefore built near the three larger cities, as well as a facility on the southeast coast to balance the system. All of this was tied together by the main grid and formed what was considered the world's best power system. The hydroelectric power in the north and the nuclear power in the south were the pillars that the entire power system rested on. Not only was it stable. It also provided low prices and was carbon-free before anyone even knew about the problems that the emissions would create.

Madam Speaker! This was not enough for some politicians, however, because it was the wrong energy. Nuclear power was not to exist. The foundations of southern Sweden were to be removed, whatever the cost. The Social Democratic governments did not hesitate. They willingly gave away the power system to the extreme parties they collaborated with to secure government power. The result was devastating: six decommissioned reactors and two halted new constructions. The two new reactors that had been planned for 2014 were stopped by the red-greens when they took power after 2014. Had they not stopped this, these reactors would have been ready to be put into operation approximately today. The result has also been a massive power shortage in southern Sweden and a power system in shambles with sky-high electricity prices that threaten both businesses and families.

The Moderates and our coalition parties understood the importance of the power system decades ago. Therefore, we stand united in our ambition to rebuild the world's best power system.

Madam Speaker! The power system will not be recreated through political incantations. It is done by building a foundation based on proven technology. What a functioning power system needs has not changed since the world's best system was created several decades ago - the Swedish system. For it to work, base load must be supplied in southern Sweden - electricity production that runs around the clock, all year round, in all weather and produces electricity near the user. And nuclear power is the only type of power that can manage to do this and which is simultaneously carbon-free.

Our colleagues to the left are trying to make it appear that it is radical in some way to invest in nuclear power, this technology that since 1972 has supplied every person in Sweden with green and cheap electricity. It is the technology that made us independent from various questionable states.

Instead, they advocate for imaginary power systems, power systems that exist only in their political speeches and world of thought, but not in reality. A part of it exists in reality, among other things in Germany. And Germany has a power system in a state of collapse, and we will return to that.

It is the so-called smart solutions and large-scale energy storage that are to replace the base load. Then, once again, the problem is that these technical solutions do not exist in reality. One day perhaps they will. But this, if anything, is a radical gamble.

Germany took this gamble and has long hoped for the smart solutions that the opposition advocates for. But they have not arrived. Instead, the Germans have to live with the EU's most expensive electricity and electricity that is among the dirtiest, while they have an unstable power system. Talk about combining the worst of all worlds.

A German energy analyst said earlier this month: Whatever you do in Sweden, do not copy Germany's totally failed energy policy.

Nevertheless, it was this that we heard here earlier that the Social Democrats want to do. And it is what we will hear that the Center Party and the Green Party want to do and naturally also what the Left Party wants to do.

Madam Speaker! We Moderates and our colleagues in the Tidö parties do not intend to do this, and we do not join this radical crowd that wants to follow Germany. We choose to invest in that which has been one of the power system's foundations for 50 years and that which we, again, know builds the world's best power system.

It takes a short time to tear down the world's best power system. The preceding eight years with Social Democratic and Green Party governments are proof of that. But it takes a very long time to build up a functioning power system. One must be honest about that.

Nuclear power is not built overnight. But we can be sure of one thing, namely that it will work, and it will provide clean and cheap electricity to generations of future Swedes - just as it has done and still does for all Swedes today.

The Tidö parties are making a major push on nuclear power, and it needs to be so. We have, after all, a long history of Social Democratic prohibition policy and branding of nuclear power behind us. Nuclear power has been punitively taxed, seen research funds withheld, been subject to a thought-prohibition law, and lived under a constant political threat of decommissioning. Most recently, a Social Democratic government took office and immediately stopped the plans for new reactors, i.e., the reactors that Vattenfall had planned at Ringhals, and four were additionally forced down through branding.

And now Daniel Helldén, leader of the Social Democrats' primary coalition partner, has declared that there will be no new nuclear power under a future red-green government. The ultimatum from Miljöpartiet is clear: New reactors shall not be built.

Madam Speaker! Who dares to invest billions in new reactors and secure Swedish electricity supply for decades when the Social Democratic government base is ready at any second to force them to close? The Tidö parties are carrying out far-reaching investments in nuclear power to build confidence among investors and companies. The red-green hostility towards technology must and shall cease.

Madam Speaker! Today we take a stand to remove the last Social Democratic blockades against new nuclear power. Now we will finally, more than 40 years after the biggest mistake in Swedish industrial history, truly allow new nuclear power in Sweden.

Sweden needs more reactors to cope with today's situation. We need more reactors to manage the green transition. We need to ensure that new reactors are ready when the older ones are eventually retired – and above all, we need to create the possibility for new reactors all the way down in southern Sweden. Southern Sweden shall once again be able to stand on its own feet and regain the electricity prices that once prevailed.

Madam Speaker! There was a Roman senator, Cato the Elder, who concluded all his speeches with the statement "Furthermore, I believe that Carthage should be destroyed." He also succeeded in this, let us remember; Carthage was destroyed later. I will think of that quote because we are a number here who have asked the Social Democrats the same question: Why is it that one does not want any planning power in Skåne at all, ever again? We have asked what the Social Democrats' answer and solution is, but we get no answer.

I shall have to continue to demand an answer to that question, Madam Speaker, and I assume that Mattias Jonsson has requested a reply to my speech so that we can continue the debate - and hopefully perhaps get an answer. But I conclude, Madam Speaker, by stating that the Tidö parties and the Moderaterna will not stop here. We shall ensure that new nuclear power - clean, cheap and climate-smart electricity - is built in Sweden.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M) and Camilla Brodin (KD) concurred.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Mats Green speaks of how the world's best power system has been destroyed, dismantled, or however one chooses to express it, and that it shall be rebuilt so that we once again obtain the world's best power system.

I have a very simple question: Which power system does Mats Green consider to be the best in the world, and based on which objective parameters? Can he, for example, mention any organization and what parameters this organization uses to assess power systems? Which systems would, in that case, be better than Sweden's?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! There is a fairly simple answer to that question: It is the power system that our parent generation and our grandparent generation planned and implemented. It was somewhat ingenious.

One looked at what northern Sweden needs, and one looked at what southern Sweden needs. One said: In northern Sweden we have large-scale hydropower, and in southern Sweden we need nuclear power. One planned this, and one looked at what each area would need not only in the nearest years but also several decades ahead - and one did it totally perfectly. It is this power system we need to return to.

It also turned out that the system worked brilliantly until the Center Party, with its prosecutorial exercises, thought-prohibition, and dogmatism, set out to tear everything down. They competed together with the Left Party, the Social Democrats, and the Green Party to tear down the world's best-functioning power system. The answer to the question is therefore: That is the power system we had in Sweden until people started going wild like mad butchers and dismantling the cleanest and most fundamental parts of the system.

I might also have to ask a question. The power system that the Center Party idolizes is the one in Germany. In what way is it good for anyone? Large-scale energy storage over a long period does not work; we know that as those who were physically present at the open committee meeting with the Committee on Industry last week. They open coal mines and have expensive, dirty, unreliable and unstable electricity. It is that energy system, that example, that the Center Party wants to introduce in Sweden. Our answer is: No, no and no.

Again: We shall return to the world's best power system, that is to say, the power system that our parents and grandparents built.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Now Mats Green is making things up, because the Center Party does not have Germany as a role model at all. Rather, Germany is doing things in exactly the wrong order; they should shut down their coal power first. I have said that many times in the speaker's chair, which Mats Green would have known if he had cared to listen.

My question was whether, according to Mats Green, there is any country in the world that is better than Sweden. Mats Green chooses to look back and talk about times when we had a clearly regulated electricity market, and perhaps it is the case that planned economy is something that Mats Green gladly advocates for. But I believe we have come a bit further than that in Sweden and in technology.

I can, however, tell Mats Green that the World Energy Council, which is indeed one of the largest authorities in the field, looks at power systems all over the world and ranks them based on things such as environment, energy security and competitiveness - the three pillars I believe we are quite in agreement on that one should support an energy system on. And Sweden has climbed in that ranking in recent years. Sweden leads it - we are the best in the world. We have the world's best energy system.

Can the system be improved? Absolutely! I am the first to say so, and the Center Party has quite a few proposals on how things could be made better. But the problem is that Mats Green and others stand and disparage the Swedish electricity system. What kind of signals does that send to investors all around the world? One says "Don't come here, we have nothing you can trust!" when Sweden has the world's best energy system.

We must absolutely do things better, but do not talk down Sweden unnecessarily! It harms both our business sector and Swedish competitiveness.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! We are not talking down Sweden – we are criticizing the fundamentalism and dogmatism that has prevailed from certain quarters regarding the Swedish power system.

