Revised budget for 2023

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposed decision.

What I and other speakers here in the chamber seem to focus on within the framework of this report is the proposal for a new energy policy goal for the composition of electricity production 2040.

Madam Speaker! In 2018, the Riksdag made a decision on a new energy policy goal. The goal was to have 100 percent renewable electricity production by 2040. The proposal and subsequently the decision stemmed from the energy agreement that all parties except the pro-Sweden Sweden Democrats entered into in 2016.

The newly established goal read in its entirety: "The goal for 2040 is 100 percent renewable electricity production. This is a goal, not a cutoff date that prohibits nuclear power and does not also mean a closure of nuclear power through political decisions."

I note, Madam Speaker, that care was taken to point out that the objective would not entail any direct ban on nuclear power, and that it was clarified that this objective would also not lead to a premature closure of nuclear power.

It is interesting with bureaucratic political formulations. One has to, so to speak, read between the lines. Yes, I usually nag about it, but as the former investment controller I still am - you have heard it before - I shall now translate the text into investor language, that is to say, plain text.

The goal written in plain text could have been formulated roughly like this: We will not forbid you – yet – from investing in predictable, fossil-free nuclear power. But remember: We will not lift a finger to facilitate your operations. On the contrary, we will favor other types of energy. And the day you have to shut down because of non-technology-neutral market conditions, it is not our fault.

Madam Speaker! In a few decades, we went from being a country with a simple standard and a relatively poor population to becoming a successful, modern export nation with a high standard of living and general welfare as a result. The small country in the north became a pioneer. The investments in planned, low-fossil, and large-scale energy have laid the foundation for competitiveness, which in turn has laid the foundation for jobs and general prosperity. Our unique energy mix, where fossil-free hydro and nuclear power have formed the base, gave us an advantage over the rest of the world for a long time.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's first major commercial reactor, Oskarshamn 1, was put into operation in 1972. In 1975, the first reactors were put into use in both Ringhals and Barsebäck, while Forsmark nuclear power plant began delivering electricity in 1980. All Swedish nuclear power plants were strategically placed at the coast to have good access to cooling water. They were also strategically placed to be close to the more populous regions in terms of transmission.

All the reactors in these four plants, except for Ringhals 2-4, are of Swedish construction, developed by Asea Atom. We take it again, because it bears repeating: All the reactors in these four plants, except for Ringhals 2-4, are of Swedish construction. In 13 years, twelve Swedish nuclear reactors were thus put into commercial operation - twelve reactors, of which nine were composed of Swedish engineering.

The Swedish nuclear power history is impressive from the beginning and almost to the end. We are talking about Swedish research, Swedish engineering and construction, Swedish jobs, Swedish competitiveness and Swedish effective political decisions - impressive!

Madam Speaker! What on earth happened? I have asked the question before in many contexts and also here in the chamber. Yes, common sense, concern for Sweden and building for the future were traded for beautiful promises, castles in the air and naivety. Power became more important than the country and the citizens. Perifera Centern and the dogmatic Miljöpartiet were left to manage the energy policy, a policy built on the delusions that it always blows just enough, that electricity production does not need to be able to be planned, that the storage possibilities and the transmission capacity are somehow enormous and that the green energy transition actually is green.

Is it really so, Madam Speaker? How green and carbon-free is the so-called green transition actually for Sweden? What do we really gain by replacing nuclear power with wind power?

It is, for example, a fact that wind power at the power plant level produces three times more emissions than nuclear power. At the system level, it is significantly more. Wind power requires ten times larger areas, disfigures natural landscapes, threatens fauna, releases dangerous microplastics, and is many times less energy-efficient. It also does not function as a base for the electricity system, as it does not always blow.

The previous government, the current opposition, speaks a lot about the major investments in the north and about massive electrification that will require an extremely extensive expansion of the country's electricity system. But at the same time as they emphasize the importance of a robust electricity system and competitive prices, they speak very quietly about how we are to manage the electricity system and the electricity demand when it is not blowing. In practice, they also show no willingness to do anything for the types of energy that benefit the electricity system as a whole: the planned energy sources, not least large-scale nuclear power.

Madam Speaker! The large-scale investments in the north, including in carbon-free steel, are estimated to require 80 terawatt-hours of fossil-free electricity. That is more than half of Sweden's current electricity consumption. The question that constantly hangs in the air and lacks an answer is: Where will the electricity come from?

Since the opposition is not fond of nuclear power, I assume that what remains is that the fossil-free electricity is produced with wind power. I also assume, for the sake of simplicity, that it is to be produced near where it is used and that offshore wind power therefore falls away, given that the Bay of Bothnia is covered in ice large parts of the year and that maintenance is complicated during the winter half-year. This also applies to the mooring of the turbines so that they can withstand the enormous forces that arise when the ice comes into motion. These issues have not yet received any solution.

Due to varying wind conditions, land-based wind turbines produce only approximately 40 percent of the installed capacity. This means in practice that the wind power must be balanced with stable base power. Hydroelectric power is, which is commonly known at this point, largely maximized.

Against this background, the vision of 100 percent renewable energy is often combined with the vision of the fossil-free hydrogen society. This means that we are to use hydrogen as balancing and regulating power and produce electricity with hydrogen when it is not blowing. What does that calculation look like then? That is the question I usually, true to my habit, ask myself.

Converting electricity into hydrogen and then back into electricity involves an energy loss of approximately two-thirds. This means that 3 kilowatts of wind power are required to produce 1 kilowatt of hydrogen electricity. For each kilowatt of hydrogen electricity, a corresponding 7 kilowatts of installed wind power with a capacity factor of 40 percent is therefore required. Even when it is blowing at full capacity, the majority of the electricity produced by the wind turbines must be diverted to produce hydrogen that can be used to produce electricity when it is not blowing. These are many figures here, Madam Speaker. But it needs to be said.

To produce 48 terawatt-hours of hydrogen for the power grid, it takes 144 terawatt-hours of wind power. Four-fifths of the wind turbines' electricity production must be used to produce hydrogen that produces electricity when it is not blowing. Since land-based wind turbines only produce the equivalent of 40 percent of installed capacity, it would require wind turbines that, if it blew optimally all the time, would produce 440 terawatt-hours. It is complicated. But it must be said.

Another important aspect, which is talked about far too little, is the extremely poor utilization of the power grid that this would lead to. It would be incredibly costly to build a power grid capable of temporarily transferring radically higher power than today, but which is to remain idle or run at far below maximum capacity for a large part of the time.

An investigation from the OECD has also shown that the costs for electricity transmission can be at least as large as for the electricity production itself when the production facilities are spread over large areas, which is often the case with wind power.

Madam Speaker! It is said that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. The vision – the dream – of a 100 percent renewable electricity system based on wind and hydrogen may be embroidered with all kinds of good intentions. But there must be an end to the dreaming, Madam Speaker. It is our responsibility as politicians, as stewards of Swedish citizens' assets and trust, to make decisions that benefit the entire electricity system and, ultimately, all citizens.

We are not alone in making poorly conceived decisions. In the newspaper Näringslivet, it was recently read: "German business leaders warn that important industries could leave the country as a consequence of the country having closed the last remaining nuclear power plants. Now Germany faces an electricity shortage."

Germany faces an electricity shortage that will force critical industries to leave the country after the government has shut down the last remaining nuclear power plants in favor of renewable energy. A number of business leaders emphasize this. The intermittent nature of these green energy sources, which makes them susceptible to sudden voltage drops during cloudy or calm periods, means that Germany's power system remains vulnerable to electricity shortages and price volatility.

Madam Speaker! I am approaching the end. Transitioning to 100 percent renewable by 2040 was a goal that was problematic to say the least. In my opinion, it was completely unrealistic, at least if one simultaneously wants to electrify, expand electricity production massively, and have a robust, affordable, and secure energy system.

I and with the Tidö Agreement, Sweden has taken a major step in the right direction, towards becoming once again a secure, well-functioning nation with an efficient and competitive energy system. With the proposed wording of the new energy policy goal, that we shall have 100 percent fossil-free electricity production by 2040, the importance of technology neutrality is clarified. This also opens up for future investments in fossil-free, predictable, and efficient nuclear power.

In this speech, Josef Fransson (SD) agreed.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! There is much I would like to say, but I intend to limit myself somewhat.

To begin with, I intend to read out what Uniper's CEO said after the energy agreement in 2016: "The energy agreement is important for Sweden because it has laid the foundation for a long-term energy policy. The agreement has given a welcome signal to the energy industry, which is capital-intensive and needs predictability to be able to calculate long-term investments."

It is not at all in line with what Jessica Stegrud tried to translate into investor-speak at the beginning of her speech. I think it is important that we stick to the truth.

We can continue to speak about the truth. There are, in fact, a couple of myths that we must kill in this chamber and stop repeating. Jessica Stegrud spoke about microplastics from wind turbines. It is true that approximately 150 grams come from each wind turbine per year, mainly from paint. If Jessica Stegrud thinks it is problematic with paint, I think she should consider how all homeowners in Sweden are to manage their houses.

If we have 150 grams of microplastics per year from the wind turbines, I can say that we also have 13,000 tons from such as tires, artificial grass pitches, washing and acetate fiber, bottom paint on boats, road traffic and other.

When it comes to bird deaths, we are talking about approximately 36,000 birds being killed by wind power every year. We also know that 13 million birds are killed by our cats. And if we talk about birds of prey, which people like to do, we know that 40-45 percent of all golden eagles are killed by trains, simply because the trains run over wildlife. Then the birds come and sit on the tracks and are run over.

My question to Jessica Stegrud is therefore: Why is SD not equally engaged when it comes to microplastics, biodiversity and bird deaths, except in the matter of wind power?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I can begin by commenting on what the member said about Uniper. When one works with investments, one wants long-term perspective. What the agreements contain is one thing, but long-term perspective is important. Therefore, it is good to have broad agreements. It is not about anything else.

One can, however, ask whether more or less nuclear power has been built since the announcement. Has it been shut down, expanded, or had its lifespan extended? I think we all know the answer to that. That is what I mean by reading between the lines. Who invests billions in something that is not allowed to exist beyond 2040? We are talking about lifespans of 60-80 years. These are large investments that are capital-intensive at the beginning, very profitable, and very good for the energy system in the long run.

When it comes to C's sudden enthusiasm for nature, the fact is that nothing is free. Everything is about priorities. If wind power had had a lot of advantages in the form of, for example, predictability, it would have put wind power in a different light, but now it is rather the case that it destroys natural values, messes up the energy system, makes prices volatile, and ruins things for both industry and households. That is the difference.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I think it is interesting that SD has now truly realized that broad agreements are good, so we look forward to being able to reach agreements together with SD and the government and that SD will push for broad agreements. That is not what one does in this chamber today, but it is interesting that one has come to that realization.

