New nuclear power in Sweden - more possible sites on the coast

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is once again time to debate nuclear power in the chamber during this parliamentary term. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

I will be honest and say that I do not quite know in what order the report will be, but no one can have missed that our blue and yellow cooperation has worked intensively to remove the obstacles that previous governments introduced to stop new nuclear power projects.

It is with some pride that I can now, at the end of the parliamentary term, state that what I have come to call the nuclear power renaissance is now in full bloom.

Today, unlike when we came to power, nuclear power may exist in more than three locations in Sweden.

Today, unlike when we came to power, there may be more than ten reactors in operation at the same time.

Today, unlike when we came to power, there is a government-appointed nuclear power coordinator.

Today, unlike when we came to power, it is possible to extract uranium again in Sweden.

Today, unlike when we came to power, investments are being made in nuclear power-related research.

Today, unlike when we came to power, authorities are actively working on nuclear power-related issues.

Today, unlike when we came to power, Business Sweden has a mandate to seek international nuclear power expertise.

Today, unlike when we came to power, municipalities can seek support for their local nuclear power projects.

Today, unlike when we came to power, there is a state support program in place for new nuclear power investments – and so on.

All this has resulted in that we now regularly receive new applications to the government regarding new nuclear power projects all around Sweden. In Varberg in Halland, in Gävle in Gävleborg, in Nyköping in Södermanland and in Valdemarsvik in Östergötland, there are concrete plans for new nuclear power projects, and these have reached the government's table. Furthermore, there are several other municipalities that have expressed support and interest for new initiatives. Among these are Grästorp and Mariestad here in my Skaraborg, Uddevalla in Fyrbodal, Kävlinge and Svalöv in Skåne and Oskarshamn in Småland, among others.

In addition to the national realignment of policy and the local support for new nuclear power plants, we also see how the business sector has seriously gotten underway.

Swedish companies want to invest in new nuclear power. Swedish companies want to own new nuclear power. Swedish companies want to be subcontractors for new nuclear power. Swedish companies want to do the earthworks for new nuclear power. Swedish companies want to build new nuclear power. Swedish companies want to develop new nuclear power. Swedish companies want to export to, and invest globally in, new nuclear power. Swedish companies simply want to be part of the solution for Sweden's and the rest of the world's electricity production and electricity systems.

If this cannot be likened to a renaissance for nuclear power, I do not know what can. Support for new nuclear power has also grown stronger in the Swedish political parties, and in this chamber, a full 80 percent have voted for the blue and yellow proposal on nuclear power financing.

Today – admittedly with a smaller margin than that – we take the next step in this journey. In the bill, the government proposes amendments to the Environmental Code aimed at enabling the expansion of nuclear power in more locations along the coast while simultaneously maintaining the protection of natural and cultural values.

The proposed amendments mean that the ban on nuclear power plants within several coastal areas and archipelagos is removed. This applies to Bohuslän from the border with Norway to Brofjorden, in Småland and Östergötland from Simpevarp to Arkösund, in Ångermanland from Storfjärden at the mouth of the Ångermanälven to Skagsudde, as well as on Öland.

The amendments also mean that the ban on nuclear power plants is removed within the coastal areas and archipelagos from Brofjorden to Simpevarp and from Arkösund to Forsmark, along the coast of Gotland, on Östergarn and Storsudret on Gotland, as well as on Fårö, in places other than where there already exist certain industrial and similar facilities.

It further appears from the bill that the amendments are proposed to apply to all nuclear facilities covered by the government's permit review according to Chapter 17, Section 1, Point 1 of the Environmental Code.

The amendments do not affect the assessment of nuclear facilities otherwise. The Government submits that it will therefore continue to be required that an assessment is carried out in the individual case before a nuclear facility can be established.

Mr. Speaker! Now I have explained what this committee report aims for and emphasized the fact that it constitutes a cog in the machinery that the blue and yellow parties have driven since we received the voters' confidence to once again create conditions for new investments in nuclear power in Sweden.

It has been an extensive piece of work, which has touched upon many laws and authorities, in order to ensure that the obstacles which previous governments deliberately put in place to dampen interest in nuclear power and to make it impossible for nuclear power through legal restrictions no longer exist. The playing field is now free for those who want, wish, and can invest in new nuclear power plants moving forward. During the time that we have carried out this work, it has become apparent that the interest is great all around Sweden, from both politicians as well as companies and investors. I view this incredibly positively, Mr. Speaker.

In this speech, Eric Palmqvist (SD) agreed.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It was an interesting speech from Tobias Andersson. One is very proud of how much one is supposed to have achieved, but the truth is that not a single spade has been turned for new nuclear power, even though that was what was promised. What we are debating now, nuclear power plants along our coasts, will also not facilitate anything regarding that issue.

We are facing the greatest industrial transition in modern times. It is about the climate transition, electrification of industry and the transport sector, and the establishment of new companies, which naturally need energy. We need to expand fossil-free energy production at a pace we have not seen in decades. There is no doubt whatsoever that we need more electricity. There is also no doubt that nuclear power will be an important part of Sweden's future energy mix.

The Social Democrats say yes to new Swedish nuclear power. But saying yes to new nuclear power does not mean that one must say yes to every proposal that the government puts on the Riksdag's table. It also does not mean that one should accept a lack of planning, insufficient consequence analyses, or proposals that, instead of solving conflicts, risk creating new ones, as well as problems that become harder to handle later. It is therefore that we oppose the new bill that we are debating in the chamber today.

Mr. Speaker! The Government proposes that the ban on the establishment of nuclear facilities along large parts of Sweden's coastal and archipelago areas be completely removed. It is a very far-reaching proposal. The area that is currently covered by protection does so for very good reasons. The regulations have been introduced to protect natural values, cultural environments, and the possibility for outdoor life. They protect coastal environments that are important for biodiversity and which form the basis for industries such as tourism and fishing.

When the government now opens up these areas, there must be a clear and substantiated need. But the government has actually not reported that need. On the contrary, there are today good opportunities to build additional nuclear power at the sites where we already have established nuclear power: Ringhals, Forsmark and Oskarshamn.

At these locations, the required infrastructure already exists. There is competence and experience regarding nuclear facilities as well as established security systems. And there is a local acceptance, which is important, not least. Several assessors have also pointed out that, above all, Oskarshamn has very good conditions for further expansion.

Given that there is already space for more reactors in these locations and that they fit well into the Swedish electricity system, we do not see the need to open up completely new coastal stretches for nuclear power establishments.