If the criteria when ranking energy systems had been clean, cheap and stable electricity, the Center Party might not have quite applauded the ranking.

I have a question for Rickard Nordin. The Center Party also does not want Skåne to receive any dispatchable electricity at all. There is no proposal for that, because the Center Party also opposes new sites for nuclear power. It is said: No, Skåne shall not have any dispatchable electricity at all. I can note here that there is no shortage of municipalities that wish for more nuclear power in their area. Sometimes it is easy to believe that it is "not in my backyard" that applies, but that is not the case – there is a queue of municipalities that want to build new nuclear power.

Again: Answer the question, Rickard Nordin! Why does the Center Party want large parts of southern Sweden, including the extremely productive Gnosjö region in my home area, to have no planned power at all?

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I want to clarify that Rickard Nordin does not have the opportunity for any further reply, so the question must be answered at another occasion.)

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I hear that there is an eagerness to debate - it is even expected that a reply be requested.

We are debating the Committee on Enterprise's report titled New nuclear power in Sweden. I actually shouldn't have to say what it is about because many have already said it, but it concerns, among other things, amendments to the Environmental Code to allow new reactors in locations other than those today and to remove the prohibition against more than ten reactors being in operation at the same time.

Actually, I do not understand why one is pushing for these legislative changes at all. It is possible to build nuclear power today, if it is as sought after as the government and Sverigedemokraterna want to portray it as. It is fully possible today to provide investment money to build a reactor – go ahead, Wallenberg or someone else! But they don't seem to be standing in line. It surprises me deeply that the government, together with Sverigedemokraterna, with all available means, is trying to make it look as if it is completely risk-free to invest in nuclear power.

Signals are now coming that for cost reasons, the attempts with SMR that have been made in Utah in the USA are being stopped. The headwind that exists regarding the commercialization of new nuclear power should instead be used where wind does the most good, that is, for wind power. There are actually investors in line to invest in wind power, and they are investing all the time.

That we would have a bourgeois government that opposes things that would actually benefit industry, growth, and small businesses, few actors would have believed before the election, but it is now a fact. That one is not just passive but actively opposes things that would benefit AB Sverige and all of Sweden's citizens surprises me very much.

That municipalities say no to wind power projects is something that the government, without making too many knots, could have solved by including a tool in the incentive study that would have solved countless knots to get more production on site. I mean, obviously compensation to municipalities in the form of property tax or something else, as production-based compensation.

One actively opposes an energy tax. It is of course more important to keep the taxes at the national level, because then one can lower the taxes for the groups that one protects.

That the fact that there is even a campaign underway to smear the green transition and discredit the research leads to the country being pulled further apart when it instead should have become easier to seek consensus given the situation that the country and the world find themselves in.

In the budget bill for 2024, the government proposed credit guarantees for investments in new nuclear power of up to 400 billion kronor, which has also been mentioned in other reports. The reason is that investments in nuclear power are characterized by high initial financing costs, long construction times, and a long operating period to recover the investment costs. In Sweden, it was also several decades since new nuclear power was built, which creates uncertainty regarding national requirements and how these should be applied.

It should also be noted that nuclear power projects carried out in other countries are often delayed and significantly more expensive than planned. Olkiluoto 3 in Finland is, for example, one of the most expensive buildings in the entire world. Of the ten most expensive buildings in the world, six are nuclear reactors.

The government notes in its bill at the beginning that "the high risk hinders the possibilities to attract financing for these investment projects." Nevertheless, this government, despite its message of technology neutrality, has landed on providing credit guarantees for what, according to the government itself, are high-risk investments.

Madam Speaker! To those who have small businesses, live in houses or villas, or have some degree of electricity consumption, I say only this: Check the electricity bills from two years ago, and start comparing these with this winter's electricity bill! Please do this at least until the next election. This debate is about new nuclear power in Sweden, but I am convinced that the Swedish people have already begun to pay extortionate prices for the social utility that electricity to the outlet at home is actually supposed to be.

Not taking the fight to separate the export electricity from domestic consumption was the first mistake. It has now led to small businesses and consumers paying 60-150 percent more for electricity than they did three years ago. No supplier can justify the price increase on production. It is simply about a failed pricing model that we are now paying for.

The government's increase of the tax will result in a 9.2 percent higher electricity tax from the new year. However, it does not stop there. The integrated electricity market that Brussels loves will, of course, again give us, who have overproduction and cables to the continent, a price increase when the regulation on grid flows is to be implemented next year. Svenska kraftnät says that the price will go up by 20 percent.

The government's answer is that they cannot do anything - it is Svenska kraftnät that is to implement the ordinance.

Is that enough now? perhaps the pensioner Folke asks, who lives in a villa that consumes 20,000 kilowatt-hours. I can inform Folke that he will not get away that easily. The Energy Markets Inspectorate proposes revenue caps for grid owners for the next period, i.e., 2024-2027, and everything points to a significant increase being expected. The authority itself is concerned that the grid owners will be overcompensated due to the calculation model that must be used. The grid owners will, of course, appeal regardless of what is concluded, and they usually win.

How did we end up in this situation? A socially vital commodity such as electricity has become a lucrative industry. People have to count on a doubled cost to keep the house warm, and this just because governments - regardless of party - have trusted that the market handles this best.

Madam Speaker! Let me be clear regarding regulations and directives coming from the EU. I believe we should actively work on taking the fight with the bureaucrats and the member states in Brussels – otherwise, stealth implementation is happening all the time. Of course, there are decisions that benefit the climate and other good things with binding rules, but if I make agreements with someone and after ten agreements I notice that I get a raw deal every time, I must naturally rethink how I try to make agreements in the future.

Madam Speaker! Max Hjelm writes in DN that it is time to be afraid of Vänsterpartiet when one proposes a cap on how much profit a food chain can make. In the same article, he reminds us of Vänsterpartiet's proposal on Sverigepriser. I would like to assert that Max should be afraid of other – liberal – currents, which do not seem to have any limits on how much market greed Swedes should tolerate.

One thing the Swedes must start to realize. When the electricity price rises and on average becomes more than double what it was two years ago, it obviously plays a major role - in this case nuclear power - which is more than twice as expensive to produce in the hands. It is the explanation for the passivity from the government when it comes to measures that could benefit the green transition and Swedish consumers.

Madam Speaker! I know that I have exceeded the speaking time, but I must, in a pedagogical way, explain what is the difference between very cheap electricity – wind power in this system – and nuclear power, which is three times more expensive to produce.

We have a water bucket that illustrates Svenska kraftnät's transmission to keep production and consumption in balance. They talk about 50 hertz. We lose water at the bottom which illustrates consumption, and then we refill with water which illustrates production.

When it starts to get full in the bucket, we start pouring into a bucket next to it that illustrates hydrogen production. When we pour into the bucket that produces hydrogen, it costs three units to produce the hydrogen. The more overproduction, the safer it is that the bucket will never result in an imbalance for Svenska kraftnät.

It costs ten units every time we start pouring into the hydrogen bucket if it is nuclear power that is responsible for it.

Then the question is: What does heavy industry want? Does it want ten units to finance hydrogen production, regardless of what one thinks about it? And how do we enable the green transition in the transport sector?

Everyone is saying now that hydrogen is part of the solution, but this government is turning a blind eye. Just as Mattias Jonsson said, the government has put everything in one single basket. That basket is expensive, and this lies far in the future.

Madam Speaker! I naturally stand behind all our reservations, but I move for approval of reservation 8.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

We often hear from Vänsterpartiet that wind power is so incredibly cheap and that everyone profits from it. Who is it cheap for? Is it for the taxpayers, who need to provide the infrastructure? Is it for the reindeer husbandry, which is being subjected to problems? Who profits from it? Is it all the politicians who sit in the boardrooms of the large wind power companies? Or is it the foreign owners from China and Qatar who utilize favorable tax rules and all sorts of credits and subsidies? I really wonder who it is that profits from it.

It is not the small businesses in the north that will see competence and labor become much more expensive when the large subsidized projects draw in competent personnel. Furthermore, the gigantic projects swallow all the newly added electricity production in the north. It is not the small and medium-sized companies that profit from this. I believe that one must start to see this as a whole.

It is true that the new Finnish nuclear power has been extremely expensive to build. One must, however, take into account that with the average price that has been seen in recent years, the cost will be recouped in six to ten years, and in the long run, it will prove to be an incredibly profitable investment. I also note that Finnish nuclear power is exported to the northern parts of Sweden, and it was needed there.

The Left Party's vision is 100 percent renewable by 2040 at the latest. How is that going to happen?

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question and the assertions.