I don't really know what to say about the Center Party having a sudden craze for nature. The Center Party was the party that submitted the first environmental motion in the Swedish Riksdag - already in the 60s! I think Jessica Stegrud needs to read up on her history to have any kind of correctness in this debate at all.

I can only state that there is no kind of environmental interest within SD except when it concerns wind power. If SD now thinks that microplastics, bird deaths, and other issues—which are admittedly important—are so important, why do they not submit proposals regarding them other than when they stand in the rostrum and talk about wind power? Why repeat things about 150 grams per year compared to 13,000 tons? It is simply a matter of spreading myths and ensuring that we get a problematic situation.

If we are going to talk about profitability, we know that the entire business sector is screaming for new construction of, among other things, wind power. Why does SD make a completely different calculation than all the investors in that market? There is something about SD's policy that does not add up. Obviously, it is primarily about the fact that they do not want any wind power. They even say that existing plants should be dismantled.

My question is once again why one becomes so engaged regarding microplastics and bird deaths when it comes to wind power and at no other time. Why are these questions never raised in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, for example?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! There was a lot here. That part about us wanting to dismantle wind turbines, the members also know that is not true. That part about reading up might be something for the members themselves. It is simply not Sweden Democrat policy.

I believe that the big difference is that I, as a Sweden Democrat, look at the entire electricity system. The Sweden Democrats have no vested interest in serving large international wind power companies that receive enormous credit guarantees from, among others, the EU with the help of tax revenue. My task as a politician is to ensure the entire system. The entire system must function.

In southern Sweden, there are already problems because the planned nuclear power has been shut down. You shut it down – not us. The situation involves volatile prices, overproduction when it is windy, and shortages and power deficits when it is not windy. It is not about taking responsibility for the entire system, and it is my task as a politician to do that – not to favor a certain type of large corporation, which today also often has Chinese ownership. I believe that is the big difference between us.

What I mean by "a sudden craze for nature" is that there is an enormous difference. The member can look around – what does it look like in the large wind farms? Well, people have their property values ruined, and animals and nature are harmed. That must also be taken into account.

It is fascinating that you are focusing on precisely the microplastics. I am trying to highlight a broader view of wind power, but the most important thing is that it does not help the electricity system because it is non-dispatchable. That is the big sticking point here, and I wish that the Center Party took a little more account of that.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to continue on the same track. Nature values are an interesting opening.

The member and the Sweden Democrats are talking themselves into a frenzy about nuclear power, and I wonder how the member views the raw material for nuclear power: uranium. It is imported from rogue states and dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, which is one of the world's largest producers of uranium. Are we going to continue with that? If not, I wonder where in Sweden the member intends to mine uranium.

The Minister for Climate welcomed uranium mines in Sweden the other day, and I wonder if the member also welcomes uranium mining, for example, in Östergötland, on Öland, in Skåne, in western Götaland, and so on.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Uranium can be procured on an international market, and naturally, we shall have trade relations with countries we can trust – primarily democratic countries that are Western-oriented. That is also what is constantly being steered towards. I agree with the issues, but they can simply be addressed. Work is being done continuously on that.

Regarding uranium mining in Sweden, I think that if one is to allow and is in favor of nuclear power and the entire green transition, one must also be willing to contribute the metals - rare earth metals, rare earth elements - that are actually required. Here we have - not least the member's party - a dilemma with legislations that go against each other. Again: Politics is about prioritizing.

Exactly where the localization should take place, I am of course not equipped to tell about, but I think the basic attitude should be that one cannot enter into a total transition that requires completely new raw materials and metals and then assume that only someone else should be responsible for the extraction. The basic premise is that this must be reviewed, but naturally, environment, safety and so on must be taken into account. It is complex and extremely important.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! I share the view that we must contribute nationally with the materials needed to manufacture, for example, batteries, but I asked about specifically uranium because it is a very special extraction that, in that case, would be carried out in Sweden.

Uran is extracted from something called alunschist. The extraction process is quite special. There is a mine in Finland called Talvivaara. There, nickel was extracted in the same way as uranium would be extracted in Sweden. One of Europe's largest environmental disasters occurred there in 2012.

Earlier we spoke about wind turbines and how they can cause disturbances, lower property values and so on. If one were to extract uranium in Sweden in, for example, western Götaland, Närke or any of the designated areas, it involves so-called tailings ponds which can be as large as 140 hectares. These are enormous areas. In the case of Talvivaara, it was such a pond that had started to leak and created an enormous natural disaster.

I am wondering, therefore, if the member wants to see the extraction of uranium from alunschist in Sweden.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! The question is not on my desk, and I am not informed about it. I admit that immediately. The basic principle is nevertheless that the matter should be investigated, because if one is to be part of the transition, one should also be able to review the possibilities of actually contributing with the raw materials that are needed. I want to turn the question around, because without nuclear power and the planned electricity, we have no electrification to speak of and no transition ahead of us. One must therefore understand that this is about priorities.

The idea that we can have wind farms everywhere and that it would secure Sweden's electricity supply is deeply unrealistic. That was something I returned to in my somewhat long speech. It is time to stop dreaming! We have an electricity system that must function. With all the plans for increased electricity demand and electrification, we need a large, predictable power source at the core. That is where nuclear power is incredibly important, and it is often forgotten.

It is utopian to believe that one can phase out nuclear power and replace it with, for example, hydrogen and renewables. Therefore, it is a very good decision that the majority in the chamber will hopefully make, to move away from the renewable vision to the fossil-free one. It is that which affects emissions, and it is that which paves the way for competitiveness and transition for Sweden's part moving forward.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Right now, a global race is underway where countries and companies are doing everything to transition in order to manage to reduce their climate emissions in a way that can create new jobs, improve competitiveness, and increase prosperity.

In the tough competition, Sweden has moved forward into the global leading group. With political decisions and a close cooperation between politics and the business sector, we are at the very forefront in many different areas. Existing companies are not just investing to survive but to win new market shares. New companies are lining up to invest in new industries and use our country as a base for their green operations.

The reason for the positive development is that there is a strongly growing global demand for what is fossil-free and renewable. But if the Swedish potential is truly to be realized, electrification is required in a way that we have not seen in 50 years. Electricity consumption will need to increase significantly, in the long run perhaps even doubling or more. And that will require new generation from all fossil-free types of power. It is truly the case that all types of power are needed.

Swedish electricity production has for decades been almost entirely fossil-free. The expansion of hydropower, nuclear power, and wind power has made the Swedish electricity mix climate-smart. The goal that the government now wants the Riksdag to take a position on is actually that it should continue to be so in 17 years. Of course, that in itself does not have to be wrong, and it is a prerequisite that we do not change that. But one does not actually need to be so defensive. We simply need a more powerful steering direction for politics, and this is not it. Rarely has a new goal been perceived as so lackluster in an area that requires so much.

The goal of the energy policy, just as Jessica Stegrud said earlier, has its basis in the energy agreement from 2016. The Moderates and Christian Democrats voted for the proposal when it was presented in the Riksdag. The reason was what Jessica Stegrud recounted from the bill, I dare say, namely that it was not a stop date that prohibits nuclear power, nor did it involve any closure of nuclear power due to political decisions. On the contrary, it was made clear that one could invest in new reactors. Furthermore, the policy improved the competitiveness of nuclear power. This was achieved through reduced taxation and by better managing the Nuclear Waste Fund, which lowered the costs for disposal by a few cents per kilowatt-hour. This was extremely important because electricity prices were low, and were expected to remain low, while the need for investments to meet the new safety requirements was all the greater.

We Social Democrats of course believe that it is perfectly okay to discuss a new goal formulation for energy policy, not least because the electrification currently being carried out poses new major requirements. Such a discussion about the goal would probably have been an absolutely excellent first question in a broad cross-bloc round of dialogue, in any case for a government that has the ambition to create broad majorities across block boundaries and which wants to create stability and long-term perspective.

The basis for a goal for energy policy should, of course, be that it shall harmonize with the climate policy we are to pursue. By 2045, the policy in many areas shall have led to net-zero emissions in Sweden. It is, of course, important that there are long-term goals. But the risks are, of course, that one misses what needs to happen right here and now if the goals are a bit too long-term. That is where we risk ending up, and that is the problem.

In Sweden, electricity production has increased sharply in recent years. Sweden is Europe's largest exporter of electricity. After this parliamentary term, Sweden risks losing that position. On the contrary, our expert agencies point out that Sweden will become net dependent on electricity - from exporter to importer - and thus also have an increased dependence on others. That is what risks happening in the near term.

We Social Democrats raise in this issue the need to have a short-term goal to emphasize the strong will we have to get new electricity production into the system. Already by 2030, we believe that at least 60 terawatt-hours of fossil-free electricity is needed. All types of power are needed.

Madam Speaker! A new parliamentary target should also be set after a broad discussion and in common agreement that provides stability and credibility over time. It is not something that one unilaterally pieces together at the ministry and sends over to the Riksdag and hopes that everyone will vote for. A target aiming 17 years into the future is probably not just something that has already been achieved by the time it is decided. We also want to focus on getting more electricity production in place quickly. Sweden was the EU's largest electricity exporter. Already in the next parliamentary term, we risk becoming dependent on imports from other countries.

I, of course, stand behind all the reservations in the matter, but I move for the approval of reservation 2. It would, in fact, send a clear signal to all actors who want to invest in Sweden that we are the right country to invest in and the right country to grow in, if we also dare to say that more electricity production will be achieved in our country in the coming years.

Just as Sweden has an electricity surplus, I have a certain surplus of time, but it was others who needed it.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! If I have understood it all correctly, the Social Democrats today will say no to a new energy policy goal of 100 percent fossil-free and yes to a self-formulated goal that the Riksdag should adopt a goal of 60 terawatt-hours of fossil-free electricity production by 2030. It is an ambitious goal, but there is a lack of a sustainable plan to get there.

When it is wind power that accounts for the majority of the expansion, it will not result in a significant increase in power allocation to new industries. Wind power contributes energy, probably at lower prices over a year, but it does not contribute any larger amount of power, i.e., megawatts, and therefore will also not enable the transition by 2030, as the Social Democrats seem to envision.

Madam Speaker! It was also the member's party that pushed for the record-fast expansion of wind power, which has proven not to contribute to the safe and efficient operation of the electricity system. Despite the fact that we have had Europe's fastest expansion of wind power over the last five to ten years, it has not contributed to the electricity system's ability to connect industries or even to secure the electricity supply to existing customers when we need it most.

Have the Social Democrats not learned from their previous mistakes, that it is not just possible to pour arbitrary production into the electricity system without taking the laws of physics into account? Since the Social Democrats want to see a rapid expansion by 2030, I wonder how wind power will contribute to power so that new industries can connect.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The most important message in what I said today and what we write in our motion is that we want to see unity around energy policy with common goals.

