[kalleboo]

The nice thing is Sweden has lots of hydro, which works as natural long-term energy storage. Every bit of solar you generate means water is kept in the dam for use later in the year.

You also can't ignore wind power which should be part of any plan to "overbuild".

[mastermage]

All of the discussions here conveniently ignore the existance of Wind. Which fortunately has higher yield in the months when there is less sun.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Yes, it's a mix. It's always a mix. Arguing that "renewables" = "solar" is a classic straw man.

So is comparing rooftop solar for a single property to grid solar for a country to a continent-sized grid of mixed renewable sources.

Battery and storage tech are barely getting started. Pumped storage is perfectly capable of smoothing out seasonal loads.

There's some capex for physical pumped storage - less than for a nuke plant - but once running it's comparatively low cost.

[fi358]

I think the amount of energy needed during wintertime would be difficult to cover with pumped storage or traditional batteries. You have to have suitable geography for pumped storage and also enough (fresh) water available for that. However, instead of water compressed air could be also used, but that has also problems.

[mpweiher]

So why are the Swedes investing heavily in nuclear energy again, after nixing the nuclear exit they had on the books?

[ViewTrick1002]

Sweden isn't investing in nuclear power. The current right wing government is creating a culture war issue while not wanting to accept the costs, nor creating a deal that will survive through elections by creating a more comprehensive coalition backing it.

They've moved "We'll start building this electory cycle!!" to "large scale reactors" to "SMRs!!" to now targetting the final investment decision in 2029.

The latest step in the saga is the state owned power company refusing to get their credit rating tarnished by being too involved in the nuclear project. The latest move is them owning 20%, the industry owning 20% and the government owning 60%.

The industry still haven't comitted to their 20% due to the absolutely stupid costs involved.

With the government as a first negotiation move stepping in with a direct handout of €3B. On top of credit and construction guarantees, a CFD and adjusting it all depending on how costly the build is to guarantee a profit.

But it is quite easy to understand why. Taking what one of the nuclear reactors earns in Sweden and then applying solely the interest from a new build leads to a loss of ~€1.5B per year. Then you also need to run, fuel and maintain the plant.

[mpweiher]

Reality does not seem to want to conform to your creative confabulations.

"Once committed to phasing out nuclear power, Sweden has reversed course, not only lifting the ban on new reactors but also introducing government frameworks to accelerate investments and deployment.

Today, Sweden’s nuclear roadmap includes commissioning two large-scale reactors to add 2.5GW of capacity by 2035 and the equivalent of 10 new reactors, with a push for smaller modular reactors (SMRs), by 2045. According to GlobalData, the country is on course to reach 8.2GW in nuclear capacity and 59.8TWh in annual generation by 2035." -- Inside Sweden’s policy U-turn: Q&A with the Government’s nuclear lead

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/inside-swe...

"Nuclear, onshore wind cheapest way to meet Sweden's electricity needs, OECD report says

If nuclear builds become more expensive or electricity imports cheaper, "there might be an opening for offshore wind to enter Sweden's optimal capacity mix", the report said. "For the time being, this is not the case."" -- https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/nuclear-onshore-wind-cheap...

"Nordic governments are pushing ahead with nuclear energy investments at a pace not seen in decades, driven by growing anxiety over energy security and the need to cut carbon emissions. " -- https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/nordic-countri...

"Sweden’s nuclear landscape has done a 180-turn in recent years, moving from plans for a phase-out now to ambitions for an expansion. The government has lifted the reactor cap, opened new sites and introduced measures to accelerate investments and deployments.

The country’s nuclear roadmap now includes adding at least 2.5GW of capacity by 2035 and the equivalent of 10 new reactors by 2045." -- https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/new-episode-q-a-with-s...

"Application submitted for Swedish SMR plant

Monday, 23 March 2026

Kärnfull Next has submitted an application to build a power plant based on small modular reactors in the municipality of Valdemarsvik in Östergötland county in southeastern Sweden. It is the first application under the country’s new Act on Government Approval of Nuclear Facilities." -- https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/application-subm...

"Sweden Reverses Nuclear Phase-Out, Plans Major Expansion by 2045

According to a report from Power Technology, Sweden has reversed its nuclear energy policy in recent years, abandoning previous phase-out plans in favor of expansion. The national government has removed a cap on the number of reactors, designated new locations for plants, and implemented policies to speed up related investment and construction. The current national strategy aims to increase nuclear power capacity by a minimum of 2.5 gigawatts by 2035. A further goal is to build new reactors with a combined capacity equal to ten standard units by 2045." -- https://www.indexbox.io/blog/sweden-reverses-nuclear-phase-o...

[ViewTrick1002]

Like I told you. A culture war issue without broader political backing, with the company putting final investment decision at such a timing in terms of election cycles as to ensure that broad political backing is there, or it won’t happen.

The social democrats opened up to negotiate a broader energy agreement covering both nuclear power and off-shore wind.

The right and hard right shut down that effort because only tens of billions in handouts per new built large scale reactor in capacity is the only solution. Even mentioning off-shore wind is a red like for them.

It is truly interesting when the right becomes the socialists. But that’s were we are in 2026.

Also, go ahead and please explain how Sweden can have 2.5 GW online by 2035 when investment decision is set to 2029 and projects like the Canadian SMF, French EPR2 and Polish AP1000 have similar dates as their ”perfectly executed project target date”, likely ending up being late 2030s or early 2040s?

It’s always funny when you proclaim imaginary new built nuclear power as the solution, rather than staying grounded in reality.