I firmly assert that cheap electricity benefits the entire nation of Sweden. It has done so for years. We have had the expansion of wind power when prices were at an average of 30-40 öre. In northern Sweden, hydropower is the largest, and it is combined with wind power. Producing hydropower electricity costs approximately 5 öre today. Take that in! But in three-year contracts, we pay 70-80 öre per kilowatt-hour in northern Sweden. Where is the logic? The production cost has not gone up, but we have a market that causes Swedish small businesses to go bankrupt. Bakeries and pizza places receive extremely expensive electricity bills because the system does not work.

If we are to wait for a nuclear power that will arrive in 2035, even more companies will go bankrupt. The green transition is also at risk. The large industries have already made decisions regarding investments. If we do not get more production on site before 2030, all of this is at risk.

Cheap wind power benefits all of Sweden. The Sweden Democrats often portray that wind power has been subsidized with tax money. Wind power has been subsidized with the electricity certificate system, which has provided large sums of money, but very little tax money has gone to a single type of power.

The Sweden Democrats cannot say that, because they are spending 400 billion on credit guarantees for a single type of power, which will take 10-15 years before it is in place. At the same time as you do that, you risk Swedish jobs, northern Sweden's heavy industry, and the green transition. Tell us how wise that is!

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! We agree that cheap and secure electricity supply has served us incredibly well, and it is back to that state that the Sweden Democrats strive.

It is claimed that it is so cheap to produce wind power, but again, for whom? Not all costs are included. There are incredibly high system costs. It is incredibly expensive to cover the deficit when it is not blowing, and someone must do it. I mentioned Markbygden earlier. It is a gigantic project, where the first stage is now under reconstruction because, according to the agreement, one is forced to deliver electricity even when it is not blowing, which is logical. But one cannot manage it. Producing wind power is therefore not as cheap as it sounds.

There is also a lot of talk about nature and biodiversity. Go up and look at these large projects! It is a major intrusion into the landscape. It concerns enormous areas, and large amounts of inputs and materials, such as concrete and other things, are required. Our beautiful nature is being destroyed to no benefit for the energy system in the long run.

Again: Wind power can have its place in the system in the right place but not on such a large scale and not if it does not have the right effect and balancing power. This is, however, constantly ignored.

There is talk about hydrogen. Today, large-scale hydrogen production is a desk product that helps no one. There are so many ifs and buts and whens and maybe heres and theres, and it will cost enormous sums.

The tax funds that one plows into one matter cannot be plowed into anything else. It is all about opportunity costs, and I consider the Left Party's policy to be completely unrealistic.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the allegations rather than questions.

The government speaks about hydrogen. One has definitely come as far with that as one has with SMR reactors, for they are also not on track. They paint a scenario where these would be a solution, but they are not today.

Who is the beneficiary of cheap electricity from wind power? Well, as I said, it is the entire nation.

Markbygdens first stage is under reconstruction because one has an agreement, a PPA, at 40 öre per kilowatt-hour. We have a failed pricing system where prices on the continent affect us. One was forced to cover up to full production at a cost of 2 kronor per kilowatt-hour but must, according to the agreement, sell for 40 öre. It is clear that problems arose. Other companies have renegotiated their agreements, and they have succeeded. But still: The investments are in place, and the production cost is at 30 öre. There is no nuclear power at such a low cost.

I am convinced that a system with entirely renewable production will work.

That one does not see what is happening now and what needs to be implemented, for example investments in green transition, but only focuses on something that lies beyond 2030, goes beyond my understanding. It is, however, pleasing that Member Stegrud suddenly protects the environment, the Sámi, and reindeer husbandry.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! As a Christian Democrat, I am pleased to move for the approval of the Committee on Industry's proposal in the report New Nuclear Power in Sweden. I am also very pleased to stand here today and be part of a milestone in Swedish energy policy.

With Energy Minister Ebba Busch at the forefront, the government has taken several important steps on the mountain climbing that lies ahead of us. The mountain to be climbed can be described as that we shall double the Swedish electricity production and that this production shall have some specific characteristics. It shall be fossil-free, stable, secure in delivery, cost-effective, and have competitive prices.

We shall re-establish a world-leading electricity system that shall be the bridge to a climate transition with continued high ambitions that Sweden shall be an industrial welfare state.

Nuclear power alone is not a sufficient solution to manage the entire mountain climb, but it is a necessary part of the climb. With today's decision to remove the ceiling on the number of reactors and to release the municipal arrest for the reactors, we are clearing the arena to achieve a better functioning electricity market.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party and the Green Party seem quite uninterested in joining this climb, but I still interpret both the Social Democrats and the Centre Party as being - perhaps reluctantly and without wholehearted enthusiasm - on their way to following the government in the realization that all good forces are needed and that nuclear power is a part of this energy mix.

But I also get the feeling that one, especially from the Social Democrats, expresses it this way: Yes, nuclear power can be good because it has a role to fill, but it is no solution now, because we need more electricity now and it takes several years to build new reactors. Therefore, we must invest in renewables today. That is what I hear when I listen to the Social Democrats.

Madam Speaker! To be honest, I find it very difficult to understand why there is hesitation today in making decisions on something where the lead times can be long. It is rather the opposite: If something takes time to implement, it is super important that one starts as soon as possible. Today is a very good day to make this important decision.

Our government has truly made decisions, and I have tried to capture which decisions they are about. The government shows that it is not idling, but rather that it is presenting a number of different parts for just the energy policy and nuclear power, which has been somewhat sidelined for quite a few years. Just during the autumn, some parts have arrived. I will try to list them, with the risk that I may have missed one or some. The government has, therefore, acted on the issue.

In August, the decision was made to investigate the compensation for the surrender of land in connection with the expansion of the electricity grid. In August, the assignment regarding energy supply to the total defense also arrived.

In September, Svenska kraftnät was tasked with carrying out an assessment of the adequacy of resources for the Swedish electricity supply. In September, the government also presented further measures to speed up the permit processes. In the same month, the bill that we are discussing today was submitted.

In October, an approval was granted for a power line between Sweden and Finland, Aurora Line. In the same month, several earmarked budget allocations within the energy sector were made to secure growth and green transition. It also concerned the assignment to Svenska kraftnät to analyze civil obligation within the electricity supply and reforms in the design of the EU's electricity market.

In November, the government commissioned an inquiry into new nuclear power - a second step. Today we take the first step. On November 8, we had broad talks with the energy industry with a focus on the upcoming winter. On November 16, the decision was made regarding a new roadmap for new nuclear power in Sweden. In November, the government bill on the Nuclear Waste Fund's financing of municipalities' efforts for final disposal also arrived.

The term is not over, and everything I have listed are things where the government has stood its ground because it was necessary. We see that we previously had a government that was not there, but these decisions were needed when the situation looks as it does today. I think these are good initiatives from the most energetic government we have had in this country in a very long time.

Madam Speaker! I move once again for a wholehearted approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Camilla Brodin, for the speech! I actually have two questions that I would like to start with.

It has emerged from several members that the green transition shows that we need everything from 50 to 70 terawatts more electricity that is to go to the transition processes and the industrial initiatives that are on the horizon and where there are large investment ambitions.

What is the Christian Democrats' answer regarding the types of production that must be in place before 2030? They precisely oppose that which would facilitate getting this in place. There are tax rules that mean the municipalities do not see the advantages of saying yes to wind power projects. But they removed the only tool that would have worked.

The Christian Democrats owe an answer. They hold the ministerial post that has the tools, but they are completely opposing what should be the solution so that the municipalities can feel secure and dare to invest. What is the answer from the Christian Democrats? How are we going to get the production capacities needed by 2030 in place?

And what is the answer to Folke, who receives an electricity bill in the coming years that is twice as large as the one he has had? These margins do not exist for the pensioners who live alone. All of this is only done because one wants a higher electricity price, because then it is easier to defend a nuclear power that lies further ahead in time. What is the answer to Folke?

One has been passive even when it comes to implementing EU rules that say one should support consumers. One is deliberately passive so that they did not receive the money they should have been allocated. What is the answer from the Christian Democrats?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Birger Lahti of the Left Party, for the questions! When it comes to electricity until 2030 or 2035 and the entire green transition that we see happening in northern Sweden, it is a bit worrying that the electricity might not remain up there. They will have to try to compensate southern Sweden for all the losses that occur down there. It is a problem that we have to look at in the rearview mirror.

I do not know if the member remembers it, but during the previous parliamentary term, I submitted a committee initiative. Okay, I understand that there are parties in Sweden's Riksdag that do not want to see the existence of nuclear power in the future. But can we not ensure that we at least keep Ringhals 1 and 2 until there is something else in place? No, they did not even want to discuss the issue then. Those of us who remember know that it did not differ by very many votes inside this chamber when the decision on the decommissioning was made. They did not, therefore, want to take responsibility for the situation that we saw could come. It is precisely that we see right now.