We think it is fundamentally bad that the government proceeds on its own without securing a solid foundation here in the Riksdag. It would have been a much better way to handle the issues. Now, the government has not done that. But we do not want to be tedious and just say no, instead, we want to bring up what could become a discussion point in the conversations that we would like to see take place. That also concerns the shorter perspective, because we need to bring more electricity production into this system.

Since then, Camilla Brodin is completely right that we Social Democrats have pushed forward wind power, just as we pushed forward hydropower and pushed forward nuclear power once upon a time. That is what makes it so that we have an energy mix that is fossil-free, where we have a surplus that we can also export to other countries. That is why industries want to come to Sweden. It is precisely this combination, together with capable entrepreneurs and a well-educated workforce that can handle the process industry, that is why we are now receiving all these enormous investments.

But now I am no longer in the majority. It is Camilla Brodin who is, so my question to her is: If you think that the goal we have placed on the Riksdag's table is not sufficient for us to produce more electricity by 2030 and if Sweden goes from being the export king in the EU to becoming import-dependent, how will you then ensure that we do not lose the head start that we have achieved?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer, even though it was a non-answer that Member Olovsson delivered here.

I say this: Wind power has a capacity factor of 9 percent while nuclear power has nearly 100 percent. For example, 1,000 megawatts of nuclear power would enable approximately 1,000 megawatts of connection for new electricity customers, while 1,000 megawatts of wind power enables less than 100 megawatts in allocation to new industries.

Does the member truly understand the difference between energy and power and what the consequences will be if one option has a capacity factor one-tenth as large as the other option? It sounds as if the Social Democrats lack a plan based on how the electricity system works. How is 60 terawatt-hours of fossil-free electricity production by 2030, which does not include new nuclear power, supposed to work? New nuclear power must be accepted if one wants to bring in as much wind power as S seems to want and simultaneously connect more industries.

Come on now! Are the Social Democrats really not prepared to contribute in a constructive way to a sustainable development and say yes to a goal of 100 percent fossil-free where new nuclear power is included?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! What is revealing here is that the government side says that there will be no power for the industries. There will be no opportunity to invest in Sweden during the next five six seven eight nine years. That is the message being given here now. It is therefore not possible to increase electricity production in this country at all. It is not possible to get these industries established. That is the message. That is what all investment controllers will hear now. It is not possible.

I am not talking about one power source; I am talking about all power sources. We need to maximize everything we have in the coming years. This means that we are to do everything we can with hydropower and everything we can with nuclear power, which has been increased in power in recent years and where there is a little more room further ahead during the shorter period I am talking about.

But the very sad message from the government side is that there will be no major transition. It will not be what the business community wants, because it is not possible.

We actually believe it is exactly the opposite. We must do much more. We need to do everything we can. It will not always be easy, and we will need to do it in slightly different ways. We will need to help each other. We will need to share the impact in a smarter way, for example in Norrland, where some are now blocking and others are left waiting.

There are things we can do to get started. I think we should sit down and work on this together, because then Sweden has fantastic opportunities that we should not waste on energy policy bickering.

(Applause)

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! We would never have stood here to begin with if it were not the case that the Social Democrats and the Green Party have dismantled an extremely well-functioning energy system - perhaps the world's most well-functioning energy system - by shutting down nuclear power, dismantling hydropower, and taxing away district heating. We would never have needed to have this discussion if you had not spent eight years in government position dismantling the most basic parts of the Swedish power system.

I also note that this government, after eight months, has made more decisions, presented more proposals, and commissioned more inquiries than the previous government managed to do during eight years. It is a fact.

We would therefore never have had this debate if one had not made all these incorrect decisions, where one committed to the most important part of Swedish power production.

I have two questions for Fredrik Olovsson, Madam Speaker.

The first concerns the goal of 60 terawatt fossil-free, which you now say you have. This is included in the Tidö parties' goal of at least 300 terawatt by 2045. But my question is why you did not yourselves make a decision on such a goal during your entire time in government—especially during the final period, when Sweden's energy problems were just all too obvious.

The business community requested clarity this morning regarding the Social Democrats' position on the nuclear power issue. You are not clear at all, so I have a question. Will the social democratic goals of phasing out nuclear power be removed from your party guidelines for the goals you decided on at the party congress in November 2021, when we had a raging energy crisis?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Mats Green and his party were very happy when the agreement regarding this goal and the conditions given to nuclear power were decided, first in the agreement in 2016 and then also in the bill that they voted for in 2018. That was the last thing that happened that summer, before the Riksdag closed shop and went home.

This has meant that we see power increases in nuclear power. It also means that we have, in a very clear way, had a discussion about life extensions but also, now that especially electricity prices have become high, a discussion about building new nuclear power – which is fully possible within the framework of the agreement and with the goal that we have today. We have been very much in agreement on that.

Concerns were raised that the technological development in the nuclear power field had progressed so far when it came to SMRs that the regulatory framework was not updated. At that time, Magdalena Andersson's government gave the authority the assignment to produce an update. The final report will be submitted this summer. The picture that Mats Green wants to project is therefore not quite true. It is being projected for political reasons, not because one wants the best for the electricity system or for Swedish business.

We will have nuclear power in Sweden for a very long time. We Social Democrats think that it is a reasonable development in this situation. We also have the opportunity to see new nuclear power being built. We will, for example, see what the review that the state-owned company began during our time in government results in moving forward.

But we were agreed on this. You thought this was very good. And now you describe exactly that as if it were a major problem. It doesn't quite sound credible, especially not when we are, after all, the largest electricity exporter and have the lowest electricity prices - albeit too high - in the EU.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I can live with Sweden exporting slightly less electricity.

Three things. The first concerns the energy agreement. Yes, we were involved together with Kristdemokraterna to ensure that we saved what could be saved of Swedish nuclear power, because the government at the time, with Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet, did everything they could to both shut down existing reactors and partly put a stop to the two new reactors that Vattenfall had planned, as if they, had they not been stopped, could have been ready to be put into operation approximately today. We were involved to save what could be saved of the Swedish nuclear power.

We also could have saved Ringhals 1 and 2 if the Socialdemokraterna, Miljöpartiet, Centerpartiet and Vänsterpartiet had not, by a margin of one vote in the Riksdag, defeated that proposal. Then we could have had Ringhals 1 and 2 remaining in operation.

Then I actually want an answer to the question about the Social Democratic congress decision from 2021, that is, after the energy agreement had been reached, that nuclear power should be phased out – that is how the decision reads – and successively replaced with renewable energy sources. My question is again: Will you scrap that congress decision? If you are to scrap it, you need to do it in the near future, otherwise it has no credibility when you stand there and say that you want more nuclear power. Although you don't say, in fact, that you want more nuclear power, you say that you can accept that we still have nuclear power – that it is reasonable. It is not quite, in all parts and fully, an affirmative answer, Madam Speaker.

The third and final thing I still want an answer on concerns your goal of 60 terawatt-hours fossil-free. Why didn't you set that goal yourselves during the last Social Democratic government in Sweden? All the problems existed then. Why didn't you set such a goal yourselves, when everyone else saw what was about to happen?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting that Mats Green raises the question of Ringhals 1 and 2. It is somewhat of a side issue now in government circles, where you have obviously reached the same conclusion as everyone else – only the Sweden Democrats remain – namely that it cannot be saved on any reasonable terms. It is good if more people see reality as it is. Then this can be set aside.

The second question, which I did not have time to answer in my previous reply, was about whether the 60 terawatt-hours are included in the 300 that the Tidö parties want to have in place by 2040. It is completely true, and that means that one can set this type of goal, which was questioned earlier. It is of course fully possible to do so. It does not seem to be parliamentarily bound yet, but perhaps it will become so.

It is clear that they are included. But the thing is just that if we do not now get more electricity into the Swedish system and do not get all those investments that Swedish companies and new stakeholders want to establish in our country, with new jobs, new welfare and better competitiveness, perhaps these will not remain. Then we do not have the large industrial sectors that use a lot of electricity today. That is how serious this is.

That is why we want to point out the shorter perspective. And we are not alone. Even many industries and industry associations point out that this must be moved forward here and now, and then we must use all the means we can use. Do more with hydropower, and increase capacity where it is possible. Do more with nuclear power, and increase capacity where it is possible. Expand wind power, and repurpose old wind power so that it becomes even more efficient. Those are well the tools we have at our disposal.

We want to point out that it is important to do this. We are happy to do it together with others and in dialogues that can make the energy policy more long-term.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! The member of Parliament speaks of broad agreements. I wonder what it is we are supposed to talk about. Isn't it time? Isn't the coffee break over? The member's party is not so eager to invite all parties into other matters, but now they suddenly want to drag this out and talk about energy agreements.

It is time for the Social Democrats to decide on nuclear power. I hear it constantly, and I heard it in connection with the Moderates' question here earlier: There is no answer as to how this with nuclear power is going to work.

But we do this: Explain instead! We phase out nuclear power, because that is obviously what the Social Democrats want even if they pretend otherwise. What shall we have instead? That was question number one.

The specific question number two is: Should the 60 terawatt-hours that are to be built now be installed and ready in five years? Is this what the Social Democrats envision, Madam Speaker? Where is this supposed to be? And what type of power? Will balancing power be required, and if so, what kind?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I think it is very contemptuous to talk about politicians having coffee breaks. In that case, one has a poor understanding of what Swedish political tradition looks like and what our country actually is at its core.

We have for a very long time been a collaborative democracy, where we reach out to one another. It can be about everything from liberals and social democrats who organize the right to vote to unions and employers who agree on the Swedish model, or social democrats and farmers' unionists who - contemptuously, at the time - bargained out the important issues. And this is how we can continue.

It has been very important for Sweden that we stick together and do things together. It is not so strange, because we are a fairly small country - although large in many areas, and successful. So it is clear that we need to do more together.

Furthermore, it is exactly as Jessica Stegrud said in her speech and as Rickard Nordin said earlier regarding Uniper: It is important for the business community and for those who want to invest that there is long-term perspective. It is a problem for Sweden that we have so much short-sightedness now. We should all be able to see this, agree on it, and try to do something about it, even if it is sometimes very difficult.

The coffee talks that Stefan Löfven had during his years in government led from the fact that the industry in Sweden was "basically gone", as Prime Minister Reinfeldt said when he traveled to world meetings, to the fact that the industry is on track in a fantastic way. People are being hired. I was in Ludvika yesterday and saw the future faith, with all the people who are going to enter those operations - which also connect with the electrification that is now taking place.

It is fantastic opportunities. We should take them by reaching an agreement, in our case with the government. But the government can decide who they invite.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! If I were not here, I would actually have thought I was at a stand-up comedy show. It is actually outrageous, Madam Speaker, for me as a Social Democrat to stand here and claim that everyone should be invited to cross-bloc conversations and invited to participate and cooperate. There is no party that has excluded my party as much as the Social Democrats have when it comes to just broad agreements. It is actually just nonsense.