Mr. Speaker! There is a fundamentally very important question here: Who is it that shall decide what the future energy facilities shall be and where they shall be built? The government's model means in practice that the market is given an ever greater role in pointing out establishment sites. We have recently seen examples of this when the company Kärnfull Next applied to have permission to build six small, modular reactors in the area southeast of Valdemarsvik, in a location where there is currently no nuclear power whatsoever.

It illustrates exactly the problem we want to highlight. We mean that this is not for the market to decide. Or as Tobias Andersson said here in the speaker's chair on repeated occasions, six or seven times: It is the companies, the companies, the companies that submit the application. It is not the market that should decide whether nuclear power should be built, but it is a responsibility for the state. It is the state that must weigh energy needs, environmental considerations, security issues, total defense, grid capacity, and regional development. It is the state that should make the strategic trade-offs, not the market – not individual actors based on their business plans.

Therefore, we believe that the state should take a collective responsibility and identify suitable areas for nuclear power but also that which we have previously pointed out, offshore wind power. This would create better clarity for investors and greater predictability for the municipalities. It would provide a better opportunity to manage the goal conflicts that inevitably arise when large energy investments are to be carried out in our country.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats do not think that coastal stretches such as the Stockholm archipelago, the High Coast, the Bohus Coast, where I myself grew up, or Öland should be opened up for this type of establishment. These are not places that are particularly well-suited for nuclear technology activities.

In the existing nuclear power sites, however, there is both acceptance and prerequisites. There is, as I have mentioned, the technical infrastructure. There is the competence and, not least, the experience and the acceptance. And there, the safety prerequisites have already been thoroughly tested. It is there that continued expansion should take place.

Mr. Speaker! There are further reasons to criticize the government's handling in this specific issue. During the parliamentary term, the government has returned with several bills, which we also heard the previous speaker talk about, which in different ways concern the future of nuclear power. Many referral bodies have pointed out that these proposals are closely linked and sometimes overlap – in that case, they need to be handled together. We agree with that criticism.

When one carries out such extensive changes to the energy policy, the Riksdag must be given the opportunity to assess the whole instead of, as it has now become, making an assessment in a silo. What will be the consequences for the electricity system, for our public finances, for other fossil-free types of power, for our municipalities and for households? These are questions that we would have needed a completely different analysis of, a unified analysis.

Instead, the government chooses to change the regulatory framework step by step without giving the Riksdag a complete picture of the cumulative effects. This is not a satisfactory basis for decision-making.

Mr. Speaker! It is also worth noting that the enthusiasm in the municipalities is extremely limited; there are not many cheers. Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner has been strongly critical and emphasized that the proposals are not sufficiently scrutinized and impact-assessed to form the basis for this legislation.

When municipalities that are directly affected by these changes request better analyses, a government should listen to them. It is about respect for local self-government. It is also about creating long-term sustainable decisions.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Social Democrats want to build a strong, robust, fossil-free energy system. We want to see new nuclear power and more offshore wind power. We want to see investments that strengthen Swedish competitiveness and secure the industry's electricity needs and which in turn create jobs and secure those that exist.

But we also want to see order and clarity in the energy policy. We want the state to take a unified responsibility. We want establishments to occur in the locations that are best suited. And we want important nature, culture, and outdoor recreation values not to be risked unless there are very strong reasons.

The government has not shown that there is a need to open up large parts of Sweden's coastal and archipelago areas for nuclear facilities. It is precisely for that reason that we believe this bill should be rejected. And it is for that reason that I move for approval of reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Mattias Jonsson began his speech by stating that there is no doubt about the importance and role of nuclear power in Sweden's future electricity system. I completely agree with him on this.

However, for many voters, there is perhaps a doubt regarding the Social Democrats' stance and view on nuclear power. One has indeed voted yes to the state subsidies that the blue-yellow cooperation placed on the Riksdag's table in the budget, but one has conditioned it. One has indeed voted yes to parts of the reorganization to facilitate new nuclear power applications in Sweden, while at the same time having been against other initiatives from the government, including the proposal that we are debating here and now.

Furthermore, it is probably obvious to all Swedes that the Social Democrats, if they receive the voters' confidence, intend to govern Sweden together with parties that have an even more unclear view on nuclear power and its role in Sweden's future electricity system.

There are, therefore, many issues to work through here. But let me start with one. Can Mattias Jonsson guarantee that what he is now expressing from the rostrum regarding the importance of nuclear power and the value of nuclear power in Sweden's electricity system even in the future will be the Social Democrats' policy even in a government cooperation with Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet?

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Tobias Andersson, for the question! We have been clear for a longer period of time. Nuclear power in Sweden is of great importance for Swedish energy production. We have also been clear with the messages we have given that we see that there are conditions for and a need to expand new nuclear power at existing sites. I noted that existing sites were not mentioned a single time in Tobias Andersson's speech as far as I heard. I think that one should have respect for those out in the country who are worried about new facilities.

I do not think that opening up coastal stretches in the way that is now proposed is respectful, especially when one cannot demonstrate that such a need exists. But from the Sweden Democrats, one is holding a speech where one does not even mention the existing sites, where there is already an acceptance, an infrastructure, and expertise on site. That is where one should invest. That is where one should focus.

Since then, Mr. Speaker, we had this starting point in the talks with the government. We emphasized the need to find systems so that we can get offshore wind power in place. It is regrettable that the Sweden Democrats had a position that prevented us from reaching an agreement. It meant that we did not move forward at a sufficiently fast pace regarding either nuclear power or the expansion of wind power. In that regard, Tobias Andersson and the Sweden Democrats are to blame for the fact that we are not getting closer to a solution.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mattias Jonsson, for the answer!

Mattias Jonsson pointed out that I did not mention the three existing sites where nuclear power currently delivers electricity and power. That is true. I also did not mention that it is the opening of the football World Cup tonight or that I had a Thai buffet for lunch. That has to do with the fact that it does not belong to the report we are now debating. Therefore, it was also not reasonable to bring it up.

It is clear that I see good prospects, not least at Ringhals, where work is ongoing, but also in Oskarshamn, where talks are now taking place regarding a new owner for Uniper's share. It is very interesting to follow this and see if one can catch up with the Ringhals project at existing sites or, for that matter, at other locations.

I believe the difference here is about how one views the market in this area. We remember that during the last election campaign there was a major debate between the blocs regarding the fact that nuclear power was decommissioned and that investments were missing, and whether this was the fault of politics or the market. I represented the side that said it was the fault of politics, while Mattias Jonsson and his party represented the side that said it was the market that did not want to invest in nuclear power.