When it comes to offshore wind power, however, we need more power production in southern Sweden. The Government has already made these decisions. But above all, we must look at how the role of combined heat and power can be strengthened. When we look at the entire need that exists down there, we see that with fairly small means, one can reach the absolute low-hanging fruit: to support the role of combined heat and power and the role of district heating in southern Sweden. Then the possibility can also increase in northern Sweden.

Thankfully, Finland has built a nuclear reactor that is ready. The link between Sweden and Finland is also something that is coming.

I have in my hand a fresh text stating that steel companies are investigating nuclear power a stone's throw from Haparanda. There are opportunities up in northern Sweden, where one does not only point out the role of nuclear power. We will need all good types of fossil-free energy, but then it is a matter of us also standing behind the energy policy that is being pursued right now.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Camilla Brodin, for the answers! When it comes to Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, which the member refers to, it was down two weeks ago. The electricity cost 11 kronor per kilowatt-hour. Is that successful? The member must answer that herself.

When it comes to nuclear power and Ringhals - do the members see any end dates for the reactor? It has been pointed out that fully functioning reactors have been decommissioned. If I have an old car that can still be driven today but which I know will break down if I drive it for one more week, it is clear that I get rid of it.

It is the same thing with many of the reactors that have been decommissioned. A scenario is painted where fully functioning reactors have been decommissioned. No, that is not true. When it comes to the Ringhals reactors, the owners themselves said that it is commercially impossible to start them. It was not political decisions that would have saved the situation.

I still have not received any answer from the member regarding what we should say to the people who are unable to pay their electricity bills. Should we just say: You have only yourself to blame for not having firewood or anything else? I don't know.

The government is doing nothing to try to address this. We have had very cheap electricity. Market incentives could solve some problems. I do not claim that it would solve everything, but it would solve a lot.

When people talk about the industrial investments, 2035 often comes up from the parties that hold government power together with Sverigedemokraterna, because it is then that we see that we might have a new reactor, that someone might have invested in it. But the needs are closer in time than 2035.

Even if we were to use all the electricity we have within Sweden, it will not be enough. We need more. And they are removing all the tools that would work to facilitate this. They do not want to see it and instead put all their eggs in one basket.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you that this government is not putting all its eggs in one basket! I do not know how many of my colleagues have also tried to explain this from the rostrum.

We will need all types of good energy moving forward. But above all, we do not just need more terawatt-hours. I believe we can be quite in agreement that never before have so many terawatt-hours been produced in Sweden as right now. But we have also never had an electricity system that is as small as it is right now. It is called capacity.

Something has gone completely wrong when we have removed six of twelve reactors in southern Sweden. One can claim that some do not function. Why should one then invest in them? It would have been good if one had been given the opportunity to make investments to be able to extend their lifespan. But in the current situation, I do not believe either that it is the most cost-effective to invest in that which has already begun to be decommissioned. It is also not permitted in the law. One cannot restart nuclear power plants that are already shut down.

This is why we have high prices. In Energiforsk's report from 2020 or 2021 – it was at least during the pandemic when it came out – one looks at the results of shutting down Ringhals 1 and 2. One sees that it had an impact on the energy price. The electricity price would have been 30-50 percent lower if the reactors had been allowed to remain. That is the harsh reality.

I think the Left Party is responsible for why one has to pay higher prices. But it is no secret that we are prepared to turn over every stone so that our citizens do not end up poorly off due to the poorly managed energy policy. When it comes to the potential tax reliefs that could be taken, we Kristdemokrater are quite ready.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Camilla Brodin!

To begin with, I really want to turn against the description of Sweden's energy system as dismantled. It simply does not correspond with reality.

We have had the lowest prices for electricity in the EU, even during Putin's energy war against Europe. We have had the largest export of environmentally friendly electricity. Last year it was as much as 33 terawatt-hours and replaced fossil and dirty electricity in the rest of Europe. We have the highest use of renewable energy. And according to Svenska kraftnät, we have one of the world's most secure energy systems in terms of delivery. That is the correct description.

Then we face great challenges. Our energy system will need to be changed and developed. This leads me to my question to the Christian Democrats. There will be tough competition now. Sweden needs to maintain a leading role in the green industrial transition we face, in order to manage both the climate transition and the tough competition for the green jobs of the future. There, Sweden needs to continue to be a leader. Or do we want the jobs to end up in other countries?

The Minister for Energy has himself said that we need between 55 and 70 terawatt-hours by 2030. According to the government's forecast, new nuclear power may be in place as early as 2035, regardless of what one thinks about that power output. Where is the energy up to 70 terawatt-hours supposed to come from by 2030? You mentioned combined heat and power. Is that what is supposed to solve the problem?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Lakso, for the questions!

I would like to turn to the citizens of Sweden. Do they agree that we have had the lowest prices? We have had that on paper, but what have we had in Sweden if one looks at the whole? We have had very good access to electricity. It has been a hygiene factor in Sweden. One has not really needed to worry so much about what it costs, so for the average person, it has meant a percentage-wise enormous surcharge compared to what one has been used to. I hope we can agree on that, without involving the rest of the world in all of this.

We know that Sweden has low prices, but they have still been incredibly high. That is not where we should strive towards in percentage terms. We Christian Democrats do not strive to continue to stay at a level where one is on its knees. That is because it is not only the electricity price that one has to pay.

Tomorrow, for example, the reduction obligation will be debated here in the chamber. Why? Yes, because we need to change the things that make it so that ordinary people and companies, especially small businesses, cannot even afford the transition. It is too expensive to both pay for electricity and to refuel. We need to find a sense of reasonableness in all of this.

How are we going to take care of it? How are we going to ensure that our companies survive at all? It is this government's responsibility to ensure that it is done in the best way. Without companies, we would not have any welfare in this country.

We are responsible for Sweden's citizens. The answer to them is not to look them in the eye and say: "We still have the lowest prices in all of Europe". Here we must do everything we can.

I will return to the jobs in other countries in my next speech.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Camilla Brodin, even though you yourself noted that you did not answer the most relevant question.

My point is not to say that we have had low energy prices. It was a comparison. It depends, as mentioned earlier, on our dependence on fossil fuels. Europe has placed itself in a dependence on fossil fuels, and it has been very harmful. We see that now. Miljöpartiet has long pushed to phase it out and instead become more self-sufficient in renewable energy.

I return to the question. It is exactly as you say; we agree on the description of the problem. Companies and Swedish households demand cheap, environmentally friendly electricity in very large quantities so that we can maintain a competitive industry. And it is needed quickly, by 2030.

The Christian Democrats are currently stopping 75 percent of all wind power projects around the municipalities. The Sweden Democrats are stopping 100 percent.

I really wonder where the energy will come from until 2030 and even until 2035. Two nuclear reactors will still only cover 20 percent of the need, if they even get completed. I really want answers to that from the Christian Democrats, who actually hold the energy ministry and are responsible for these issues.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! This is a very interesting question. Either one understands how the electricity system works or one does not. We have, thank goodness, an Energy Minister who truly understands it and what is needed in the electricity system.

I believe we must set aside the emotions surrounding wind power, nuclear power, and so on, because we are going to need all kinds. Sometimes it can be very good to have strong emotions in politics, but when it comes to an electricity system, it must still be the laws of physics that apply. We must look at the whole and whether we have dimensioned the electricity system sufficiently well. Do we see that it is quite small in the current situation? Yes, we see that. Then it is our responsibility as politicians. If you want to push in more renewables into the whole, you must have a base power that is sufficient. If we have more nuclear power in the system, we will also be able to have more wind power. But as it looks right now, the whole would just short-circuit if we did the opposite.

To retain jobs, achieve growth in Sweden and continue the development taking place in northern Sweden, one must have access to electricity. On that, we both agree. We are not always on the same page, but on some fundamental matters, we still agree.

It is a matter of thinking through when the electricity is needed most and what one gets out of the whole thing. I do not believe that saying wind power solves all problems. We must also look at other things. District heating is one such thing, wind power in certain parts is another. But then it should be where it is welcome. We do not want to compromise on the municipal veto, regardless of whether it concerns wind power, mining, power lines, or nuclear power. You must always have the municipalities with you when you develop that type of energy.

I believe that this discussion will continue for some time to come, but that we are protecting the companies is beyond doubt.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! This debate is a bit of a world turned upside down. Vänsterpartiet talks about the business sector and small businesses while Moderaterna dream themselves back to electricity price regulations and planned economy. But the fact is that a very large amount of new electricity production is needed, and on that, we agree.