But I understand why the member spends time on this colorful description of cooperation, because the member does not want to answer concretely. Where are the 60 terawatt-hours to be built in just over five years? What type of power? What type of balance and reserve power will be required? Where in Sweden is this to take place? Is it reasonable? Will it be able to happen, simply? Now I want concrete answers.

Then I would also like to have that final answer regarding nuclear power. What do we do without nuclear power in the energy system? With Social Democratic policy, which thankfully is not prevailing right now, we actually have no nuclear power in the system in, say, 15, 20 or 30 years. What do the Social Democrats want instead?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I think it was appropriate to tell the members of the Sweden Democrats what Sweden actually is. It is not always that you know it. So it can be appropriate to give a small historical look back at what has built Sweden strong. There, we Social Democrats have always been those who stand at the forefront. It is us one can rely on when it was really needed. I also believe that this government will eventually discover that.

When it comes to nuclear power, we will have nuclear power in Sweden for the foreseeable future, probably including even the reactors that are running today because they will probably be life-extended. We think it is good that they are also uprated, especially if it can happen quickly. It is good.

The same applies to hydropower and to wind power. It is about the existing wind power which can actually deliver more if it is upgraded, which will be able to happen in the coming years, but we will also need to expand – which we are now in agreement with the government on regarding a part of offshore wind power. The question is only what Jessica Stegrud and the Sverigedemokraterna think about this, because every time such a decision is made, we hear how wrong it is, what problems it creates, and how intolerable it will become if we go that way.

It is good if the government can hold out. Perhaps that can be done for a while longer, but the risk is that one might have to pay dearly in some negotiation so that it becomes a bit worse for Sweden in another way instead.

(Applause)

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by expressing my approval of the budget and of what this debate is to address, namely the government's proposal for a new energy policy goal of 100 percent fossil-free instead of renewable, since renewable is merely a code for excluding nuclear power, and that neither Sweden nor the climate can afford. The parties in here – the Social Democrats, the Green Party, and the Left Party – who oppose this with all their might also need to reflect on what that entails.

Madam Speaker! Electricity bills for the month of May have landed in mailboxes all over Sweden. Residents in southern Central Sweden and further north may get the impression when the bill is opened that the last two years of electricity crisis have passed, as lower bills await most of them. But unfortunately, this is not the case. Southern Sweden, electricity area 4, can attest to this. There, prices have still been more than double compared to a normal year.

The situation is very serious, and the latest power balance report from Svenska kraftnät made Energisverige choke. The situation we find ourselves in is a direct consequence of the previous government's failed energy policy and lack of a long-term plan. That is actually what it is about. Therefore, I am pleased that the Moderate-led government and our colleagues in Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna, and Sverigedemokraterna are now overhauling the energy policy to rebuild a functioning, stable, and clean electricity system.

Rebuilding the energy system and then planning for it to stand strong in a long future is a comprehensive project that is not done overnight. The first clear step was taken when the Tidö agreement was formed, where all participating parties were in broad agreement on the importance of a long-term, stable, and technology- and climate-neutral energy system. To achieve this, nuclear power is of the greatest importance. In the current situation, it is the only type of power that can be placed where the electricity is needed, that can produce when the electricity is needed, and that can produce electricity with the minimum possible emissions. This is not only something that all parties in the government cooperation understand, but also a very large part of the Swedish people.

Madam Speaker! That is why we take the next step on this long road today. After this day, we put on paper that nuclear power is a welcome part of the future society, where it no longer finds itself under the constant threat of politically set deadlines.

Despite today's arduous energy situation, there are several represented parties in this assembly that have not learned anything from their previous mistakes.

Learning from one's mistakes and, in particular, passing these lessons on to future generations is of the utmost importance. Therefore, I am now forced to briefly touch upon a number of historical facts about how Sweden, where perhaps the world's best electricity system existed, ended up in this strained situation. I mention this only because it plays an enormous role for the current situation, for the future, and for the management here and now that all of this has been done.

Over a period of 20 years, the Social Democrats, with the help of the Green Party, dismantled Swedish nuclear power. Twelve nuclear reactors have become six. At the same time, the red-greens stopped Vattenfall's plans to build two new reactors at Ringhals, which otherwise would have been practically ready to be put into operation exactly now, when they were needed most.

Karlshamnsverket has not only had to burn 140,000 liters of oil per hour during harsh winters, but it has also had to do so in the month of August to supply southern Sweden with electricity. Fossil oil must therefore be used because southern Sweden does not have enough electricity production. And where was the nuclear power that the Socialdemokraterna abandoned? Well, in southern Sweden. If these reactors had remained today, Sweden would have been significantly more resilient to the crisis that all of Europe has been placed in through Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

In addition to dismantling nuclear power, with obvious consequences for both the climate and electricity prices, they hindered combined heat and power and hydropower through a number of new and increased taxes, which we abolished in the previous autumn budget. They also introduced a number of permit processes aimed at tearing out amounts of electricity-producing hydropower, again primarily in southern Sweden, where this hydropower was needed most.

Magdalena Andersson spent eight years in government, among other things dismantling the foundation for Swedish electricity production, and now wants a new government to clean up after her in eight months. That says quite a lot about what we are talking about, Madam Speaker.

I do not intend to devote any more time in this speech to describing the consequences of the previous red-green government's energy policy, because facts and reality speak for themselves. Otherwise, we would not be standing here and discussing this. Above all, I will speak about what we in the government have now kick-started in both the short and long term, but had I been a Social Democrat or an Environment Party member in this assembly, I would have been significantly more humble than what we have seen from these parties so far.

Madam Speaker! The situation Sweden finds itself in is far from sustainable for households, companies, or the climate. That electricity prices time and again hit new records and that electricity bills are unpredictable is unacceptable. That companies furthermore cannot expand their operations because there is a lack of sufficient clean electricity is deplorable. The energy crisis is a threat to Sweden as a modern industrial country. So we really cannot have it any longer.

Let me just describe a small part of all that we are now doing in the short and long term. I will start with the short term.

Svenska kraftnät received a clear mandate to secure the availability of power in Skåne. Öresundsverket was in the process of being shipped completely dismantled to Southeast Asia. This has now been stopped, and the plant will now be on standby from 2025 to support southern Sweden. Yesterday, the mandate was presented to Svenska kraftnät and Energimarknadsinspektionen to shorten connection times to the electricity grid. The week before, an investigation was commissioned to review the structure of all agencies involved in Swedish energy supply to ensure that they are ready for upcoming challenges.

The combined heat and power taxes, which the previous government introduced or increased—both the waste incineration tax and the carbon tax for combined heat and power—are abolished. This means that electricity production in existing combined heat and power plants can be increased quickly. We are therefore talking about untapped electricity production equivalent to at least one nuclear power plant. These are the amounts that have been taxed away and become unprofitable due to the policy of the previous government and its supporting parties.

The government has also decided on a new support for energy efficiency, which goes to approximately 150,000 small houses across the country that are heated with direct electricity. The tax reduction for the installation of solar cells is increased from 15 to 20 percent. These are investments of 1.2 billion that truly affect many people across all of Sweden.

The government has also paused the permit reviews for existing electricity-producing hydropower. This is important for both electricity production and the countryside and, not to be forgotten in these times, the crisis preparedness.

Let me add that the evictions that have been carried out have been a pure assault on the Swedish countryside. But there will be more discussions about it in other contexts.

What I have enumerated is, as said, only a small part of what is being done in the short term. Now, Madam Speaker, I shall say a few words about the long term.

Perhaps the previous government's greatest sin is that they did not care about the future. Svenska kraftnät's balance report, which I touched upon earlier, is a nightmare to read. It shows the risk of a catastrophic power deficit when the need is greatest in the coming years. The question then is: Could this have been foreseen?

I took a look back in time and looked at what Svenska kraftnät wrote in its report in 2018. I quote:

"The balance of effect during the peak load hour will likely deteriorate, as a large volume of dispatchable production disappears and is primarily replaced by wind power and to some extent solar power."

Five years ago, our expert authority wrote this. It clearly and explicitly states that the problems are expected to worsen when the planned nuclear power is shut down.

Madam Speaker! The information existed. Despite that, the previous government left the shelves empty of plans for Sweden's energy system. Not a single thought regarding the future of this energy system existed.

We Tidö parties have a completely different view. We aim for a long-term planned and stable energy system. Therefore, we are now starting by opening up for all fossil-free electricity production. The Swedish Energy Agency estimates that the electricity demand will double by 2045 - at least. For that reason, 300 terawatt-hours annually is the planning horizon, which is also described in the Tidö Agreement. The Tidö Agreement does not end there, but it also includes in our plan to introduce a security of supply goal to ensure the Swedish electricity supply.

In order for there to be even the slightest chance of meeting a doubled electricity demand, Sweden needs more electricity production - electricity production that is fossil-free but also predictable.

We can achieve more electricity production on such a large scale through nuclear power. We need new reactors, and we absolutely cannot shut down the reactors we have, as some in this chamber want. In order for new nuclear power to be established, both political as well as legal and economic conditions are needed. We are investing in new green credit guarantees of 400 billion for this. The state must not counteract a fossil-free, stable and predictable energy system - on the contrary.

Madam Speaker! Let me conclude by stating that the political prerequisites are that from the political side, it is clearly shown that all fossil-free types of energy are needed. Therefore, we shall have an energy policy goal of 100 percent fossil-free electricity production where nuclear power is also included. The industry must be able to feel secure in investing in nuclear power without having to fear that a future government makes decisions that force the decommissioning of reactors.

We also need new rules for the energy market. It is about equivalent rules of the game for all types of power, where types of power that contribute with important support services are compensated for by those producers who do not contribute with these.

Madam Speaker! The Tidö parties have only just begun the massive shift in energy policy across the board for more energy to Sweden on both the short and long term. It is a paradigm shift, if anything, Madam Speaker.

I want to use the time that I actually do not have to wish the Speaker a pleasant summer. I also want to state that we do not have climate problems in the Committee on Industry. We have a good and respectful cooperation across all party lines. Above all, I want to take the opportunity to wish my colleagues a really nice and wonderful summer.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Member Mats Green speaks about the importance of sticking to the facts. Therefore, I become very curious when he says that Karlshamnsverket has been operated to support the Swedish power system. I have a very straightforward question there: When was Karlshamnsverket last operated to support specifically the Swedish power system? It would be nice to hear that.

Now we are taking a position on a new goal of a 100 percent fossil-free electricity system by 2040. It is a goal that is practically already achieved today. We have achieved it, with some single exceptions. I believe the electricity system was 98.2 percent fossil-free last time.

For me, this is primarily placed in a context with a government that is increasing emissions and thus begins to compromise on the climate goal. They want to introduce goals that are practically already achieved.

Then my question is: Can the member mention any other goals that have been presented to the Riksdag that are already achieved when they are introduced, even though there are almost 20 years left until the target date?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! It is always interesting when the Center Party wants to come across as the voice of reason in the energy debate. I truly welcome that, because historically, the Center Party in the energy debates has actually provided dogmatism, prosecutorial exercises, and a ban on thinking. I am glad that we have now moved away from that.

