You’re right, the total system costs include a lot of things, including disposal of spent fuel. Which is apparently so expensive, nuclear can’t compete with renewables fairly.
Finland just built a spent-fuel repository for ~ € 1 billion. For the entire country. Just the single EPR at Olkiluoto 3 will produce electricity worth €100 billion over its lifetime if you assume a price of 10 cents/kWh.
So at 10 cents, it would be 1% of the price of electricity if Olkiluoto 3 had to finance the whole thing by itself.
Therefore, even assuming for a second your counterfactual that nuclear power isn't cost-competitive, it wouldn't be due to the disposal costs.
Of course it's also not true that nuclear isn't cost competitive. It absolutely is.
Regarding cost competitiveness: if new nuclear is cost competitive in Sweden, how come it needs to be so heavily subsidized?
2. Nuclear is not heavily subsidized. In fact, it is intermittent renewables that are and must be heavily subsidized pretty much everywhere. In Germany, for example, just the EEG is more than €20 billion per year. And that's not the only subsidy by far.
Within these non-competitive markets that feature heavily subsidized intermittent renewables, other sources may need guarantees, though last I checked the biggest guarantee in Sweden is the one protecting from the risks of government action.
Which is the biggest risk for nuclear projects.
The Swedish authorities are right now processing requests for subsidies from prospective owners of future nuclear plants. You can read their announcements here for instance. See the little summary fact box at the bottom. https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2026/06/ansokan-o...