Since we came to power, we have had to clear away the political decisions that lay like a wet blanket over nuclear power in Sweden. We can mention the electricity tax. We can mention the fact that there could not be nuclear power in more than three locations and that there could not be more than ten reactors in operation. We can also mention the fact that we are dealing with here today, namely that it was limited by law where nuclear power could be established and thereby not allowed on certain stretches of coastline in Sweden.

Then it becomes a somewhat rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker, whether it was the market or politics that stipulated all these legal restrictions for new nuclear power plants in Sweden that we have now cleared away. I want to assert that it is I, Mattias Jonsson, and our colleagues in this chamber who make these decisions. Now we have had to overturn political decisions in order to create the conditions for new nuclear power.

Why does Mattias Jonsson, who wants nuclear power, still want political restrictions for the same?

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats have also concluded that we must raise the ceiling and the limitation to ten reactors. We see the potential that exists in Oskarshamn, Ringhals, and Forsmark. That is where the focus needs to be.

I became concerned when I heard Tobias Andersson in his speech speak so much about the companies, that is, the market, which are to point out and make applications.

I think it is perfectly reasonable that it is the state's responsibility to take a collective grip on both offshore wind power and nuclear power and to designate the areas. We have landed on the position that at the existing sites, there is potential, infrastructure, acceptance, and competence. That is where the investment needs to be made.

To make it completely free to submit applications for large parts of our coastal areas in this way is, I believe, not to take responsibility. It creates greater concern and greater uncertainty.

We need to be clear from the political side. Had one wanted to make progress, one would also have ensured that a long-term agreement was reached with these initial values, instead of coming with one proposal after another. It becomes a patchwork where it is very difficult to see the total consequences. We have conveyed that criticism previously, and we convey it here in the chamber today as well.

(Applause)

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In order to enable continued electrification of society and achieve an effective climate transition, the power system must be strengthened and the production of fossil-free electricity must increase. Nuclear power can deliver large amounts of fossil-free electricity and contribute with support services that make the entire electricity system more robust and secure in its delivery. Therefore, it is reasonable that the government has put some effort into removing the obstacles that have successively been built up to hinder new nuclear power in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! In 2023, the government presented a roadmap for new nuclear power in Sweden. It contained a complete analysis and a clear holistic view. It included, among other things, a national nuclear power coordinator, initiatives for a risk-sharing model, and targets set for 2035 and 2045.

In 2024, the Riksdag decided that new nuclear power can be built in more locations and that more than ten reactors can be in operation at the same time. This is reasonable, given that new reactors, called small modular, have a lower output individually and that more may therefore be needed. Undoubtedly, a large conventional reactor can deliver more, and that is what we need, but there are also advantages to smaller reactors, as a smaller proportion of the nuclear power is offline when periodic maintenance is performed on a reactor.

In 2024, the Riksdag also decided on the long-term direction of energy policy and set the goal of new nuclear power equivalent to 2,500 megawatts by 2035. This corresponds to approximately two large conventional reactors and contributes with the planned electricity production that can help stabilize the electricity system, which in turn facilitates the connection of more volatile producers and ensures the allocation of power needed by industries that want to reduce their carbon emissions.

In 2025, the Riksdag decided on the financing model that has been investigated by the country's leading experts and which enables state risk-sharing, which is a prerequisite for the construction of new nuclear power in Sweden. Nuclear power has very high initial investment costs, long lead times, and regulatory risks. Therefore, it is reasonable that the state is an actor and provides the conditions for the investments to be completed.

In April this year, the next step was also presented, where the state is to purchase 60 percent of Videberg Kraft AB, the project company that Vattenfall has started together with nine large industrial companies and which is to build new nuclear power at Ringhals. There are good reasons for that.

The state shall bear the part of the risk that only the state can reasonably bear. The state's majority ownership makes the project financeable. And we naturally want the state to have control when the taxpayers take a risk. It is not about the state replacing the business sector in any way, but rather about the state stepping in where political risk, systemic utility, and the size of the investment would otherwise make the market hesitate.

Mr. Speaker! With this report, we also take the next step by removing further geographical obstacles at the coast. Nuclear power plants are often built at the coast for both practical and technical reasons. A nuclear power plant produces large amounts of electricity but also needs to be able to be cooled in a safe and efficient way. Proximity to the sea provides access to large amounts of cooling water, and coastal locations are suitable because they provide better accessibility to robust infrastructure in the form of ports.

That nuclear power plants need coastal locations is not automatically equal to that every coastal location is suitable. But our line is that it is unreasonable to exclude large parts of Sweden's coast from consideration in advance, especially when Sweden needs more fossil-free and predictable electricity.

The proposal we are dealing with today is not about nuclear power being allowed to be built anywhere, but about removing prohibitions that have aimed to pile up layer upon layer of obstacles that make new nuclear power impossible.

Mr. Speaker! It is important to be clear about what this legislative change entails. That an area is no longer covered by an explicit ban on nuclear facilities does not mean that anyone can build a nuclear power plant there without further [steps]. On the contrary, extensive examination is still required according to several regulatory frameworks. Nuclear activities require permits according to the Act on Nuclear Activities. It begins with an analysis by the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, and after that, an approval from the government is needed. In addition, an environmental assessment according to the Environmental Code, the government's permissibility assessment, and, not least, the approval of the municipal council are required.

Mr. Speaker! Recently, we have seen applications for new nuclear power in Valdemarsvik Municipality, in Norrsundet in Gävle Municipality, and at Studsvik in Nyköping Municipality. That is good. New nuclear power strengthens the stability of the electricity system, drives electrification, and keeps prices stable throughout the country.

It is not the case, however, that everyone who applies for the establishment of new nuclear power will automatically receive a yes. But it is encouraging that there are several actors outside of Vattenfall who want to be involved and contribute to solving Sweden's electricity challenge. That large Swedish industrial companies are also putting in their own money into projects is a strength for Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! It is demanding and a major commitment to build new nuclear power, but this government will ensure that it gets done. The layers upon layers of obstacles that have been built in to make new nuclear power impossible are being removed step by step. And an effective financing model is now in place. In addition to that, there are reasons to look at how other parts, such as skills supply and supply chains, can be secured. Therefore, the government has also commissioned a new inquiry that shall submit proposals on how the state can contribute to an efficient expansion of new nuclear power.