When it comes to Karlshamnsverket, I might be wrong, but it was fired in Karlshamnsverket last winter. I suspect that Rickard Nordin wants to suggest that some of the electricity from Karlshamnsverket, along with other electricity, is also exported. That is the case, but that is not the point here. One has also had to fire in Karlshamnsverket to ensure that the energy demand in Skåne and in other parts of Sweden is met.

Do people really seriously think that 140,000 liters of oil per hour, which spews out carbon dioxide and other environmental toxins, is a sign of a successful energy policy? I ask the question to Centerpartiet because they have been involved to the highest degree in the energy policy that involves having decommissioned six of twelve fully functioning reactors in Sweden. All those reactors were decommissioned by Social Democratic governments. Not a single one of them has been decommissioned by a Moderate-led government.

When it comes to the energy policy goal, it is not at all the case that we have achieved it now. We are talking about a doubled production of fossil-free by 2045.

I would like to ask a question there. The current party leader of the Centre Party has said that one certainly does not close the door on nuclear power and has even expressed a more positive view on that than the Social Democrats have. How will the Centre Party now position itself regarding a new goal of 100 percent fossil-free and new nuclear power?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it is just as certain that Moderates and others will talk about nuclear power regardless of which question is asked as it is that the Sweden Democrats in the same way usually talk about immigration.

I asked questions about the goal and whether there are other goals that can be seen as already achieved when one presents them, and about Karlshamnsverket.

I will return to the Center Party's position regarding nuclear power, but the member could perhaps read in the newspaper today that we have no problem with someone talking about this. But it is completely unreasonable to introduce goals that have already been achieved. If one truly wants to be ambitious, one should create a 100 percent fossil-free energy system. The member is worried about 140,000 liters of oil per hour. That is 4 million liters of diesel per day that the government is increasing emissions by on the fuel side. It is the energy system that is important.

During the summer, Karlshamnsverket has been operated on commercial terms, not at all to support the electricity system, because one has no such mandate at all. That is due to the fact that we have had high gas prices and nuclear power that has been down for inspection in Sweden and that there have been problems in France. It actually has nothing to do with what one thinks about other things. It is about the market. In that case, one must have market perspectives.

The Center Party has been clear when it comes to specifically Karlshamnsverket, which is that it should run on bio-oil. The possibilities to procure it exist, but this government and also previous governments have simply chosen not to do so.

What I am most worried about is that it is said that one must have this goal in order for us to double the electricity system. It must mean that the Moderaterna see a risk that we will get more fossil. That is actually the path that has been taken when taxes on fossil fuels have been lowered, including electricity production, and requirements have not been set on renewable fuels in reserve capacity, for example. I am very surprised by that attitude and by the fact that one is to have unambitious goals that have already been achieved.

My question is again: Can you mention when Karlshamnsverket has been operated to support the Swedish power system? It has not happened. Rather, it has been Poland that has been supported. It was a very long time ago that Karlshamnsverket was operated. Let us stick to the facts! Then I would like to hear about another goal that has already been achieved when it is introduced, because that is what we are actually voting on now in the Riksdag.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! It is about a fossil-free goal instead of a goal for renewables. Renewable is just code for removing nuclear power in all parts, completely. The Centre Party says that they can certainly consider new nuclear power. I welcome that. Then we will see how many party leadership changes there will be – we don't really know that. But I welcome that reversal.

I hope that the Centre Party supports the government in that it should be 100 percent fossil-free by 2045 and that we also have a doubled electricity production.

We can always discuss the reduction obligation. We could take part of an interesting report from the Swedish National Audit Office. If one reads the entire report, one can observe that there is quite sharp criticism, especially regarding the environmental consequences of the reduction obligation that has been introduced. That one needs to acknowledge in some way.

Then to the question regarding Karlshamnsverket. Karlshamnsverket was fired, among other things, to support a hopeless electricity situation in southern Sweden. That a part of it went to export, just as another part of the electricity goes to export, is a separate issue. The electricity market is part of the EU's internal market.

It was also argued that in order to handle all the consequences of that, among others, the Center Party has participated in dismantling the most basic parts of the Swedish power system.

Again: Nuclear power has been shut down, combined heat and power has been taxed away, and hydropower has been dismantled. These are the problems that we are now devoting an enormous amount of effort to trying to solve.

It will not be possible to solve overnight. That is precisely why the work needs to continue and why we today need to make decisions on a new energy policy goal for Sweden.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, member!

I want to speak a little bit about nuclear power, a dear subject. The member's own party once, at one time, drove the issue of the decommissioning of nuclear power. Now it feels like it was a very long time ago. Sometimes it is as if there is a certain memory loss regarding the history of nuclear power.

We had a referendum in 1980 which was a result of a nuclear accident in Harrisburg in the USA. That caused the Swedish people to cast their vote to phase out nuclear power.

My question is actually linked to the exchange of remarks that the member had with the Social Democratic member. There, the member claimed that the Social Democrats abandoned nuclear power. I have worked with energy issues for a long time. I didn't even know that the Social Democrats owned nuclear power. That was news to me.

Furthermore, the member spoke about the fact that there had been increased costs for nuclear power. That is true. In 2011, an accident occurred in Fukushima that corresponded to 168 Hiroshima bombs. After that, it was decided that independent emergency cooling would be required. The Swedish nuclear power plants did not have this, so they had to upgrade.

I wonder if the member thinks it was an unnecessary measure. At the same time, I wonder why the member's party chose to leave the energy agreement where the extra cost was balanced by removing the power tax for nuclear power. It was perhaps not something that my party would have primarily chosen.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! It may be that in these minutes I cannot answer the approximately 36 questions that I received from the colleague, but I shall make a good effort.

As a very proud conservative, I can say that the Moderaterna have never wanted to shut down Swedish nuclear power. It would be interesting to get an example of this. It is the first time I hear it. It would be a paradox.

Since we are on the subject of paradoxes, it is a fact that Miljöpartiet is also quite strong opponents of wind power. In a report two weeks ago, I believe it was, it was concluded that in governments where Miljöpartiet is included, the probability of saying no to wind power increases by 11 percent. I have full understanding for that. They probably say no to it for correct reasons. But it says quite a lot about the Miljöparti members there.

It is also interesting to note that when it comes to offshore wind power, the government has said yes to twice as many offshore wind farms in eight months as the previous S-MP government said yes to in eight years. That says quite a lot. Furthermore, it is a fact.

A question was asked whether I have any views on the fact that additional safety measures are taken when various accidents occur within different types of power and, in this case, nuclear power. Of course not. One must always ensure that nothing is saved in order to have as high a level of safety as possible.

It is interesting when the environmentalists think we are rude for accusing the Social Democrats of having phased out nuclear power. I note that everyone who previously marched in the streets and squares shouting that nuclear power should be removed, and furthermore said that they have removed nuclear power, now says: We never said that. They do not want to plague us with any kind of factual knowledge here.

We can also note that Magdalena Andersson promised to phase out nuclear power in 2013. That was perhaps the only promise she kept.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! I note that I did not quite receive answers to all the questions, but perhaps there were many.

It is true that the member's party pursued line 1 regarding successive decommissioning in 1980. On the other hand, there was no alternative that said no to decommissioning.

My question remains. The cost increases that affected the nuclear power producers were due to different types of safety mechanisms that had to be established after Fukushima. We believe that those costs should be borne by the producer themselves.

I also want to ask a little bit about uranium mining. I asked the Sverigedemokratiske member earlier. Where in Sweden does member Mats Green believe we should mine uranium? Or should we be dependent on importing uranium from, for example, Russia?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Where in Sweden should we mine uranium? Naturally, a number of factors must be included in that assessment. But if we have uranium and need uranium, I think we should mine it.

I can answer that question. Sweden is very rich in rare earth metals. Rare earth metals are needed in almost all environmental technology. Where does Miljöpartiet believe they should be mined?

It is not considered that they should be mined in Sweden. Then the friend of order says: Then the Green Party only wants to mine the rare earth metals in countries with appalling environmental conditions and appalling working conditions. That is, of course, completely unsustainable.

We are saying exactly the same thing as colleague Jessica Stegrud earlier. If we need minerals and rare earth metals for our green transition and we have them in Sweden, we should not have any fundamentalist prohibition against mining them here where it is appropriate.

Then one must note that the Swedish uranium is unfortunately not as high-grade as, for example, the Canadian. But we must still remove all thought prohibitions and stop laws that exist in Sweden if we truly believe in the green transition.

Then I shall say a few words about the power tax and nuclear power. It was the power tax that was used to shut down Swedish nuclear power, in addition to a number of other tools, including agreements in 1997.

The Green Party was not involved there. But the Center Party, the Left Party, and the Social Democrats made an agreement in 1997 to shut down Barsebäck. That was when they started all this, and then they continued.

Vattenfall's former officials say that the electricity tax was the single biggest reason why they were forced to start shutting down fully functioning, climate-smart nuclear power in Sweden. It is a fact, Madam Speaker.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Now it is becoming a bit difficult to stick to the script after everything I have heard. But I will try.

The debate concerns the supplementary budget. It is somewhat unusual for me, from the Committee on Industry, to involve myself in the debate on the supplementary budget.

The Government submits two proposals for ordinary supplementary budgets per year to the Riksdag. It is the proposal for the spring supplementary budget that is submitted in connection with the spring economic bill and the proposal for the autumn supplementary budget that is submitted in connection with the budget bill.

Vänsterpartiet naturally presents its budget alternative by submitting a motion to the budget bill. The government's supplementary budgets are presented in relation to the budget bill.

Vänsterpartiet does not normally submit motions on the government's two regular supplementary budgets. The main reason for this is obviously that the proposals for the supplementary budget are presented in relation to the government's budget bill, which Vänsterpartiet cannot take responsibility for. In order to be able to submit meaningful proposals for the supplementary budget, Vänsterpartiet would therefore most likely need to submit them as proposals for amendments to its own budget motion, which is obviously not possible.

Madam Speaker! In order to realize our policy, a different direction overall is needed than the one the government proposes, and we therefore do not participate in the decision on the budget amendment for 2023.

The government has, however, chosen to present a new energy policy goal. I do not know how many times the parties that are part of the government today and its supporting party have trumpeted this with 100 percent renewable. I have heard that for several years, and I would not have minded reacting if the parties representing that line had at least been honest in their argumentation. But it is claimed time and again that the policy has closed reactors. Sometimes reference has been made to some statements from Miljöpartiet, and I can agree that not all statements may have been so well-considered. But if the owners of these reactors had had the same view of why they were taken out of operation, the claims for compensation against the government would have arrived like a letter in the mail.