What does not seem clear to the government is that it needs to go fast. The industry is talking about 70 new terawatt-hours already by 2030. I think the Social Democrats' 60 terawatt-hours is a bit on the low side. The Center Party is talking about a planning framework of 100 terawatt-hours.

In the end, it is about reduced emissions and increased competitiveness. In short: Without a rapid supply of new electricity production, Swedish companies will be less well-equipped than their competitors. It costs in terms of jobs, and it costs the society. Without rapidly increasing electricity production, Sweden will be a loser in the transition that the world is now undergoing. A wise government would then naturally choose to meet the needs of the business sector. For a government that claims to be bourgeois, it should be a matter of course. But for an outsider, this government's actions seem totally out of touch with reality.

It is reasonable to update some laws regarding nuclear power, for example, to remove the cap on how many reactors may be built. It is reasonable given the technological development. It is also therefore why I move for approval of reservation 2 in the report.

However, there is no one who could claim with any kind of seriousness that nuclear power can meet the needs of the industry by 2030. Westinghouse's CEO says that in order to build it by 2035, the investment decision would preferably have been made yesterday. In an absolute best-case scenario, it would therefore be somewhere around 2035, and I do not rule out that profitable nuclear power can be built in the future. This is also stated by scenarios from, among others, Chalmers and the Swedish Energy Agency. At the same time, it could be the case that there will be no nuclear power under these conditions.

Those who truly want to look into the future should develop a strategy for fusion power, as the Centerpartiet proposes. But the government parties and SD choose to vote against it.

Our competitor countries celebrate all the way to the bank when the government drives a rhetoric and a decision-making that polarizes and once again creates a fierce debate. We had actually left that behind. It also actively makes it harder to expand electricity production, unless it concerns nuclear power specifically. The Minister for Climate called this "nuclear power Tourettes" in his previous political role. All questions are answered by saying that nuclear power is the solution.

According to the World Energy Council, as I mentioned earlier, we have the world's best energy system. The frequency stability is the best it has been in a long time. The rhetoric that the government employs harms Sweden. There is much we need to do with the energy system, not least regarding the expansion, but to speak as one does costs in the form of reduced competitiveness for the business sector when people and companies do not want to come to Sweden.

For those who instead want to lift their gaze - and are capable of doing so - towards what research and the industry itself say is what has been said is possible, that new nuclear power can be built. But that one would want to heavily subsidize just nuclear power seems quite strange. In Skåne, which has been highlighted in this debate, there is the Skåne Impact Commission where parties have sat down together and looked at what can be done by 2030. There, they highlight offshore wind power, onshore wind power, solar power, biogas turbines and combined heat and power. They do it without blinkers and without subsidies. This government should also do that.

The Center Party has presented a roadmap for at least 100 terawatt-hours, and there are quite a few ways to get there. It is about power increases in existing nuclear and hydropower, and about how the state takes responsibility for basic infrastructure in the form of electricity grids, so that we avoid protracted processes such as in, for example, Forsmark. It is about the expansion of wind power on land as well as at sea. The previous government did not do enough, but it is no excuse for this government to sit on applications and do nothing at all.

It is also about improving for combined heat and power, as Camilla Brodin very rightly said. It is very regrettable that the government is not coming forward with any proposals in this area. There are many low-hanging fruits, not least the tax on bio-oil, for example. There, we have in existing plants approximately one to two nuclear reactors in potential capacity.

There is plenty of dispatchable power. Dispatchability is not a type of power. It is not solely about nuclear power. Energiforsk says it can be combined heat and power, increased capacity in hydropower, and possibly nuclear power in the longer term. It can also be wind power with associated storage. There are quite a few variants of dispatchability.

One can also look at the user side. The steel industry expects to use hydrogen storage to be able to utilize the peaks in electricity production where prices are lower. It has also been shown that that type of storage increases profitability by 25-40 percent in savings.

When it comes to expansion, I want to bring up solar power, not least in Skåne. On the county administrative boards' tables lie applications that correspond to a 50 percent increase in electricity production. Every additional kilowatt-hour lowers the electricity price. It is clear that there are hours when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, but it lowers the price on the total, and it is the bill at the end of the month that is relevant.

So why is the government waiting? Why is there no review of the rules and creation of clarity when it comes to, for example, land use? Why are local property taxes or compensations to neighbors not being introduced, when you now say that you protect all fossil-free types of power? This is a problem.

Do not let the pause for environmental assessment of hydropower slip away without effective measures! Not a single proposal has been presented during this pause – let alone anything referred – and the pause ends on February 1. Those who are to submit their applications need the messages now in order to be able to take them into account. It is harmful for Sweden when one gets stuck so much in a type of rhetoric and a tone of voice.

Do not forget efficiency, storage, and flexibility either! The potential for efficiency is massive. Cutting peak loads and lowering consumption while maintaining production in industry as well as comfort in homes is not even difficult. The potential exists and would be simple to seize. If, instead of just tossing out multi-billion amounts in electricity subsidies, a small amount had been spent on efficiency, and a green deduction had been introduced to streamline and perform electricity- and water-saving measures, we would have had completely different opportunities, and very many people would have received a completely different electricity bill.

All of this can be done without massive subsidies via credit guarantees or guaranteed electricity prices. It is such things that otherwise risk costing taxpayers billions of kronor. The Centre Party starts - just like the power commission in Skåne, where all parties have participated - from real problems and looks at the possible solutions here and now, without getting stuck in a track where one thing is supposed to solve everything, regardless of problem, cost, or timeframe.

The best the government can do is actually, regardless of whether we have more nuclear power or something else, to lower the political risk. It is extremely high now, especially as the government turns its policy on a sixpence. This applies not least tomorrow when we are to debate the reduction obligation. That uncertainty costs. It costs in the form of companies needing a higher risk premium. It costs in the end in the form of higher electricity prices for companies and households, and with that, we are back where we started.

A wise energy policy is based on the needs that exist - what the industry is crying out for. More electrical power is needed quickly. It is time for the government to start putting energy into convening the Riksdag for dialogue and putting as much energy into solving the problems as it puts into talking about new nuclear power.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is finally getting a completely new direction for energy policy. Consequently, we now have the conditions to become the first completely climate-neutral welfare nation. But that also requires all fossil-free types of energy – not just the renewables but also nuclear power.

That is why the debate we have today and the proposal that is now on the table, which enables new nuclear power in Sweden as a complement to the renewables that we have long had our eyes on, is important. That we can now, hopefully, make decisions that enable a substantial expansion of energy production in Sweden is absolutely excellent and actually completely necessary. Energy must be available when and where it is needed, every hour of the day, every day of the year.

Mr. Speaker! The production, distribution, and use of electricity will need to increase significantly in the future. Electricity production of various types needs to be expanded in balance while the power grid is strengthened. I know that I repeat myself and often return to this in the speaker's chair, but I cannot emphasize enough the necessity that everyone, both private individuals and the business community, receive the electricity they need when they need it. We in politics, not some abstract market, must create the conditions for this. We in politics set the rules for what shall apply even in the energy sector.

Now that we know that we will need to increase production in conjunction with an increased electrification of society and an increased use, we must also ensure that this energy use does not harm the climate. The climate transition means that we must stop using oil and coal. Instead, the fossil-free needs to be expanded. We know that biofuels may come to play a role, but it is only solar, wind, and nuclear power that we can expand sufficiently to replace the fossil fuels.

If we are to summarize what has been said here in the chamber, and what often recurs is that we need to be able to run in both an outer lane and an inner lane. We need to look at what we do in both the long and short term. In the long term, it is precisely about expanding the capacity and production so that we can meet a doubled demand by 2040. Here, nuclear power and, to some extent, offshore wind power are decisive.

Here and now, as the opposition has returned to much, we also have a number of challenges that need to be handled and which the government is acting powerfully on. We have had problems with the energy supply primarily in southern Sweden, and we have seen that we need to take advantage of all types of energy. We need to better take advantage of the potential of combined heat and power, we need to secure a reserve capacity, and we need to ensure that the investments in the grids continue. Naturally, we must also continue with the energy efficiency measures that we started last winter and which have been very successful. This needs to be done in the whole country, and it needs to be done above all now before the colder season.

In the short term, we therefore need to strengthen the energy system, and in the long term, we need to expand it significantly. It is against that background that today's proposal on new nuclear power is so important. Enabling new reactors in locations other than today's by removing the prohibition in the Environmental Code and, furthermore, allowing more reactors to be in operation simultaneously is absolutely necessary for us to be able to have a functioning electricity system in the future.