The investigation, which was commissioned on March 11 this year, shall review how the state can support the construction of supply chains, competence and experience exchange, and propose how it can be organized. It also includes investigating whether state ownership in nuclear power companies should be organized in a state-owned holding company – it is a question that has been raised previously.

This is, in short, about how the structures that are to be put in place in connection with the first project can contribute to making other projects successful as well. One could call it a program organization for the expansion of nuclear power.

Mr. Speaker! Nuclear power has characteristics that Sweden needs. It can deliver large amounts of fossil-free electricity. It can contribute to a robust and secure electricity system. It produces independently of weather and season and can thus complement other fossil-free power sources. This does not mean that all other electricity production is unimportant. Sweden needs more fossil-free electricity production, more power grids, more flexibility and more efficient use of energy. But an electricity system for a modern industrial country cannot only be built on hopes that new technical solutions will solve today's problems. Therefore, nuclear power is needed.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! These proposals and this bill are fundamentally about the government opening up for nuclear power in more locations. They are simply removing the protection in important environments, for example on Gotland and on Fårö.

I want to ask Jesper Skalberg Karlsson if he thinks Fårö is a suitable location for new nuclear power. Why else should the protection there be abolished?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Gotland is not a suitable location for nuclear power. The reasons are: We do not have that electricity demand. We are not connected to the main grid; we only have direct current cables. Furthermore, there is a security policy dimension to take into account. There is also no company that has indicated that they have an interest in building new nuclear power on Gotland.

Mr. Speaker! With that said, this question is not about wanting to build nuclear power in all the places where it has previously been forbidden. This is about wanting to remove the explicit prohibition, which applies to many geographical locations, because there are layers upon layers of obstacles for new nuclear power.

I believe that the opposition, which is now upset that we are removing these obstacles, would have been equally upset if a company had submitted an application concerning a specific location and if we had subsequently removed the geographical restrictions that exist in this legislative text.

Mr. Speaker! The starting point must be that we shall build electricity production where it is, firstly, needed and where it is, secondly, accepted. With that said, it is as follows: When we remove the explicit prohibition that applies to these locations, the municipal council must still approve this. There must be a local acceptance. I think that is a good arrangement.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the member says that Gotland is not a suitable location for new nuclear power. Why then abolish the protection? It sends double signals to the people of Gotland. The member says: This is a bad location. At the same time, the government says: Here, one should be able to build nuclear power. It is very contradictory.

If one thinks that it is a bad location for nuclear power, one could have exempted Gotland and Fårö regarding this legislation. Then one could have ensured that those protections remain. It is entirely possible to legislate in that way. But the government has not done so.

Gotland is not a suitable place, according to Jesper Skalberg Karlsson. Firstly: Is it something that the Moderaterna think, or is it just Jesper Skalberg Karlsson's private opinion? Secondly: Why then has the protection not been maintained? It would have been fully possible.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Rickard Nordin for the question!

Everything that is inappropriate does not need to have its own expressed legal text, which is geographically limited. When it concerns offshore wind power, for example, I think: Build it where actors are interested in investing, where the power grid is ready to receive it, and where there is also a local acceptance! But that does not mean that I want to write a specific legal text stating that it should be forbidden to build offshore wind power at the entrance to Musköbasen. That must be taken into account in the assessment that takes place according to other legal text.

Mr. Speaker! It is worth mentioning that what we are doing is removing layer upon layer of obstacles for new nuclear power. But there will still be several pieces of legislation that one needs to navigate through. It is the Nuclear Energy Act. It is the application to the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. It is the permit review by the government. It is the construction of the power grid so that it can receive this – and so on. That we remove the explicit prohibition does not mean that we are going to build reactors on every beach along the coast towards the Baltic Sea. It is precisely about removing layer upon layer of obstacles that stand in the way of new nuclear power.

(Applause)

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! The name of this committee report is New nuclear power in Sweden – more possible sites at the coast. It is, once again, about nuclear power and about using all available means to get investors to see nuclear power as a good and favorable investment. This has become even clearer in light of what has been said in the previous statements.

This time it is about making changes to the Environmental Code. The legislative proposals aim to enable the expansion of nuclear power in more locations along the coast while maintaining protection for natural and cultural values. The legislative changes are proposed to enter into force on July 15 this year. You heard correctly – already in a month. Now there is panic.

So now the government wants more places inland to be given the fantastic opportunity to have a nuclear power plant as a neighbor. I really hope that someone applies to have one slammed up in Danderyd; it would be cool to see. I find it hard to believe that the interest in the coastal towns to have a nuclear power plant right on their doorstep is particularly great. I doubt it. You understand: It is a panic to show that new nuclear power provides all possible reliefs.

Are the investors then queuing up with their billions to build new nuclear power, as it has been suggested? Despite the government having stacked up reliefs and spiced it with guarantees for both investment costs and production prices – this also applies to the Social Democrats – it is going rather poorly.

When I look at what has happened regarding the construction of new nuclear power over the last 30 years, I see SMR as the biggest change. The thing is, however, that such ones are not available to buy. China and Russia have some in operation; it seems that is what is coming out. I believe it is written that the Western world is in the development phase when it comes to SMR reactors. That is how it looks.

I understand the shareholders who hesitate. The only thing that perhaps makes it possible to find investors is that the state, that is, we taxpayers, guarantee that they have both reins and lifebelts when they put in the money.

Mr. Speaker! I have said this before here in the chamber, but I cannot help but say it again: I do not believe that any country in the entire world will build new nuclear power in 30 years. Why do I not believe that? Yes, because the technology for renewables and for storage is advancing at a frantic pace. Prices are also going down.

I repeat my own story again, Mr. Speaker – perhaps there is someone out there who has not heard it. What would I have said if someone had called me 20 years ago and told me how technology is advancing, with solar energy and batteries, and told me that I will have solar panels on the roof, drive an electric car that I can charge at home and drive for free half the year? Then I would have told the person to call back when they had sobered up and asked if they were thirsty when they woke up.

The truth is this: Five years ago we invested in solar panels on the barn roof, and in April last year my wife bought a used electric car. Half the year she commutes to work – it is four kilometers one way – and I don't see a single penny on the electricity bill for her driving the car. Then we have all the other trips. We have six kilometers to the store, and I don't see a single penny on the electricity bill. Remember that I live 15 kilometers north of the Arctic Circle!

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I stand out and ask – with confidence, even – why anyone would want to invest in new nuclear power if it becomes three times as expensive and requires storage of waste that is dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. Tell me that!