Vänsterpartiet stands behind the reservation under the decision point on a new energy policy goal as well as the reservation under the decision point on broad energy policy talks during the current mandate period. I would therefore like to make clear that we move for approval of both the reservations we have in the report, Madam Speaker. I hope that someone else raises the other, so that I can avoid raising two.

Our reservation regarding a new energy policy goal is about promoting long-term thinking within energy policy. However, we want to highlight some crucial aspects regarding a new energy policy goal and what discussions on energy policy should address. For Vänsterpartiet, it is important to have clearly designed interim targets for expanding wind power and solar energy to the extent and with the intensity that is required.

Vänsterpartiet has for a long time pursued a policy that promotes a 100 percent renewable energy system and that gives us cheap and competitive electricity. I and Vänsterpartiet do not share the reserve parties' confidence in market pricing, i.e., how electricity shall be priced to avoid unreasonably high prices on Swedish-produced electricity. Therefore, we will also in the future continue to push for the demand for Swedish prices.

Households and companies are being crushed by the high electricity prices. They are admittedly low now, but we will have to see when autumn comes. At the same time, Sweden is the largest exporter of electricity in Europe. Simply put, a different price model was needed, which brings the electricity price back to normal levels - a kind of price protection for Swedish consumers.

Sverigepriser means that we regulate the market by decoupling the Swedish electricity prices from the sky-high export prices for electricity sold to the continent. We heard, for example, why Karlshamn was running - there was an economy in selling the electricity expensively to Poland during those hours. With Sverigepriser, we get significantly lower electricity prices for households and accelerate the climate transition. We believe that this model is the best solution in the near term to counter the price shocks that come in the wake of the electricity price model we have now.

Electricity supply is fundamental for a functioning society, and it is necessary with greater national control over both the energy and the prices. Electricity cannot be treated as just any commodity, decoupled from geography and history. It is part of a historical and strategic context with national industrial and housing structure and investments in production and transmission, now and in the future. This must constitute a starting point for energy policy.

I think that the last year's high electricity prices have clearly shown that the EU's common market and pricing do not work as intended. Since the price of electricity is set based on what it costs to produce the last unit of electricity purchased on the market - that is what is called marginal pricing - it means that the expensive fossil electricity sets the price for all consumers. That is what we want to move away from.

Sweden shall, of course, continue to export electricity to our neighboring countries, but consumers and industries in Sweden should not have to be affected by other countries failing with their domestic energy supply and thereby driving up electricity prices for everyone. What is happening today is that we pay these prices to the electricity companies, which are making large profits. I think it is high time to take back control over such a socially important function as how electricity is priced – and above all, over at least our own produced electricity, which goes to our consumers, companies, and industries.

Madam Speaker! Earlier today I listened to the debate on the guidelines for the economic policy. I listened to some exchanges where the government's support party Sverigedemokraterna asked where all the electrical energy needed to carry out the transition that is underway regarding steel without coal and everything else is going to come from. And it is clear – with the government's policy to actively brake renewable electricity to the market, questions like these actually arise. But one does not realize that it is precisely the current policy, which SD themselves support, that makes it more uncertain.

And with the incentive study, they, for example, removed the tool that would have made a difference in such a way that more municipalities would say yes to more wind power. The government felt, in fact, that the money that the property tax would have contributed with to the state budget was better needed to lower the tax for the wealthiest.

I actually think that the government is harmful to competitiveness and, above all, to the future of industry, which now sees itself being overtaken by the industry in countries that realize that cheap energy production can be built in the near term. Industry cannot wait for nuclear power that might be in place in 15 years.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Birger Lahti for the speech.

The Chairman speaks about the goal of 100 percent renewable and that it is an important goal for Vänsterpartiet. I continue, true to my habit, to ask completely concrete questions. How is it going to work? What does Vänsterpartiet see as the alternative for power generation? What is envisioned for balance, reserve, and capacity power? And at what point in time could this be feasible?

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jessica Stegrud for the questions.

We have today a system where nuclear power is a very important part. It is running, and Vänsterpartiet is not for closing it down with political means. It will certainly continue to run for a good while. But I think the Sverigedemokraterna are missing something in their eagerness to conduct policy for nuclear power.

If you listen to the industry, you hear that they want cheap electricity production, which today actually means wind power. It is volatile when it comes to prices, and the industry wants a large surplus – because that is when they produce hydrogen. It is the hydrogen that is the key to the industrial transition. It is not that the industry needs power for a few hours at a certain time, but the strategy to move away from coal in production is simply based on hydrogen.

It is this that is not getting it right, with this eagerness to brake renewable wind power in the belief that everything will be solved with nuclear power. If we get investors who are willing to invest in nuclear power, it is very possible that we will have it in place in 15 years, but the industrial investments in northern Sweden need cheap electricity production - and preferably volatile, because then one can produce a lot of hydrogen when prices are low.

The Sweden Democrats never take that discussion. People talk about paint peeling off the wings of wind turbines, but they say nothing about the thousands of tons of waste from Sweden's nuclear power for which we still have no answer on how we should handle. I find that a bit strange. They are catching mosquitoes and swallowing camels.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I note that it is not possible to get an answer on this question. I cannot draw any other conclusion than that it concerns very utopian goals that cannot be reached. At least it is not possible to set any timeframe or any price for them or say how it should be done.

This is the constant question when one talks about hydrogen. I gave an all too long speech earlier - I regret it, Madam Speaker - and spent a large part of the time explaining how incredibly much electricity is required to produce the hydrogen that Vänsterpartiet likes to talk about using in electricity production and also for storage. This requires enormous capacity. The question remains: Where will this electricity come from?

We need something to regulate today. There is a reason why it looks the way it does in southern Sweden. One can boast about leading the export list, but that doesn't help. It is volatile, and it is mixed. Power shortages are mixed with electricity surpluses. This is not a sign of a healthy market.

Vänsterpartiet wants to step in and change the price model and run a planned economy in an attempt to stabilize prices. That might be possible, but I do not believe that it will lead to incentives for the right types of power plants to be established in those parts of the country where we need them.

The constant question remains: How is it to be done? What balance and reserve power is envisioned in a transition? All this with hydrogen is, after all, infinitely far in the future. It has also not been tested on a large scale, so we actually do not know if it will even work.

I also have one final question. How does Vänsterpartiet view the fact that the power source that is being advocated for, that is, wind power, is increasingly owned by the Chinese state and Chinese investors? Is this a problem for Vänsterpartiet?

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of both the reservations that we agree with.

Yes, Vänsterpartiet thinks it is a problem that the Chinese own a lot of wind power. There we have missed something - that was also said by Säpo during an inquiry in the committee.

It is not as easy to expand offshore or onshore wind power with the policy that this government is pursuing. With precision, they remove the incentives in the investigation that would have made municipalities say yes. Then it becomes more difficult.

Speaking of hydrogen storage, it is not primarily the storage we need today, but what we need is hydrogen for the industry's transition. It should be used in the reduction in steel production.

I listened to Stegrud's speech, and the historical description was correct in itself - from being one of the poorest countries, Sweden became that industrial country. I am convinced that we would not have succeeded if we had had a party like the Sverigedemokraterna in the Riksdag when we needed immigration. We took in so many people - you can't even count them. Sweden has been an open country, and that has made Sweden successful. We would not have succeeded with the policy that this government, with the help of Sverigedemokraterna, is driving. The member focuses only on energy production, but there were other pieces of the puzzle that were just as important at that time.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today, a specific focus has been requested for the debate regarding the spring budget. This is because a new energy policy goal is proposed in this spring budget by the government, which means it shall be 100 percent fossil-free instead of 100 percent renewable, as so many before me have said in this speaker's chair during the last hour.

Energy policy is truly engaging, and it pleases me. Energy and electricity production is a core issue for our society and has been for a very long time, but we have been so spoiled by having a world-class system that we have hardly even thought about it.

In recent years, however, we have had many reasons not only to think but also to act to restore our country's ability to produce stable, secure, and fossil-free electricity at a competitive price. Therefore, I am pleased that we now have a government that is capable of pointing out a clarified goal that all electricity production shall be fossil-free. The formulation "renewable" does not work if we seriously believe that we will be able to double electricity production.

Madam Speaker! It is very positive for Sweden that the Social Democrats and the government share a common view regarding the need to rapidly expand fossil-free electricity production in Sweden. That the policy is in agreement that all good forces are needed is a good basis for the green transition.

In order for us to succeed in carrying out the extensive electrification required to reach the climate goals and enable the green industrial transition, all fossil-free power sources are truly needed, which I have spoken about so many times in this chamber over very many years.

The description of the needs that the Social Democrats make in their motion, including the needs in the shorter term than until 2040, is fully agreed upon by the government parties. Unfortunately, it is most likely not practically possible, however much we would have liked it, to achieve such a large increase as 60 terawatt-hours already by 2030. The government is working purposefully to shorten the permit processes for all fossil-free energy production and for electricity grids and is removing the obstacles that exist when it comes to building new nuclear power. A parliamentary-bound goal that is not realistic is, however, not a joy for anyone.

Madam Speaker! Based on an overview analysis of the authorities' latest scenarios, the following can be said: In 2022, electricity production was approximately 170 terawatt-hours, and electricity consumption was 137 terawatt-hours. The net export was therefore 33 terawatt-hours. The Energy Agency's latest scenarios establish a need for around 35 terawatt-hours of new electricity production between 2021 and 2030.

Since the increase in the near term primarily comes from wind power, a continued surplus - export - over the year is required to cover the need. According to calculations, it looks like the production in 2030 will land somewhere around 210-220 terawatt-hours. This means an increase of 40-50 terawatt-hours from 2022.

When it is wind power that accounts for the majority of the expansion, it will not result in a significant increase in power allocation to new industries. Wind power contributes energy and probably to lower electricity prices over a year, but it does not contribute any large amount of power - i.e., megawatts - and will therefore also not enable the transition to 2030 as the Social Democrats seem to envision.

Wind power has approximately 9 percent capacity factor, while nuclear power and hydropower have closer to 100 percent. For example, 1,000 megawatts of nuclear power would enable approximately 1,000 megawatts of connection to new electricity customers, while 1,000 megawatts of wind power enables less than 100 megawatts in allocation to new industries.

So, it is not enough to only have a plan for terawatts; it is important that, in addition to 100 percent fossil-free and planning goals, we take the laws of physics into account and develop an efficient electricity system that delivers stable electricity at stable prices during all the hours of the year. It is a goal for security of supply.

Add to that all wind turbines that must be renewed because their lifespan is 15-20 years for the slightly older turbines and possibly 25 years for the slightly newer and taller wind turbines. This will not be invested in on its own, and the debate about the waste from this is largely non-existent in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! When the Committee on Industry debated energy issues a few weeks ago, I said the following, and I wish to repeat it:

I note that several parties in the opposition are calling for broad energy policy discussions. I say only: What are you waiting for? Do not sit on your hands and wait to be invited! The dance is already underway, and the floor is free to enter! Soon, one wouldn't even need a dance permit to dance.