Nuclear power has a special status. It is the only fossil-free energy source that can both be built out on a large scale and is predictable. For the electricity system to function, it requires an electricity production as a complement to the renewable that can meet the demand regardless of the weather. That is why this government is now putting so much effort into ensuring that the obstacles that exist against building new nuclear power are removed. This is the outer track that is being worked on, while at the same time we strengthen what needs to be done here and now in the inner track.

Swedish electricity customers have for decades been able to rely on that the electricity works. The cost has been predictable. This past winter has shown that is no longer the case. The capacity to produce electricity when it is needed and where it is needed is too small, and this applies especially in the southern parts of the country. It is a serious political failure, and it is what is now being attempted to rectify.

Mr. Speaker! That we now have a proposal aimed at ensuring we can utilize all the types of power sources available and expand these is a major and important step for Sweden to be able to continue to be both an industrial country and a welfare nation. We must not end up where we ended up last winter. People should not have to go around with a lump in their stomachs over what the electricity bill will amount to. The business sector should not have to weigh in the availability of electricity when they make decisions regarding potential expansions.

Electricity must exist, and it needs to be there where we need it, when we need it. I move for the approval of the proposal in the committee's report New Nuclear Power in Sweden.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M) concurred.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! What we are seeing now is one of history's most failed energy and climate policies. Instead of investing in real solutions, this government is pursuing a policy that increases the emissions of fossil fuels. The emissions will therefore increase by up to 10 million tons by 2030.

The fact is that it has never been as important as it is now to have an energy policy that works. We must be able to deliver cheap electricity here and now. When I speak with representatives for industry across Sweden, from the large industrial investments in the north to the extensive industrial investments in western Sweden, everyone says the same thing: We need electricity at competitive prices now, not in 15 years. In 15 years, all industrial investments will have already moved to other countries, and by then it will be too late.

Such a failure would also significantly hinder Sweden from reaching our climate goals. We must, in fact, reduce the use of fossil energy now. It needs to be phased out as soon as possible. For every year that we use fossil energy, more and more greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere and drive climate change.

Mr. Speaker! Both the industry and the climate researchers are therefore in agreement. Sweden needs to focus on delivering large amounts of fossil-free electricity quickly, cheaply, and in an environmentally friendly manner. When one adds up the industry's and the authorities' assessment of how electricity consumption will increase as a result of us replacing fossil energy with electrification within the industry and the transport sector, it looks like this: 70 terawatt-hours more are needed by 2030 and an additional 70 terawatt-hours by 2035. This is therefore an increase of a total of 140 terawatt-hours by 2035, a doubling of electricity consumption. Of these 140 terawatt-hours, the government's plans for two new reactors by 2035 will at most cover 25 terawatt-hours, if they even come to fruition.

This is therefore completely insufficient to manage the climate and industrial transition. It only covers 20 percent of the need. Where is the rest going to come from? We have not received an answer to that today, but the answer is obvious. It is wind power and solar cells, that is, the renewable energy, that can deliver the amount of electricity that industry and Swedish consumers need by 2030, by 2035, and even beyond. If we fail at this, we will have no industry left in Sweden, and we will not manage the climate transition.

In the current situation, the Tidö parties are instead opposing over 100 terawatt-hours of wind power across Sweden's municipalities. Furthermore, the government has applications for over 100 terawatt-hours of offshore wind power on its desk that they have not yet delivered on. They have only started a little bit in the margins. There are applications for an equivalent 50 terawatt-hours of solar energy submitted that need to be enabled to enter the energy system.

So, in total, it is over 250 terawatt-hours of renewable energy knocking at the door. The question is what the government is doing to promote renewable energy. Otherwise, what is supposed to deliver 70 terawatt-hours by 2030 and cover the gap of 115-140 terawatt-hours by 2035? What is the plan? We have not received any answer to that today.

It is especially relevant because one is opposing renewable energy. M's, KD's and SD's mudslinging regarding wind power through faked photomontages and claims that Sweden will become a forest of steel is harmful to Sweden. A compilation from Chalmers shows that M, KD and SD have become quite extreme over the last three years in stopping wind power out in the municipalities. They are now stopping almost all the renewable energy that Sweden needs.

In addition to renewable energy being cheaper, faster to build, and more than sufficient to cover our needs, there are good reasons not to make ourselves dependent on more nuclear power by building new. This is due to nuclear power's many environmental problems. They occur in all phases. They exist during the mining and enrichment of uranium, where toxic substances are released with major health and environmental risks as a result. But the environmental problems also exist in the final disposal phase when radioactive toxic waste is to be handled for 100,000 years. They also exist during the operation itself, where the risk of serious accidents always exists.

Mr. Speaker! We must remember the fact that nuclear power can never be completely safe. We have seen how extremely serious a major nuclear accident can be. Many Swedes remember the accident in Chernobyl in 1986, especially we from northern Sweden where berries, mushrooms, and game became inedible for a long time. One can still measure high levels of cesium-137 in game, fish, and mushrooms. The accident in Fukushima in 2011 became a catastrophe for Japan, both for neighbors who were forced to move from their houses and homes and for the Japanese economy. The accident is estimated to cost a staggering 7,000 billion kronor to remediate.

Unfortunately, we must not believe that we are protected from the security problems in Sweden. The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority has on several occasions cracked down on a lack of safety culture in Swedish nuclear power plants, and in 2006, Forsmark was, according to reports, close to a meltdown. The probability was assessed at 12 percent. Those are approximately the same odds as one has when playing Russian roulette.

How can we guarantee security, with an ongoing war in our surroundings, if we are to have nuclear power in a number of different locations around Sweden? The proposal is, as stated, not even properly investigated.

Mr. Speaker! The probability that an investment in new nuclear power would stay within the allocated time or budget is very low. If we look at nuclear power plants built in the rest of Europe, we see that the picture is quite depressing. I will take a few examples.

In France, Flamanville 3 is being built. The plan was a construction time of five years and a budget of 40 billion. The result is a construction time of 16 years or more. It is not finished yet. The real cost is estimated at 150-200 billion, thus four to five times the budget.

In the UK, Hinkley Point C is being built. The construction time alone is at least 16 years. The cost for the two reactors is now estimated at 430 billion with an electricity price of 120 öre or more per kilowatt-hour.

In Finland, the 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. The construction time was 18 years. The planned budget was 37 billion, but the final bill is estimated at 125 billion.

These are unfortunately not any exceptions. Compiled data shows, on the contrary, that nuclear power projects specifically are notoriously subject to delays and cost overruns. In all categories among all types of projects, they are among those that perform absolutely worst. Projects within wind power and solar power, on the contrary, often proceed faster than planned and at a lower cost than in the planned budget.

Mr. Speaker! What can the final bill for new nuclear power be expected to land at for Swedish households? The government parties have long known that new nuclear power requires massive subsidies. But only recently does it seem that it has been realized that the previously announced 400 billion in credit guarantees will by no means be sufficient.

Reality came and haunted again, so to speak. This week the government announced that they are now prepared to take even more of the taxpayers' or electricity consumers' money to invest in new nuclear power. The desperation shines through.

If one compares the system costs for a system for renewables versus one with nuclear power, as for example Chalmers University of Technology has done, one sees that the subsidy requirement for a new nuclear reactor amounts to approximately 200 billion per reactor. For ten reactors with 60 years of operation, it becomes 2,000 billion kronor. This is including the system costs needed in a renewable energy system to balance it.

If we break it down per household in Sweden, it amounts to a cost shock for Swedish households. It is a cost of 6,000 kronor per household and year for an additional cost with ten reactors completely unnecessarily compared to a system with renewable energy. Then we haven't even mentioned that every Swede risks being hit with a cost of 40,000 kronor in credit guarantees. To that, we must add the subsidies so that one does not pay their own insurance costs or the insurance for the final repository.

Mr. Speaker! The question we need to ask ourselves is actually simple. Do we want an energy system that is environmentally friendly, cheap, and safe, or one that is dangerous, expensive, and unsustainable? For most countries around the world, the choice is simple.

Looking at Europe and the rest of the world, one sees that approximately 90 percent of all investments are being made in renewables. This is done for the simple reason that it is cheap, environmentally friendly, safe, and long-term sustainable.

In addition to Chalmers' report, the International Energy Agency IEA also shows in its analyses that a system with renewable energy sources complemented by different types of energy storage and flexibility is cheaper and, naturally, also more environmentally friendly and safer.