I naturally understand the advantages of nuclear power, but why on earth should we rush this through now? I have always thought that we should have a broad energy agreement, and I still think so. If in six years we see that the development regarding energy storage and prices for electricity production is not progressing at the pace we thought, we can start brainstorming what the Swedish electricity system needs to handle electrification and the climate goals, but I do not understand why we should rush it today. To push on the nuclear power line with the stubbornness of a donkey becomes, for me, completely incomprehensible.

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that the opposition has a joint reservation to reject the bill. The Left Party, however, also has its own reservation, number 3, which I wish to move for approval of.

I think everyone out there should ask themselves this question: Why rush this? I am not against nuclear power in any religious way, but why rush it at this speed? That is something I find difficult to understand. I hope that the Swedish people also realize that.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a transformative time that repeatedly tests us as a nation. This time evokes higher expectations of Sweden as a nation and on which challenges Sweden shall have the capacity to meet.

We are in the midst of one of the greatest societal transitions in modern times. We are going to electrify industry and the transport sector to reduce our emissions. At the same time, we are building a robust electricity system to strengthen our preparedness and our total defense. Last but not least, we ensure that we achieve a stable self-sufficiency in electricity that ensures that households and companies have access to electricity at reasonable prices.

One should be able to live and reside in all of Sweden at a reasonable cost. One should feel secure that the politicians can lead the country through crisis and war. Our government does that.

There must be a robust electricity system that delivers electricity when it is needed and where it is needed. This is the very backbone of a functioning society, both in peacetime and in wartime. That was why we Christian Democrats, together with the other Tidö parties, overhauled the entire energy policy in 2022.

For many years, Swedish energy policy was characterized by short-sightedness. Plannable production was phased out while one leaned increasingly more towards weather-dependent power sources. We saw the consequences clearly in southern Sweden: increasing power shortages, large price differences between different parts of the country, and a growing uncertainty for households and companies.

We chose a different path and opened the doors that the Social Democrats and the Green Party had closed. Today, the goal is an electricity system that is both secure in supply and one hundred percent fossil-free. We have set a planning goal of 300 terawatt-hours by 2045 to meet a future where electricity consumption can double. To get there, we need new nuclear power.

Before we move on to nuclear power specifically, I want to mention something else. It is sometimes said that the government is just waiting for new nuclear power and is sitting still in the meantime. That is not quite true. During this parliamentary term, around 7,000 megawatts of new electricity production has been added. The power balance has been strengthened by approximately 2,000 megawatts. Lead times for grid expansion have been shortened. More industries can gain access to power. We have restarted Öresundsverket and taken a large number of measures to strengthen the energy system. We have also lowered the electricity tax by just over 20 percent.

These are concrete reforms that make a difference here and now, but we also know that Sweden cannot build the future's electricity system without new nuclear power. Nuclear power is what the climate goals, the industry, and the defense require of us. It is also what the Swedish people voted for.

That is why we have carried out the most extensive reorganization of nuclear power policy in several decades. We have removed the limitation of at most ten reactors at at most three sites. We have introduced a new financing system that makes investments possible. We have created faster and more predictable processes and appointed a national coordinator. We have built up the economic and legal conditions so that new reactors can actually become a reality.

The conditions for new nuclear power are today essentially in place. New nuclear power will be built. The renaissance of nuclear power is undeniably here.

Mr. Speaker! The bill we are discussing today is an important part of this entire work. The bill concerns the removal of old prohibitions in the Environmental Code that limit the possibilities to build nuclear power facilities along large parts of Sweden's coast. These are prohibitions that were introduced in a completely different era, based on different conditions and before today's needs for electrification and climate transition were clear.

The Government therefore proposes that the general prohibitions be removed, so that more sites can be examined for future nuclear power. This does not mean that nuclear power is automatically allowed to be built everywhere. It does not mean that natural and cultural values are set aside. And it does not mean that the municipalities' influence disappears. On the contrary, every establishment will continue to undergo extensive permit examinations. Natural values, cultural values, security issues, and municipal approval will continue to be a decisive part of the process. What the bill does is open the door so that suitable sites can actually be examined.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats are not pushing for new nuclear power for ideological reasons. We are simply listening to reality. We welcome all fossil-free types of power, but when different types of power are to work together, the system's needs must be at the center. A robust electricity system requires balance. When the weather governs the production of certain types of power, there must be a stable base power that can always deliver.

Sweden has a predictable nuclear power program in place that creates security in the system, and the Riksdag will soon make another important decision in a long series of measures to build the future's energy system.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs more electricity. There is no doubt about that. Industry is transitioning, the transport sector is being electrified, and new companies want to establish themselves in our country. To manage the climate transition and strengthen our competitiveness, we need to expand fossil-free electricity production at a rapid pace. For that very reason, energy policy must be wise, long-term, and technology-neutral.

What concerns me and the Center Party is that the government time and again chooses a different path. Instead of creating good conditions for all fossil-free power production, they are pursuing an increasingly one-sided policy where almost all focus is directed towards nuclear power. Furthermore, we have received examples of this from the podium from the Sweden Democrats.

The Tidö parties' policy puts all eggs in one basket. But on the other hand, it is not so difficult to understand why they are enticed by the vision of new nuclear power. It is a simple way to kick the can down the road, and it gives the appearance of decisiveness. But policy must be built on realism, not on wishful thinking.

We need to expand electricity production quickly, efficiently, and cheaply if fossil fuels are to be phased out and Swedish competitiveness is to be protected. Just as the Moderaterna said, we need to use the technology that exists and not just hope for something that is coming, such as cheap, mass-produced, modular reactors. Such things do not exist.

Historically, both recently and in the past, nuclear power projects across Europe and the Western world have been characterized by extensive delays and skyrocketing costs. Research shows that only the Olympic Games can compete when it comes to delays and cost overruns of megaprojects. At the other end of the scale, which shows things that go faster than planned and become cheaper than budgeted, are things that can be scaled up quickly and to many units, such as solar and wind.

The final note for the nuclear power project has time and again become more expensive than what was first promised. There is nothing – absolutely nothing – that says it would be different here, especially not since the technologies that have been chosen have never been tested before. It is rather the basic recipe for cost increases and delays. Reality – if that is what one should listen to, as the Kristdemokraterna say – should be guiding, unless it is ideology that is at stake.

The Sweden Democrats claim that it was political obstacles that stopped new nuclear power. That is not true. We already abolished the power tax with the 2016 agreement. If it had only been about political decisions and political obstacles, and not market-economic ones, hundreds of billions in subsidies would not have been needed.

