POLICY & FINANCE | SWEDEN’S NUCLEAR PIVOT
Multiple factors including weather conditions, price variations, climate goals, system challenges and energy security pointed to nuclear power as a necessity for Sweden. Source: Vattenfall
backed funding, which is essential. Without that, it would be very difficult to build new nuclear. Second, it has established confidence in the future demand for reactors. The government has announced a programme, signalling to the industry that this is not a one-off; it is a programme involving several units. That signal is also directed to the supply chain, making it attractive to invest in Sweden and become part of the Swedish nuclear ecosystem. The financing model provides real economic
incentive. The government will initially fund the first half (5 GW) of the announced programme, and later we will evaluate whether the full 10 GW is needed; maybe 5 GW will be enough. Depending on the development of electricity demand, perhaps later there could be a new support scheme. By that time, hopefully we will understand better how to set up and build projects, so the need for support might be lower.
NEi: Sweden also voted to lift the 2018 ban on uranium mining last year, what impact will this have on new build? Berglöf: I think lifting the uranium mining ban has limited relevance to new nuclear construction at this time. The new regulation will make mining in Sweden more attractive, rather than being a tool for new nuclear power. Swedish strategy assumes access to uranium on the
international market. So far, the government has not expressed any front-end strategy. In my reports to the government, I have highlighted the need to address this issue in dialogue with other countries in the future. When the demand for nuclear fuel increases, we will proactively act to secure long-term access to processed uranium. But first, we have to get projects started in Sweden.
NEi: What are the greatest barriers for the Swedish nuclear industry right now, and how is your office working to address those challenges? Berglöf: I would say securing the conditions for a developed supply chain and a plan for skills and workforce development. We are currently interviewing different stakeholders to identify specific supply chain hurdles, but what I’ve observed is that nuclear has quite a high threshold for qualification, in terms of quality and other standards. That means supply chain companies must make investments to meet those requirements. This results in low
32 | May 2026 |
www.neimagazine.com
competition, as not many companies are ready to do this. This could indicate a market failure, and my team is working to address this, but I don’t have a full answer yet. The other issue is that, even with companies, both domestic and international, willing to make these commitments, there is a lack of visibility – potential suppliers may not realise they can participate in our ecosystem. Sweden lacks a dedicated trade association that gathers and connects stakeholders. They exist for wind power and other sectors, but not nuclear. I have also recommended that the government
cooperate with countries in the region on supply chain development. Countries in Northern Europe are relatively small, so we will not be able to build nuclear power plants entirely by ourselves. We should establish a framework for cooperation and early notification of activities to avoid creating bottlenecks for each other. As for skills and workforce development, there are initiatives, but no unified strategy or oversight. I’ve looked to the UK, Poland and France to learn from their experiences and recommended to the government that the Swedish Energy Agency should lead this. I’m not too worried because Sweden has a strong foundation – having existing nuclear operations, the infrastructure for competence development and nuclear-focussed academic programmes – but more structured planning is needed.
NEi: What is one thing industry should be aware of right now about the development of nuclear power in Sweden? Berglöf: We are looking at a new licensing model, sent to Parliament for approval earlier this year. It is based on the Finnish model, with an early government approval, which would give applicants clarity on whether society supports the project. Broad questions would be answered at that stage – political issues, whether the applicant is credible, site suitability and the views of the municipality involved. The detailed work would then follow. Today, it works the other way around. The applicant must spend several years preparing detailed applications for environmental and nuclear permits, and only afterwards do they know whether society wants the project. By then, nearly a decade could have passed. If approved by Parliament, it will enter into force 17
June 2026, and the government accepts applications filed from 11 March 2026. ■
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53