Eurelectric unites the energy industry across Europe with 3,500 energy companies behind it. In their forecasts for 2050, the expansion of renewables dominates completely while nuclear power's share decreases. When the UN's climate panel IPCC identifies which technologies can solve the climate crisis, it is solar and wind that dominate completely.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet believes that it is renewable energy that we should invest in. I therefore move for approval of reservation 3, and we also stand behind reservation 1.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

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

There were incredibly many half-truths and a bit of propaganda smuggled in with a well-chosen strange report that has hardly been questioned. There was a lot to take in and address here. I will nevertheless try to clarify a few things.

I thought I heard the member mention that electricity becomes incredibly cheap with wind power and that we have such cheap electricity in Sweden, but it has not been cheap. We have households and companies that have completely been brought to their knees in recent years. And what is that due to? Well, to MP-led policy over several parliamentary terms. It was an incredibly strange claim – to place some kind of blame on a government that has been in power for a year.

We also see the result of the Green Party's policy in Germany, where they have shut down nuclear reactors and where they are now kicking coal power back into gear because they cannot manage to deliver power into the system if they do not have sufficient transmission capacity. And even before that, they had completely submitted to Russia when it comes to transitioning to natural gas.

The entire situation has completely disrupted the system, and the prices that have followed the situation in Germany have spread to the Swedish prices.

There is so much talk about us having 100 percent renewable. It is, as I understand it, Miljöpartiet's major issue, and it is also supposed to happen quickly. But again: How is it going to happen with the large-scale hydrogen and the expensive balancing and system services that must be added and which in many ways are desk products? How is it going to happen here and now?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Jessica Stegrud!

To bend with it becomes a bit backwards here. It is Miljöpartiet who have long warned precisely against being dependent on fossil energy from rogue states, and there I include Russia, especially after the invasion of Ukraine. To be dependent on fossil energy that we do not have control over is precisely what we are seeing the consequences of, and that is what we have tried to counteract. We have tried to achieve a transition for 40 years.

It has gone too slowly, both for the sake of the climate and for our energy security. In that regard, I can only regret that we have not come further and that we are stuck in a dependency. But now Europe and Sweden have realized that we must do something about this, and we have made great efforts to invest more in renewable energy produced within Europe. But here, Sweden seems to be falling behind.

Mr. Speaker! I received no answers earlier from the government parties and the government base regarding what will deliver the electricity we need until 2030, so I want answers to that from Jessica Stegrud.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish energy system has been largely fossil-free for decades. We did our homework very early on, so I do not understand the question in Swedish energy policy at all. We had the world's best energy system. We were truly rigged to be able to deliver even more predictable power in the future, for the sake of the great electrification, among other things. It is incomprehensible how you now want to swing that policy, member.

When it comes to the climate and the IPCC's recommendations, they also recommend nuclear power. Nuclear power has a carbon footprint one-third as large as wind power, so if carbon emissions are a major issue, it is actually nuclear power that one should invest in, not wind power. The argument is incredibly strange, I think.

Then there is a lot of talk about the environment and environmental footprint. Again: One can look at the entire chain when it comes to, for example, wind power, the environmentally harmful substances that must be mined somewhere and the conditions under which they are mined today, under what is largely a material monopoly that China primarily has today. It is also a major security risk.

When it comes to wind power being green, fast, and cheap, calculation upon calculation and investigation upon investigation show that is not the case. I have mentioned Markbygden as an example when it comes to profitability, but there are myriads of similar projects that show that wind power is not particularly profitable. In the end, this naturally hits the electricity customers. The state has to step in and subsidize poorly managed facilities, and then we are left without power in the end.

Environmentalist-biased politics has proven to be very bad in Germany, and I do not want it in Sweden.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Then I must disappoint the member, because we already have environmentally friendly energy policy in Sweden that delivers a surplus of 30 terawatt-hours. That is an extremely good starting point for the great electrification we face.

When it comes to wind power: Why are investors lining up to invest in new wind power if it is unprofitable? They want to invest, but it is being blocked all around in Sweden's municipalities, not least by the Sweden Democrats.

Markbygden is a special example depending on the contract they had, and one cannot conclude that it applies to wind power in general. On the contrary, it is being built out like never before - 8 terawatt-hours per year. It is therefore essentially a nuclear reactor every year from wind power. It is an extremely important contribution to putting together 70 terawatt-hours by 2030. And I received no answer to the question: What energy do the Sweden Democrats want that will solve our need until 2030?

It is a bit funny that one, while simultaneously meaning that we have had a fossil-free electricity system since the 70s, sets it as a goal for 2040. I don't quite understand how this equation adds up. In that case, is it still a completely worthless goal? The goal should, in that case, be a fossil-free energy system, because it is within the industrial and transport sectors that the fossil industry exists which we need to phase out, if we are even in agreement on that at all.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! I grew up and live in Oskarshamn. I feel lucky and love this region. As an Oskarshamn resident, I have followed and been involved in issues concerning nuclear power since my teenage years. There are many of us in our region who have spent a lot of time on this, through schools, workplaces, residential environments, associations, and other forums.

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 town, every morning. I have myself worked at SKB, Svensk Kärnbränslehantering. During a couple of summers, I was a guide in the tunnel where research on final disposal is conducted: the Äspö laboratory. And as an elected official in Oskarshamn, I have recurring contact with OKG and SKB.

Nuclear technical facilities for us in Oskarshamn are not a theoretical far-off concept, but it is here and now in our everyday lives. For us in Oskarshamn, it is about both the production of nuclear power and waste management, transport through and to our municipality and naturally research, at Äspö and in the Kapsel Laboratory.

We have taken our responsibility for Swedish nuclear power very seriously and are proud of it, of what we have done and helped create for our country Sweden and of what we are prepared to continue doing for Sweden's best.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs more predictable, fossil-free electricity. It is crucial for Swedish industry and welfare and for the climate transition. A substantial capacity expansion is required in all stages of the electricity supply chain and in all fossil-free types of energy, including Swedish nuclear power.

Swedish nuclear power has been successful for several reasons. A decisive reason - it is the one that makes me request the floor here today - is the democratic anchoring and the strong civic support that has existed for nuclear power where it has been established.

In the rest of the world, we see what it has meant for nuclear power when this type of support and anchoring has not existed. It has involved extensive protests and major disruptions for electricity supply and other critical infrastructure. It has also meant that there have not been predictable conditions for the industry. It has, of course, also meant great risks for people and nature.

Without a solid and comprehensive local anchoring, the safety work is significantly damaged. The risks that exist with all nuclear technology will therefore not be able to be considered in the manner that is required for a long-term sustainable electricity supply and with respect for people and nature.

Mr. Speaker! Local anchoring is therefore necessary for a functioning nuclear power industry and for a national electricity supply. It has historically worked well in Sweden. Neither the state nor the industry has steamrolled local communities regarding nuclear technology. It has been a winning concept for our country. An important part for local communities when it comes to being able to assert themselves has been the so-called municipal veto. It is important for municipalities and local communities. But based on Sweden's experiences, it is equally important for ensuring that the safety work and the national electricity supply function at all levels.

Mr. Speaker! Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner and its then Moderate chairman, Peter Danielsson, expressed this spring: "A municipality's approval through a decision in the municipal council is required today for the government to be allowed to permit facilities for nuclear activities, including nuclear reactors. Such an approval is to be regarded as a municipal veto and is, according to SKR, a fundamental prerequisite for a facility for nuclear activity/nuclear reactor to be able to be established in the municipality."

These are, therefore, words from Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner. They must be heard clearly in this matter here in our chamber. And I agree with SKR's words.

Mr. Speaker! Safeguarding municipal self-government and the municipal veto is not about being either for or against nuclear power. It is about being for democracy and popular anchoring and for security.

I want to remind all my colleagues here in the chamber of what unfolded during the previous parliamentary term regarding the Swedish high-level nuclear waste when the then Minister for the Environment, Per Bolund, did not want to make a decision on the final repository but only continued to expand Sweden's interim storage in our municipality Oskarshamn. At that time, the existence of the municipal veto was what helped us.

Mr. Speaker! I mention this to emphasize that the defense of autonomy and the veto should not be smeared, neither by me nor by any other Oskarshamn harbor, as if it were a matter of us being against nuclear power. It is quite the opposite. As I have tried to describe earlier here in my speech, a comprehensive local anchoring is completely necessary for nuclear power to be able to be safe and thus also successful.

That is why the government's words in this summer's referral to the Council of Legislation regarding New Nuclear Power in Sweden - unfortunately raised questions and concern at first. What did the government actually mean by what was then written about the municipal veto? Why did they open up for returning to "questions regarding the municipal veto"?

The formulations from the Council of Legislation's referral remained, despite SKR's clear message, in the government's bill that was submitted to us in the Riksdag.

That is why I submitted a motion on this during the general motion period which is being addressed in this matter. And that is why we have raised this issue in several different contexts.