Over 80 percent of this chamber agree that if someone wants to build new nuclear power at existing sites, they can do so, provided they do it on a market basis. That is exactly what Vattenfall wants to do at Ringhals. They want to build new nuclear power at an existing site – but they still need hundreds of billions in subsidies. How is that a political and not a market-economic obstacle?

We know that the nuclear power projects being discussed in Sweden are simply not commercially viable. That is why the government is progressively building up an extensive system of state guarantees, subsidies, and risk transfers from investors to taxpayers. It is the households that will have to pay for the party and the grandiose promises with higher taxes or higher electricity bills.

This is a development that should worry more people, because when the state steps in and takes on large parts of the economic risk, the rules of the game on the energy market change. This does not only apply to nuclear power. Investments are no longer directed towards the solutions that are most efficient or most competitive, but towards the projects that have the most political support at the moment. That, if anything, is ideology – and that is what this government has in mind. This risks pushing out investments in other fossil-free power sources, in the flexibility and storage that the energy system needs, and actually also in life extensions of existing reactors. It is stated in black and white in the referral responses that have been received.

The Tidö parties usually say: "You have shut down fully functioning reactors." That is factually incorrect because it was done on market grounds. But this time, it is correct. It is stated in black and white in the referral responses that some life-long decommissioning will not happen if you subsidize the new one.

We in the Center Party believe in the forces of the market. We know that politics should set clear goals for the climate and energy supply, not micro-manage which technologies should win.

When the government locks itself into a single power source, uncertainty is created for other investors. The signal becomes that political goodwill is more important than business assessments. It is not a sound basis for an energy system to function for generations.

At the same time as the government is pushing this one-sided nuclear power line, they now also want to open up more of Sweden's most valuable coastal and archipelago areas for nuclear facilities, that is to say, nuclear power plants. We are talking about the Bohus coast, Öland, Gotland, Fårö, the east coast. These areas are protected for a reason. High natural values, important habitats, and great values for outdoor life, tourism, and local businesses are found here.

I urge the government representatives to go to Valdemarsvik, where nuclear power is now planned. Explain to them how one is even supposed to be able to enter the bay with the protected areas that will be established! Explain to the residents why it is important to place the nuclear power plant just here, when there are other locations! There are other locations where power lines are already laid, areas already claimed, and the local population would also think it would be good, such as in Oskarshamn or Varberg.

We believe that these places should be protected: the Bohus coast with its granite, Öland, Gotland, Fårö and all other places that the government now wants to open for new nuclear power. If one thinks that they are not suitable places, as the Moderaterna said, why should one then remove the protection? This is a signal that one disregards the environment for the sake of nuclear power. These places should be preserved, and that is why I move for approval of reservation 1 in the report. If new nuclear power is to be tested, there are existing, established sites where both infrastructure and competence are already in place.

I also wonder – when we have removed the local influence over uranium mining, which we do on Monday when we vote on that report – will the Tidö parties continue to let the local population decide on nuclear power, or will you override them in the same way as when it comes to uranium mining?

Yes, Sweden needs more fossil-free electricity. But Sweden also needs an energy policy that holds together economically, environmentally, market-wise, and socially. We need a policy that welcomes investments in wind power, nuclear power, bioenergy, hydropower, solar power, storage, and efficiencies. We do not need a political will that chooses winners and lets the taxpayers pay the bill when the calculations do not hold.

Centerpartiet wants to see more energy, faster expansion and better conditions for both companies and households. But we say no to dismantling the protection for valuable coastal environments and no to an energy policy that becomes increasingly one-sided, increasingly expensive and increasingly dependent on state subsidies.

I did not think that bourgeois parties would engage in that type of planned economy. That type of politics belongs in the scrapheap of history. I thought that bourgeois parties knew better than that, but apparently there is no price that is not worth paying to fulfill election promises – no matter how crazy they are.

We in the Center Party are not prepared to pay that price, whether environmentally, economically, or in terms of lost local influence. We stand for a policy that holds together and that shows that Sweden can do more.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is difficult to know whether the Tidö Government loves the coast or hates the coast. But it is beginning to become clear that the government's direction is that someone should own the coast and build on the coast. One week the shore protection is scrapped; the next week the protection for our remaining unbroken stretches of coastline is scrapped.

It is exactly that we are debating today, moreover during one of the last weeks before many of us have intended to go out and enjoy the summer and perhaps spend some summer days at just that coast which we today so lightly shall decide to abolish the protection for. And it is done only to create space for new nuclear power plants. Miljöpartiet thinks that is completely insane.

Let me begin by saying that this debate is not primarily about the existence or non-existence of nuclear power, even though it sounds that way in this debate. It is about the government's plan for where they are prepared to place these large-scale industrial activities, namely the nuclear power plants, and what it will cost for our most valuable natural environments – or geographical obstacles, as the Moderaterna call them today.

Mr. Speaker! The bill that forms the basis for the report is, in several parts, extremely far-reaching. This means in practice that one is tearing up one of the most important protections that exist in Swedish environmental legislation: the protection for the so-called unbroken coast.

The proposed amendments mean that the ban on nuclear facilities is removed within the coastal areas and archipelagos in Bohuslän from the border with Norway to Brofjorden, in Småland and Östergötland from Simpevarp to Arkösund, as well as in Ångermanland from Storfjärden at the mouth of the Ångermanälven to Skagsudde, and on Öland. It also applies to many more places than where there already exist industries and similar facilities.

So, it is about the unbroken coast and our most pristine coastal stretches, about the areas that for decades have been protected precisely because we once learned from history. The massive expansion of industries, refineries, and power plants along the coasts in the 40s and 50s led to extensive damage. In the 70s and 80s, the realization grew that certain environments are so valuable that they simply must be exempted from large-scale exploitation. We know today that without strong protection, the exploitation will continue. Precisely for that reason, the protection for the unbroken coast was introduced. And the need for protection for the coast is no less today than it was then.

The logic is the same as when it comes to the protection of our national rivers. If Sweden is to retain its uniqueness, its natural values – the most valuable things we have – there needs to be a protection. Otherwise, all our great natural values will sooner or later be exploited.

Now the government thinks it is time to exploit our remaining untouched coastal stretches. The government proposes that this protection should be removed, solely for nuclear power. The government's nuclear power enthusiasm apparently trumps everything. This is also heard in Tidö's debate contribution. Nothing is said about the coast, it is only about nuclear power.

