[mpweiher]

The part I explained: disposal is, unlike your claim, not a significant part of total cost of nuclear power.

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.

[Jolter]

I see I implied that the disposal was a major part of the the total cost. Sorry for that, I was being facetious when answering your statement that spot market prices are not total system costs. Clearly there are many other costs than disposal, which are contributing to its none-competitiveness.

Regarding cost competitiveness: if new nuclear is cost competitive in Sweden, how come it needs to be so heavily subsidized?

[mpweiher]

1. Once again, when you take full system cost into account and not just spot prices (marginal costs), nuclear is absolutely competitive, even compelling.

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.

[Jolter]

What do you mean by 2), ”it’s not heavily subsidized”? Remember we’re talking specifically about Sweden now, so I’ll discard any arguments about Germany or elsewhere. I don’t know the background there at all.

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...