I welcome that the government is now listening to us and recently announced in committee directive 2023:155 that local self-government shall not be affected. Ergo: The local veto shall not be changed.

Mr. Speaker! I do not move for the approval of my motion, as I currently view the issue as overplayed. There is now a consensus regarding the significance of the municipal veto. According to the government's statement in directive 2023:155, it shall not be changed.

Mr. Speaker! Having said this about the importance of and the consensus on the municipal veto, I now want to direct my attention to two other points that we in Oskarshamn have long experience of. It is about the importance of, firstly, long-term perspective and, secondly, precision.

Firstly, when it comes to long-term perspective: This concerns issues that span a very long time. The construction of reactors and the reactors' lifespan is about up to 80 years. No Swedish government will sit for that long in a row. There will be changes of government. Therefore, long-term agreements that hold over time are needed.

The energy agreement, with all its flaws and shortcomings, nevertheless provided predictable conditions for industry. The creeping sabotage in the politics regarding nuclear power took a break. It was necessary for Swedish nuclear power. I want to urge the government to realize that Swedish nuclear power and Swedish industry continue to need long-term perspective and predictable conditions. Invite to party-common talks on this so that the decisions on Swedish nuclear power can be anchored with more and hold over time.

Now I have only highlighted the short, approximately 80-year perspective. The waste needs to be stored in a protected manner for up to 100,000 years. This also naturally requires common and long-term agreements in order to get the final repository in place.

Mr. Speaker! Secondly, when it comes to the importance of accuracy: Nuclear technology is potent. This cannot be overemphasized. It is an incredibly powerful technology. If mishandled, it can have serious and deadly consequences for entire societies and countries. It requires accuracy. Carelessness and guesswork, shortcuts, impulsive actions, lack of transparency, and lack of control do not belong in nuclear contexts. Neither do populism and whataboutism.

No matter how good the intentions are, the risks are great. No matter how quickly one wants something to happen, accuracy must be the guiding principle. Things must be allowed to take their course and be controlled according to regular routines. Different areas of expertise need to be included in the considerations.

It is for nuclear power's own sake that we who see nuclear power's potential must have the strength and courage to stand up for rigid, thorough control functions, precisely so that nuclear power can be able to show itself from its best and most brilliant side.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: In Oskarshamn Municipality, we in politics have a long tradition of trying to reach consensus and agreement on nuclear technology issues. This has benefited the security work, the local anchoring, and thus nuclear power as a technology and industry. We have shared the responsibility with one another. We have borne the burden together and shared its fruits.

I really want to urge everyone in the chamber, all the members of the Swedish Riksdag, to follow this example. It will be better and safer when we do it together, based on the appalling science that nuclear technology offers humanity.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is liberating to see such clarity and such a positive attitude towards nuclear power from the Social Democratic side.

I also agree with what the member says about how, where we have had nuclear power, the local pride has been very great. It has been an important workplace where one feels that one has contributed to Sweden's energy supply.

In Skåne, we have and have had Barsebäck. Precisely the pride that you describe, I feel that many of those who have worked at Barsebäck feel when it comes to the connection to Lund University, to the research, to contributing to the energy system and so on. Precisely these feelings I have been made aware of from many who have been active at Barsebäck.

That is why I wonder why the member and the Socialdemokrater do not want the people of Kävlinge to be able to feel the same pride in the future as the people of Oskarshamn do over their nuclear power. Why do the Socialdemokrater not want Skåne to have nuclear power in the future?

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Louise Eklund for the remark.

It is good to be able to meet across party lines regarding these issues. I appreciate it. I would really wish that we could do it in a way that can move forward, and I do not believe the chamber is the best place. I will return with an answer to the question, but I want to urge the member and the Liberals to take the initiative for just this type of discussion across party lines. The Social Democrats in the Committee on Industry, and we as a party group, are ready. We are ready to sit down and conduct serious cross-bloc conversations about these matters.

You are sitting in the committee and have naturally read our reservations and our special statement, which the colleagues in the Committee on Industry have responded to. You have taken replies to them. A supporting part of this is that the government itself points out that the bill being presented here is not sufficient for anything to be put in place. Let us therefore instead join forces to see how we can solve this together!

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! Absolutely, and one way to solve this is through the proposal that has been submitted. If southern Sweden, and especially Skåne, is to be able to solve the power capacity issues and the problems with the electricity supply that have existed, nuclear power will need to play a role. Therefore, it is strange that from a Social Democratic standpoint, one so categorically says no to new nuclear power.

In Skåne there is a facility and an electricity grid, and as you say, we have the local anchoring which I agree is so important in order to be able to have this type of energy production. There, they have been waiting for the type of decision that today's debate and the proposal aim for, that is to say, that one should be able to build nuclear power in more places. I therefore look forward to continuing the dialogue, but my question remains.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have sat here and listened to the committee's debate on the matter and noted that it has been about both new nuclear power in southern Sweden - I live in the same electricity area myself - and about the prices. Both concepts have been present.

I have sat here and reflected quietly, because it was our government that initiated the proposal to change – or at least review a change of – the electricity price areas. It could be a first step toward achieving order and a better price structure, and it is something I hope the current government reviews. It does not provide an answer to the question of building new nuclear power plants in places other than the existing ones in southern Sweden, but I still hope that we will be able to take steps forward together.

I come from another committee – I sat in the Committee on the Constitution for several years – and if I may venture to give a piece of advice to everyone in this chamber, it is to perhaps be a little inspired by how KU handles issues and how people talk to one another there. It is truly possible to reach an agreement if we talk to one another in a different way and try to listen to one another. There is very much here that just feels like a political game; it feels like we are quite in agreement across several of the party lines, but as if some perhaps actually do not want to invite the Social Democrats, despite the fact that we have given clear messages regarding these issues.

I hope, therefore, that you take Mattias's outstretched hand, Louise Eklund, and invite us Social Democrats to cross-party talks to move forward on these issues. However much you may want it, your government, as long as Sweden is a democracy, will not be sitting there for 80 years. We will need long-term agreements on these issues that the industry can lean on and rely on.

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must remind both members that we do not address each other as "du" here in the chamber, but instead use either "the member" or first and last names.)

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I could not help but push myself into the debate, because what has been debated today and what the Riksdag will soon have to take a stand on in this chamber is the first nuclear power bill in decades. It is a first step of many from the new government to ensure the right conditions for new nuclear power investments in Sweden.

Someone might ask themselves, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not the market that has ruled. Is it not the market that has generated an energy market where investments in nuclear power have been absent? If that were the case, we would have had a different political dimension to take a stand on, but instead, the newly elected government needed to initiate its work with exactly that which has been debated today – i.e., obstacles in Swedish law that we have had to tear down and which will be gone on January 1 next year.

The current situation is such that, regardless of how much one wants to or what need exists, one is not allowed to invest in and establish a new nuclear reactor anywhere in Sweden except at the three sites where we currently have reactors in operation. Furthermore, it is such that an existing operator that owns and operates nuclear power at any of these three sites is not allowed to build more than that there are a total of ten reactors in operation.

It is not the market that has set up these rules of the game, but it is politics that has chosen to limit the conditions for nuclear power through this type of legislative text - which we from the government base are now ensuring is gone from January 1st next year.

This is the first step. It will, and has already been, presented further. An investigation has been commissioned by the government base to look both at how to jointly solve the nuclear waste issue, and at the permit processes so that nuclear power can receive fast tracks.

We must also look at the high application fee that currently exists. In practice, it means that Vattenfall would have to pay an application fee of over 100 million for each reactor if the company, for example, wanted to establish six SMRs in Ringhals. Despite the reactors being identical, coming from the same supplier, and being placed in the same location, the cost would have amounted to over 100 million each. That fee must, naturally, be significantly reduced.

All of this is part of removing existing barriers to create incentives, and more has been presented by the government to ensure an energy market where we actually reward the types of power that benefit our system rather than the types of power that drain and burden our system.

When this is in place, I am convinced that the expressions of interest we see all over Sweden - in Norrköping, Uddevalla, Svalöv, Studsvik and so on - will generate a nuclear power race all over Sweden. I hope that my constituency Skaraborg will be part of the competition to have one of the first new reactors placed there, for example in Skövde or in Mariestad.

In the debate, the opposition has had a major focus on wanting to see an agreement - as if they have just realized how pleasant it would be if we agreed on this issue. The cynic, Mr. Speaker, might experience this as an attempt from the opposition to tie the hands of the government base and severely limit the room for reform in order to win the next election, rather than an attempt to generate what would be best for our electricity system and our energy market.

New nuclear power in Sweden

In this speech, Eric Palmqvist (SD) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 29 November.)

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