Mr. Speaker! It is important to understand the scale. The bill covers over 35,000 square kilometers. Of those square kilometers, the unbroken coastline constitutes approximately one quarter. The environments are unique, nationally and internationally. And it is precisely in these that the government now wants to open up for large-scale nuclear power exploitation.

It obviously raises a very great concern, not only politically but also among authorities, municipalities, and people who live and work in these areas. It is a concern that is clearly confirmed in the referral responses. We see that land and environmental courts reject the proposal. And central authorities such as Naturvårdsverket, Riksantikvarieämbetet, Boverket, and Havs- och vattenmyndigheten reject all the proposals. I think it should be seen as a clear warning signal.

The government simultaneously claims that the legislative change itself has no direct impact on the environment and health, because every project is still to be examined. But that reasoning, of course, does not hold. The very purpose of the bill is to remove a protection. If the protection played no role, it would not need to be removed.

In practice, the legislative change entails a significant weakening of the protection for nature, cultural environment, and outdoor life in our most sensitive coastal areas.

We are talking about a major change in the Environmental Code. At the same time, the consequences for the environment, health, and the national interest system are poorly illuminated in the government's bill, despite other government inquiries having pointed out that precisely these issues require significantly deeper analysis if the protection is to be touched. This is not a serious way to conduct legislation.

Mr. Speaker! The government representatives say today that it is an important decision. But this legislative change is not even necessary. If one, as the government, is eager to plow in billions of kronor into new nuclear power, it can be built in already exploited areas, which we have heard earlier today here. Even the power companies point primarily to existing nuclear power sites, because it is cheaper and simpler to build there.

Miljöpartiet naturally wants to see completely different alternatives to new nuclear power, because renewables will provide us with energy both faster and cheaper. But the government is as if blinded.

Mr. Speaker! The consequences of the proposal are clear. The proposal risks having irreversible effects on unique natural environments and shorelines, negative consequences for tourism and local businesses, worsened conditions for outdoor life, and worsened living environments for the people who live there. It is not just about natural values but also about living rural areas and archipelago communities.

When we discuss this, we must also look up. We stand in the middle of a climate crisis where rapid solutions are needed, while the nature crisis is also beginning to become apparent to more people. Nuclear power does not solve our emissions here and now. And decisions like this risk creating long-term conflicts and permanent damage to our natural environments.

Yes, we need more energy. At the same time, we need to have great respect for nature's limits and a careful management of our land and water resources. Then we need a policy based on knowledge and caution – the opposite of what we see with the government today.

The Green Party's position is clear: The protection of the unbroken coast shall remain in place. It is a position that is as reasonable as it is responsible and future-oriented.

Mr. Speaker! The government is choosing its path right now. It is tearing down protections that have been built up over decades. The Green Party, instead, stands firm on the principle that certain environments are so valuable that they should never be exploited. Therefore, I move for the rejection of the government's proposal and for the approval of reservation 1.

Emma Berginger agreed with this speech.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! From the Bohuslän archipelago in the west to the coasts of Småland and Östergötland, to Ångermanland and further around Öland and Gotland in areas that today are protected for their unique nature, unique culture and high outdoor values, the government now wants to remove the important protection and enable large-scale industrial establishment of new nuclear power. It is about Sweden's coastal landscapes, some of our most valuable and sensitive environments.

The purpose of the protection has been clear: to preserve unbroken landscapes, protect biodiversity and safeguard the immediate environment, the opportunities for outdoor life and the environment for nearby residents. Now the government wants to tear up this protection.

In Sörmland, we have a fantastic archipelago, but now the coast between Trosa and Nyköping is being threatened. Right next to Stendörren's beautiful nature reserve, the government wants to put up a nuclear power plant.

Nuclear power establishments have major local consequences. The heated cooling water affects the marine environment and the ecosystems. The infrastructure that is required – cooling water channels, tunnels, larger ports, more roads – involves extensive interventions in the landscape.

Then we have the risk of an accident. As appears from the application, all of the urban areas Nyköping, Oxelösund and Trosa are located within the outer preparedness zone of 25 kilometers from Studsvik. There, plans must exist for evacuation of areas with elevated radiation. Residents near the nuclear power plant are recommended to have a crisis kit for home preparedness, iodine tablets and a special warning receiver. That is what awaits the people who risk having a nuclear power plant in their backyard.

There is still no safe way to handle the waste from nuclear power. Radioactive waste would need to be stored for a long period, not least between Trosa and Nyköping.

The only positive thing about these projects is that they are completely unrealistic. New nuclear power is too expensive and takes far too long to build to be relevant for the challenges that Sweden faces, especially where the infrastructure is completely lacking.

It is worth noting that the government is simultaneously saying no to offshore wind power far out at sea off Oxelösund and Nyköping. It could hardly be seen, and it would deliver a larger amount of electricity at a fraction of the price within a couple of years – not in 20 years or perhaps never, which is the case regarding potential nuclear power.

We have the same situation in Gävle, to take another example. Blykalla has submitted an application regarding six reactors of 70 megawatts that will produce approximately 3.3 terawatt-hours. But there is not a single reactor of that type that the application concerns. This could be completed 20–30 years into the future, but it will likely never become a reality.

On the government's table lie applications for large offshore wind farms even in this area, but they refuse to make decisions on them. They could deliver an amount of energy approximately 20 times as large as the nuclear reactors the applications concern – at a fraction of the price and within a couple of years.

The government's energy policy is a true failure.

Mr. Speaker! The only thing that has been delivered with the government's nuclear power policy is paper products and press conferences in quantities and column kilometers. I would like to calculate how many hours the government has had press conferences about new nuclear power in total during this parliamentary term.

Everything would be solved with new nuclear power, we were told when Ebba Busch with a bang left the energy agreement that was to give Sweden long-term rules of the game in energy policy. The promises were thick during the election campaign. We will begin the construction of new nuclear power within 100 days, said Elisabeth Svantesson. It shall be built without state support, said Ulf Kristersson. Ten new reactors we shall have, said Romina Pourmokhtari. A first spade in the ground before the end of the mandate period, promised Ebba Busch.

Now the entire parliamentary term has almost passed. The timeline for new nuclear power has completely collapsed. Principally nothing has happened, other than Vattenfall having landed on a possible technology choice. A supplier has still not been chosen. A possible investment decision will be made at the earliest in 2029.

Furthermore, the government's nuclear power plans have shrunk quite significantly. First, it was, as said, ten large reactors. Then it was reduced to two reactors, and now it has shrunk to a tiny one. Vattenfall is now considering a small SMR reactor by 2035 – or earliest 2035, as they are careful to emphasize.

