4 ms·

The Swedish government initial stance was that the market should completely bear the burden of the costs for nuclear energy. Though they had to walk that back b

The Swedish government initial stance was that the market should completely bear the burden of the costs for nuclear energy. Though they had to walk that back because Vattenfall clearly pointed out that unless the government goes in with subsidies they won't do it. The government had earlier proposed the equivalent of ~40 billion euro in credit guarantees, but that wasn't enough. 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.

cjg_ 3y ago
Vattenfall is fully state-owned anyway.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Vattenfall invested heavily (hugely) in German brown coal, then shelved it. Swedish tax payers effectively accelerating German energy off brown coal. In the greater scheme of things, not sure what to think of it, but as an investment, it was pretty bad.
  - fifilura 3y ago
    Yeah they also invested in Dutch natural gas which was a catastropic deal. 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.
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      Articles at the time seem to disagree about the "without political oversight" part, focusing on the political nature of the decision: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vasterbotten/olofsson-varnades-for-nej-till-nuon 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://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maud_Olofsson https://www.svd.se/a/Rxl708/drev-igenom-tva-av-sveriges-absolut-samsta-affarer https://www.svd.se/a/Rxl708/drev-igenom-tva-av-sveriges-abso... https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/olofsson-vagrar-svara-pa-fragan-vem-visste-vad https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/olofsson-vagrar-svara-pa-... https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/5861519 https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/5861519
Kognito 3y ago
Sounds like exactly what happened in the UK. New nuclear was proposed in 2010 by the newly elected centre-right led coalition government, with the aim of it being privately funded. 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.
fifilura 3y ago
There are some reasons i could think of that should make the tax-payers subsidise nuclear investments. 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.

cjg_ 3y ago

Vattenfall is fully state-owned anyway.

actionfromafar 3y ago
Vattenfall invested heavily (hugely) in German brown coal, then shelved it. Swedish tax payers effectively accelerating German energy off brown coal. In the greater scheme of things, not sure what to think of it, but as an investment, it was pretty bad.
- fifilura 3y ago
  Yeah they also invested in Dutch natural gas which was a catastropic deal. 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.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    Articles at the time seem to disagree about the "without political oversight" part, focusing on the political nature of the decision: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vasterbotten/olofsson-varnades-for-nej-till-nuon 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://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maud_Olofsson https://www.svd.se/a/Rxl708/drev-igenom-tva-av-sveriges-absolut-samsta-affarer https://www.svd.se/a/Rxl708/drev-igenom-tva-av-sveriges-abso... https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/olofsson-vagrar-svara-pa-fragan-vem-visste-vad https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/olofsson-vagrar-svara-pa-... https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/5861519 https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/5861519

Kognito 3y ago

Sounds like exactly what happened in the UK. New nuclear was proposed in 2010 by the newly elected centre-right led coalition government, with the aim of it being privately funded. 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.

fifilura 3y ago

There are some reasons i could think of that should make the tax-payers subsidise nuclear investments. 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.