It is high time that politics joins the business community and the citizens' will, that is to say, to be constructive and work to create conditions where market actors will dare and want to plow down billions to give our country the electricity needed so that we can meet climate goals and welfare and be able to continue to be competitive.

The Government gives all political parties in the Riksdag this chance, as you are all invited to submit input regarding the energy policy bill to be presented this autumn. What we do not have time for is to create discussion preparations where time just passes without anything actually happening. It is actually time to move from words to action.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

In this speech, Cecilia Engström and Camilla Rinaldo Miller (both KD) concurred.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Today the Riksdag votes on the proposal for the supplementary budget. It is a rather unusual budget because it does not only concern the budget itself, but through an almost incidental clause, the government intends to change Sweden's energy goals. Instead of anchoring the new energy goal, the government has chosen a path that creates even more uncertainty.

Sweden needs an enormous amount of electricity in the coming years for the electrification of transport and for the green industries that are investing in the production of fossil-free products. Forecasts from the Swedish Energy Agency show that electricity demand could double as early as 2035, and the energy companies assess that Sweden's electricity demand in 2045 will be 330 terawatt-hours, which can be compared with our current production of approximately 170 terawatt-hours.

Recently, a report came out stating that industry alone may need over 70 terawatt-hours by 2030, and in that context, the Social Democrats' new goal of 60 terawatt-hours by 2030 seems a bit unambitious. But I become even more concerned when the Christian Democrats say that 60 terawatt-hours by 2030 is unrealistic and impossible. Does the government and the Christian Democrats' energy minister want to send the message to the business community that its needs are unrealistic? To me, this is astonishing. The business community, the green industry, and the energy sector are incredibly clear that in order to secure the energy supply and begin investing, not only are new conditions required but also long-term rules of the game. But this is what the Christian Democrats are blustering about in the speaker's chair and talking about as the status quo.

If we are to manage the climate transition and the energy supply, all fossil-free types of power are needed. That is not strange. Ever since the energy agreement in 2009, the Center Party has accepted that new nuclear power may be built. This was also confirmed in the broad energy agreement in 2016, and on that, we stand firm. It is, however, logical to start with what can be built fastest and is cheapest to build, and we see how investors throughout Europe are investing more in onshore and offshore wind power, which has become much cheaper and more efficient.

Sweden has an enormous wind power potential equivalent to several times today's total electricity production. But while our neighboring countries in the EU are fast-tracking new wind power, the government is putting wind power on the back burner and even making it more difficult, obviously under pressure from the Sweden Democrats, while here in this chamber, people are happy to talk about it being a problem in various ways.

Most new onshore wind power projects are also being halted due to a lack of decisions on sensible local compensation to municipalities and neighbors. Now there is an investigation, and I expect the government to move forward with it but also look more broadly at the power grid and other matters. The problem is that it is often the Tidö parties that stop the expansion locally, not infrequently together with Miljöpartiet. Therefore, we see that the pace of expansion is falling sharply.

We have sunny conditions that correspond to Germany's, and there are heaps of projects regarding solar power waiting on the authorities' desks. If the government had clarified the regulatory framework, which the county administrative boards are requesting, they could have prioritized this more clearly. Not least in Skåne, an enormous potential is waiting to be realized. And the solar tax that taxes self-consumption still remains.

Pauses in the environmental assessment of hydropower are important. The Center Party has clearly pushed for this here in the chamber. We have taken committee initiatives and other things that the Tidö parties have followed up on, which is excellent. But the government has not done anything concrete. They have sent out a couple of investigation assignments but have not been able to answer clear questions about what they actually intend to do. It is urgent because the assessments start again on February 1 next year, and we already see how potential is being torn apart. They are, therefore, wasting away an important chance to set things right.

The district heating strategy that we and the Tidö parties agreed upon and announced is already said to be completed, even though there are no proposals. The only thing that exists is the assignment that the previous government gave to the Swedish Energy Agency. Nevertheless, the government believes it is time to scrap the announcement.

The government has also actively made it more difficult for those who want to use flexibility and storage by making this harder and less profitable through legislation, among other things by going further than the EU requirements demand. Despite the fact that the government side said just a few weeks ago that they should not over-implement, they have, in fact, already done so.

The investigation on energy efficiency was shelved despite the potential being enormous and that realizing this potential is absolutely crucial to buying us time during the expansion of new production.

I can continue. When it comes to energy communities, where many private individuals gather to expand electricity production, the government is doing nothing. Storage, grid, and other things that can be done with own funds, I thought a liberal-minded government would welcome, but bourgeois, liberal policy is probably only supported by the Center Party now.

The only government in earnest has embraced nuclear power, and there are a lot of things that can be done there. The Center Party has highlighted, among other things, power increases so that the grid problems one has had in Forsmark can be resolved. The big problem, however, is that the Tidö parties time and again set nuclear power against wind power. In the debate, we have heard that nuclear power must be expanded so that wind power can be expanded, or that wind power should not be expanded because nuclear power must be expanded first. This simply does not hold up.

The government says that all fossil-free power is accepted. But that is not the case in reality, and that is the problem. Instead of just waiting for new nuclear power, which might come when other conditions are met to build it, one can at least do what can be done in the meantime and create long-term rules of the game in broad energy agreements. We even heard the Sverigedemokraterna highlight this as important. Instead of a question box to dance around, it is reasonable that we gather for real conversations. It does not have to take a particularly long time to reach an agreement.

At the same time as Sweden appears to be missing its climate goals, the government is scrapping climate measures without replacing them with anything else, despite us hearing how the business sector is screaming for measures.

Today's vote is a clear example of how the government is trying to create conflict instead of cooperation in the energy issue. Instead of including it in the spring budget amendment and almost forcing the opposition to, as is customary, vote no to the government's spring budget, one could have invited broad talks. Now, they squeeze in a goal for completely fossil-free electricity production by 2040 to mark how much they stand behind nuclear power. For me, it is a strange handling. Why should we have a goal for 2040 that we practically already achieve today? We produce almost only fossil-free energy in the form of hydropower, nuclear power, bio-power, solar power, and wind power. For me, this just becomes another link in the government's lax climate ambition where they lower the environmental ambition.

It may be appropriate in this context to quote Verner von Heidenstam, who, like the government, started as a liberal and then moved in a more conservative direction: "It is more beautiful to listen to a string that has snapped than to never tension a bow." This government is tensioning no bow; one has hardly even manufactured it. With such a goal, it feels more like one is working with the idea that offense is the best defense, for in the Swedish energy system, fossil-free electricity production is nothing new under the sun.

Furthermore, if one truly wants long-term perspective and broad anchoring, why is the goal then placed in a subordinate clause? This is political theater, and that is also why we move for approval of reservation 1.

The green transition is an opportunity for Sweden, but the government seems to believe that it is about green varnish that plays less of a role and that it is not so important to lead the way. But nothing could be more wrong. The green transition is absolutely crucial for Sweden's and the business community's competitiveness. From the business community, it is crystal clear that the 2030 targets on the climate side are the most important. There was one hundred percent support when a survey was conducted with all participants from the business community at the government's climate meeting on Friday.

These goals simply create a transition pressure - they do not make an already achieved goal for 2040. They create a transition pressure, and they provide an opportunity to export climate-smart products to the world after they have been tested in a stable home market. The government's slackness threatens both the climate and the jobs.

Let me be crystal clear: the Centre Party has nothing against a goal of a fossil-free electricity system by 2040. But the logical thing would be to have a goal that actually means something, such as that the entire energy system, including transport, heating, and inputs for industry, should be fossil-free by 2040. That would have been a goal that we could truly work towards. It would have been a significantly better goal. Then one would have shown that one understands the sector linkages that we see now. We see an electrification, not least of heating, fuels, and inputs, but sometimes perhaps one should remove electric heating in favor of other sectors, combined heat and power or district heating, for example. Demand will exist for many different types of fossil-free power in the future. There is no doubt about that. They fulfill different roles in our energy system. Therefore, it is foolish to block profitable power now while waiting for nuclear power later.

My appeal to Ulf Kristersson, Ebba Busch and my colleagues from the Tidö parties is: If you are serious about securing long-term access to fossil-free electricity in Sweden, then you know where we stand. You do not need to sneak meaningless goals into supplementary budgets. Ensure that the invitation you recently sent does not just become a coffee break with a suggestion box, but instead becomes serious conversations. We are ready to do our part. It is crucial for the climate, for household electricity prices, and for Swedish competitiveness.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! If there is any energy policy spokesperson who deserves respect, it is Rickard Nordin. I agree with much of what he puts forward.

Madam Speaker! I requested the floor because I forgot to wish a very pleasant summer to Madam Speaker, the Chancellery, and my colleagues. Now that I have the chance, I want to wish a very nice summer and respect to Rickard Nordin. I did not intend to use my second floor.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Birger Lahti. I was very curious about what reply I would receive. I was looking forward to it.

But I can also wish Birger Lahti, my colleagues and the Speaker a happy summer when I soon step down after the next reply.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin for the speech, and now we stand here again.

I heard that the member - and I have heard it also in other contexts - likes to speak of the Center Party as a liberal, bourgeois party. I read today, or was it yesterday, the Center Party's proposal for the EU and the climate goals in the EU. It made me think of a planned economy alternative. It did not feel particularly liberal or bourgeois.

I have a concrete question about EU policy, which also reflects how you view the politics here at home. It concerns the proposal that by 2040 there shall be no fossil-based energy production within the EU. We are therefore talking about that in a little over 15 years there shall be no fossil in energy production. We have very large countries, such as Poland and Italy, which are 80 to 85 percent fossil-dependent.

My question is how it is to take place in a concrete and realistic way. What would it cost, and what would the consequences be? I was thinking, naturally, in terms of price and purely concretely for competitiveness and so on. I understand that one cannot go into details here, but I would like to hear the reasoning. Because it is, undeniably, an extremely ambitious goal that I personally find very unrealistic.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind that the subject is the supplementary budget for 2023.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It was undeniably a diversion from the member. But I can inform the member that these countries that the member refers to stand behind this. It is not just a goal that the Center Party has. But I think it is a pretty good goal. I think we should have the same goal in Sweden, that is to say one that furthermore applies to the entire energy system and not just electricity production.

All production is included in the EU's emissions trading. The EU's emissions trading goes towards zero until 2039, and these countries have signed on to this. This is therefore not a conflict within the EU.