Add to that that current nuclear power projects in the EU have been delayed by an average of ten years. Then we shouldn't talk about how much the budgets have been over-written – three to five times, it is often. None of the suppliers that Vattenfall has a dialogue with have built a single one of the reactors we are talking about. Most things suggest that Sweden, if ever, will have any new nuclear power in place only sometime after 2045. I also doubt that.

Mr. Speaker! The truth is that the government's nuclear power plans have been completely unrealistic. They have nothing to do with the climate transition, except that they possibly hinder it.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Linus Lakso for the speech.

It sounds to the member that it only takes a few years to produce new wind power in Sweden. In that case, I can remind the member that Miljöpartiet was part of either the government or the government base between 2014 and 2022. If it only takes a few years to solve Sweden's energy challenge, why was it not done during the time they had the chance?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The simple answer is that we did it. We have never in modern times had such a high expansion rate for fossil-free energy as at the end of the previous parliamentary term, when the Green Party and the Social Democrats were in government. At that time, we had an expansion rate of 3 gigawatts, that is 3,000 megawatts, per year. That corresponds to the energy production from a large nuclear power plant.

Now the expansion rate has collapsed. It has plummeted by at least 75 percent, perhaps more. The only thing our energy minister has to boast about is 7,000 megawatts of solar and wind that was decided with Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna in government. That is the truth.

Then I would like to take the opportunity to ask a counter-question in view of the interesting exchange between Jesper Skalberg Karlsson and Rickard Nordin. I become a little curious: What happens, according to Jesper Skalberg Karlsson, if an application is submitted to build nuclear power on Gotland?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Member Lakso describes it as if we solved Sweden's energy challenge by setting records in volatile electricity prices, to such an extent that the government had to pay out electricity subsidies to pensioners who were forced to sleep with double blankets to manage the heating.

Mr. Speaker! I have a question on the theme of reality-based grounding. The fact is that what Miljöpartiet advocates for is offshore wind power. Every time a planned offshore wind farm has fallen through, Miljöpartiet has lamented it in the strongest possible terms. If Miljöpartiet is part of the next government, all this offshore wind will be in place, according to the rhetoric one has heard.

I live in a place that Miljöpartiet wants to enclose with a ring wall of new offshore wind farms. 11 offshore wind farms have been planned around Gotland. The question is whether Gotska Sandön should be included, but if it is, it is 14 offshore wind farms. Linus Lakso talks about the need to compensate different regions for different interventions. My question is: What do we get in compensation on Gotland when these 11 wind farms, the new ring wall, are to be built during the next parliamentary term?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

Miljöpartiet has pushed for over 16 years for local compensation for wind power for municipalities and neighbors. The government has taken about four years to produce a proposal. I must once again thank the government for implementing Miljöpartiet's policy, but it is, as usual, too little and too late.

I interpret the question as that the Moderaterna are against offshore wind power. That was a new and clear message ahead of the election. It is, after all, that which has the possibility to deliver a very large amount of energy in a relatively short time. It is absolutely not the only solution that we advocate for. We advocate for all renewables, including green baseload power and all dispatchable power.

I note that the government has now appointed an inquiry to develop a goal for specifically more fossil-free flexibility, or green base load, which the Green Party has requested for a long time. Point by point, the government is agreeing with the Green Party.

Mr. Speaker! Jesper Skalberg Karlsson raised the high prices. I want to remember that they were due to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the fact that Europe and even Sweden were to a large extent dependent on Russian fossil energy.

Miljöpartiet proposed that we should stop the import of Russian gas from Russia. At that point, the current Minister for Civil Defence, Carl-Oscar Bohlin, flared up and said it was the worst thing he had heard – to legitimize Miljöpartiet's policy in that way.

Russian fossil gas continued to be imported for two years. That is the result of the Moderates' energy policy.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There are many reasons to be critical of new nuclear power.

There are economic arguments. It becomes both expensive and crowds out investments in renewable electricity production. Electricity production is important to ensure the electrification of society and the transition away from fossil fuels in, for example, industry and transport.

There are environmental arguments. Uranium mining has major negative environmental consequences. We know that the waste from nuclear power is dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. That is an unimaginably long time.

There are also safety arguments. The consequences of an accident can pose a danger to people's lives and health, and it can have long-term negative consequences for nature and animals if radioactive substances are spread. Even if safety is prioritized, it is never possible to completely hedge against accidents and unexpected events.

Mr. Speaker! Something that we do, however, know for certain is that nuclear power becomes a target in war. This is shown, not least by the experiences from Ukraine. Access to air defense is limited, and the question is whether it is nuclear power plants or population centers that should be prioritized if an armed attack were to occur.

If a nuclear power plant were to be damaged in an attack, the loss of energy caused would be the least of the problems. The consequences for people and the environment risk being devastating.

In the proposal being debated here today, there is an additional reason to be critical. The government now wants to open sensitive coastal environments for the construction of nuclear power.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal means that the ban on nuclear facilities is removed within the coastal areas and the archipelagos in Bohuslän from the border with Norway to Brofjorden, in Småland and Östergötland from Simpevarp to Arkösund, which includes the Gryt and Sankt Anna archipelagos, as well as in Ångermanland from Storfjärden at the mouth of the Ångermanälven to Skagsudde and on Öland.

The proposal also means that the ban on nuclear power plants is removed within the coastal areas and archipelagos from Brofjorden to Simpevarp, from Arkösund to Forsmark, along the coast of Gotland, in Östergarn and Storsudret on Gotland, as well as on Fårö and other places where there are already certain industries and similar facilities.

Mr. Speaker! If new nuclear power plants are built in these locations, it will damage important nature, cultural environment, and outdoor recreation values. Much is said about small modular nuclear reactors. But the truth is that such small, cute facilities as people talk about do not exist.

In Östergötland, where I myself live, a company has already submitted an application to establish new nuclear power in Målma near Valdemarsvik. An establishment here would have a major impact on the unbroken coastline. The application concerns a so-called nuclear power park with four to six reactors.

It is not a green park, then. It is actually about large-scale industrial establishment. In addition to harming nature, the proposal risks having negative consequences for, among other things, local businesses, tourism, and outdoor life.

Mr. Speaker! I want to firmly advocate for reservation 1, which entails the rejection of the bill. I want to do this for the sake of Målma and Valdemarsvik as well as for other coastal stretches that are affected, for the sake of Öland and Gotland, for the unbroken coast, for nature, for the water, for the animals and for our children's opportunities to experience these unique environments.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 June.)

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