So this is pretty much something they had to announce to keep voters happy.
Whether it will happen in practice is another question.
I guess at some point someone will have to make a business plan that shows that it is also a good investment.
So now the goverment and vattenfall is working out an agreement where the state takes part of the risk (and profit, if any).
Coming from a right-wing government that has ideals of a market based economy, it's ... counterintuitive that this is the way they want to do it.
Since then subsidies have been agreed but costs continue to skyrocket. Only one plant is under construction and the time to operation has shifted from 5 years to 10 years.
Meanwhile pretty much all private sector interest in investing in nuclear seems to have dried up.
We seem to be instead putting all our eggs in the SMR basket hoping that there’ll be the economies of scale to make it viable.
Sweden's competitive advantage during the 1900s was cheap energy. And we have some important industries that rely on it. Steelworks and papermills. If they would have to close down because they can't (unfairly) compete with cheap energy, it may have a big effect on the Swedish economy.
It may also be that businesses will not do the same risk/reward calculation as a country/taxpayers. They are simply not optimising for the same thing.
I think the relationship between the government and Vattenfall is heavily regulated so that they can't micromanage and have to set high profit goals for the company. It is probably required so that it does not interfere with market economy.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vasterbotten/olofsson-varn...
They might have invested in nuclear if they didn't buy coal, couldn't have that.
Also, I think the largest cash deal in Swedish history is something that is just moving along together with the new coffee machine for the lobby, without political oversight.
The decision also went by the prime minister, although he at first disputed it:
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maud_Olofsson
https://www.svd.se/a/Rxl708/drev-igenom-tva-av-sveriges-abso...
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/olofsson-vagrar-svara-pa-...
It points to a Bloomberg article at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-14/sweden-s-... .
Neighbouring countries such as Finland have been more dependant on Russia and the imports from Sweden have increased because of cutting the Russian gas. This has had secondary effects on Sweden by increasing the electricity price.
Eh. Natural gas accounted for less than 5% of Finland's total energy consumption before Russia cut off the gas pipelines. And this was before Finland got a new floating LNG terminal (January 2023) and the new 1600 MW reactor came online (April 2023).
Might as well say that my job is keeping my kids happy. That is why I give them candies instead of dinner.
As a voter and not a member of the elite, I prefer having trains built and new cities expanded for our growing population, rather than incantations being offered to irrational secular gods ("the markets") and the constant shrinkage of beds in our healthcare system.
But .. .
1. promise something with a simple message that is an oversimplification to get enogh voters. 2. Do it because you promised the voters. Even if it is a bad idea and will not lead to good results.