The member thinks it is unrealistic, let that stand for the Sweden Democrats. I think rather that it is completely necessary. This is needed to phase out fossil fuels where we know there are alternatives and where we need to do everything we can to take our responsibility in the climate issue. I see this rather as fully realistic and fully possible, and the other countries have also signed on to it. There is therefore no conflict here.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to do what I missed in my speech, namely to wish everyone a happy summer and thank you for a good cooperation in the committee.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jessica Stegrud for this. We can well hope that the next parliamentary session, which opens in September, will involve more cooperation and less conflict and that the invitations we have received are genuine and lead to the broad agreements that we heard Jessica Stegrud calling for. I think that would have been something to rejoice about during the summer.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs a new energy policy. I believe we can all agree on that in this room. We never want to return to a winter such as the one we went through. We saw a shortage of power, we had skyrocketing electricity prices, and we had a production that was not always there where it was needed geographically. Therefore, it is so important that we now establish a new energy policy goal where we change the energy policy goal formulation from 100 percent renewable to 100 percent fossil-free. Through this change, technology neutrality is restored as no fossil-free power source is discriminated against. Thus, we increase the possibilities for investments in all kinds of energy production. This is, of course, absolutely excellent.

Madam Speaker! The production, distribution, and use of electricity will need to double within 20 years. In the last few hours, we have heard a number of figures, and I will not repeat them, but it is clear that if we are to manage the green transition and reach the goals we have set, we will need to expand electricity production of various kinds in balance while the power grid is strengthened. We thus have a large and responsible task ahead of us.

We need to invest considerably, not only in energy production but also in an expansion of both the transmission grid and the local and regional grids. It is only through such an expansion that we can manage the energy challenge, both in the long and in the short term. As has been said here several times before, it is about building out capacity and production in the long term so that we can meet the doubled demand. Here, nuclear power and, to some extent, offshore wind power are crucial. As has also been said here earlier, this government has actually succeeded in achieving a number of more permits for offshore wind power than the previous government succeeded with.

Here and now, we need to simultaneously address the extensive problems we have with the energy supply, primarily in southern Sweden. It is a matter of taking advantage of all types of energy, not least by better utilizing the potential of combined heat and power. It is a matter of, as Svenska kraftnät has now done with Öresundsverket, securing a reserve capacity, and it is a matter of ensuring that investments in the grids continue. Naturally, we must also continue with the energy efficiency that we saw taking place across the entire country during last winter. Even here, the government has delivered incentives to continue that work. In the short term, we need to strengthen the energy system, and in the long term, we need to expand it significantly.

Madam Speaker! Against this background, I emphasize once again the importance of us setting a new energy policy goal. It has been somewhat brushed aside here in the chamber that it would be needed. I do not share that picture at all. On the contrary, the changed objective is important as a signal to energy producers, to the business community, and to the entire Swedish people that we need to secure energy production moving forward.

Nuclear power has a special position as it is the only fossil-free energy source that can both be expanded on a large scale and is predictable. For the electricity system to function, electricity production is required that can meet the demand regardless of the weather. That is why the government is now putting so much effort into ensuring that the obstacles to building new nuclear power are removed.

Swedish electricity customers have for decades been able to rely on that the electricity works. The cost has also been predictable. It is that order we need to return to. To change the energy policy goal so that we can now again use all the types of power that are available is a large and important step for Sweden to be able to continue to be both an industrial country and a welfare nation.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish energy system faces enormously exciting challenges, as we have heard before here today. In a little over ten years, by 2035, Sweden's electricity demand will double while our existing stock must be replaced as it will become too old. After that, the electricity demand will continue to increase as Sweden's industry and vehicle fleet become electricity-driven instead of fossil-driven.

It is important to emphasize that this challenge is in many ways something positive. It is the result of Swedish and international companies choosing Sweden to establish new industries and companies. These are activities that contribute to Sweden's economic prosperity and to Swedish green jobs. These are activities that, in the long run, create the conditions to live and reside in our entire elongated country. These activities are the foundation of the societal transition that we face.

However, without active politics, this vision will not become a reality. Miljöpartiets policy rests on three energy policy pillars: new production, energy efficiency, and smart grids - flex.

First, we must invest in the power production that can be expanded quickly in a sufficiently large scale to meet the needs, and that is wind power, both on land and at sea. Unlike the government, which point by point creates difficulties for wind power companies, we instead want to increase the expansion rate for wind power and create conditions for municipalities, neighbors, and local communities to earn money from the establishment of wind power. It shall be an engine in the local economic development and provide much-needed money for school, healthcare, and elderly care.

But just building new power production is not enough. We have heard representatives for the government and the Tidö parties stand here and talk about the enormous energy needs we have ahead. And then one constantly talks about production. The Liberal member mentioned energy efficiency, which was good, but this was lost in the absence of the others.

All energy production has an environmental impact. If we are to keep our societies within all planetary boundaries, the climate and energy transition must also take into account the fact that we live on a planet with finite resources where our ecosystems are already under enormous pressure today.

We must learn to do more with less. The way we use energy simply must become smarter, more efficient, and better without this automatically meaning that it becomes more complicated for our households and companies.

For this to become a reality, we must welcome, not oppose, the technology, the business models, and the companies that will exist and operate in the future's energy market. We must welcome aggregators and flexibility markets, both nationally and locally. Then electricity customers will be able to earn money, not only on lower prices but also on flexibility in kronor.

I will speak a bit more about energy efficiency. There are many reports that show large gains from energy efficiency. The industry can save as much as 10 terawatt-hours, and when it comes to the potential from buildings, 53 terawatt-hours are discussed. It concerns a large part of the consumption we have today, which can actually be removed and used for both the transition of the industry and the electrification of the transport sector. It is therefore not just about adding new production but also about using energy smarter.

If we are to be able to keep pace with the business sector, politics must increase the pace. Otherwise, neither households nor companies will be able to reap the fruits of a smart and modern energy system. And what does that mean in practice? Well, more expensive electricity for everyone.

Madam Speaker! The Government has presented a proposal for a new energy policy goal: 100 percent fossil-free electricity by 2045. I want to begin by commenting on how the Government chooses to present the energy policy goal.

Sweden AB faces, as said, an exciting development with a transition of the industrial sector and the transport sector. This transition will help Sweden a bit of the way so that we reach our climate goals.

When five parties entered into an agreement in 2016, both energy actors and the business community breathed a sigh of relief that such a central part of Swedish infrastructure finally received long-term rules of the game. The goal was set at 100 percent renewable electricity production by 2040. It is worth noting, as has been said many times in this chamber, that this in itself does not mean a stop date for existing Swedish nuclear power.

It is therefore remarkable that the government chooses to propose a new energy policy goal in a spring budget amendment without this having been preceded by any initiative for cross-bloc dialogue. The question of our energy system and the long-term investments required to create the correct conditions for society's needs deserve to be treated with greater responsibility than that. It is of immense importance that actors can feel secure in making the significant investments required in the long term without worry about what happens over four-year cycles.

About fifteen minutes ago, the Tidö parties announced that the opposition parties are welcome to submit proposals on the energy area. It feels serious. Is it really about taking the issue of the energy system seriously and realizing the importance of long-term agreements?

Then we have the goal itself, which previous speakers have touched upon. This goal is strange for several reasons, not least because Sweden's electricity is already fossil-free in all important respects. It must be the least ambitious shift in position in Swedish political history - a bit embarrassing, actually.

Simply put, this is about symbol politics. I would like to turn my attention to what actually matters: the energy market. Almost all electricity production being built globally today is renewable. Even in Sweden, it is renewable energy production that the market demands, above all wind power.

Wind power produces cheap energy, and increased volumes of wind power lead to lowered electricity prices for households and companies. New nuclear power is many times more expensive and actually leads to increased prices for customers. In addition to all other issues that speak against nuclear power – the time aspect and the safety aspect – this should be reason enough. We want to give Swedish households and companies Europe's cheapest electricity. In that case, there is only one way forward, and it is, among other things, with a heavily expanded wind power.

Miljöpartiet wants the government to use the money where it does the most good for households, companies, and the climate transition. This means that we should not use taxpayers' money to make expensive investments in new nuclear power, a technology that exposes our societies to enormous risks and whose social utility is strongly questioned compared to, for example, wind power.

That is why Miljöpartiet wants the goal for Sweden's energy production to remain 100 percent renewable by 2040. Miljöpartiet does not, however, want to work towards closing nuclear reactors prematurely through political steering, as long as they meet high safety requirements and do not require large state subsidies.

I would like to conclude by dwelling a little extra on the question of nuclear power.

As I mentioned earlier, all types of production involve an environmental impact. But one must still say that nuclear power stands out a bit extra. When a nuclear accident occurs, for example through a direct attack or human factor, the consequences are immense with death and radiation damage. Furthermore, the possibility to live, reside, and farm in the affected area is nullified.

Let us leave that detail for now and instead take a short look back.

In 1979, a nuclear accident occurred in Harrisburg in the USA. This led to a referendum on nuclear power in Sweden in 1980. All three alternatives were for a decommissioning of nuclear power, even line 1 which spoke of a successive decommissioning.

As a result of the vote, a number of regulations were put in place to act in the direction of the result, for example such as those linked to uranium mining.

What actually happened when the energy agreement was put in place? We do hear some remarks sometimes that the red-green government has shut down nuclear power. It was actually Vattenfall that in January 2016 made an announcement that they would shut down all nuclear reactors before 2020 if the power tax was not removed. They referred to the large investments that needed to be made to meet the requirements for independent emergency cooling, a requirement that came after the accident in Fukushima.

The nuclear power owners were thus faced with a decision to either upgrade the safety of existing facilities or withdraw and thus decommission the facilities in 2020. But then the politicians gathered, took decisive action, and concluded an energy agreement. Sweden thus received a plan for an orderly transition where nuclear power would be replaced by renewable energy and energy efficiency. This was to be followed by a plan for implementation.

Just as oil makes us dependent on dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and fossil gas makes us dependent on Russia, there are corresponding problems with nuclear power, because Russia is one of the countries in the world that produces the most uranium.

Many were probably happy in Västra Götaland, the southern Storsjö area in Jämtland, Närke, Östergötland, Öland and Skåne after the climate minister's announcement that we are to open uranium mines in Sweden. We have, after all, 27 percent of Europe's uranium reserves, and in these regions, there is uranium-rich alumschist.

It may sound promising, but for example, LRF does not think it should be permitted to prospect for and mine alum shale. The shale coincides with our most fertile agricultural areas, and they are needed in the long term to produce more food and energy. The need for food will increase by 50 percent by the year 2030 and 100 percent by the year 2050.

There are, therefore, a number of reasons why there was a referendum and why there are great benefits with the ambition of 100 percent renewable. We believe that it is reasonable and necessary to work towards a goal of 100 percent renewable energy. It should occur through a responsible and planned transition, but that requires that the politicians take responsibility and step in to discuss a long-term energy agreement with a plan for implementation.

I conclude by moving for approval of reservation 1. I would also, like previous speakers, wish colleagues, the secretariat, and Madam Speaker a happy summer.

(Applause)

In this speech, Camilla Hansén, Daniel Helldén, Annika Hirvonen, Katarina Luhr, Jan Riise and Jacob Risberg (all MP) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 9.)

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