So, to recap: 1. In 2021, sweden produced 165TWh (using 139TWh) of electricity [1]; 2. Sweden plans to build 2 nuclear reactors by 2035 [2] but it's not clear

So, to recap: 1. In 2021, sweden produced 165TWh (using 139TWh) of electricity [1]; 2. Sweden plans to build 2 nuclear reactors by 2035 [2] but it's not clear what the output of the new reacctors will be. 1GW seems to be typical [3]. Sweden's current six reactors produce about 50TWh [4] of power so about 8.33TWh each, which about maps to 1GW converted to TWh/year. So even in 20 years nuclear will still not be the majority of power in Sweden based on current production and usage growth; 3. These reactors (as per the Reuters link) will have their costs shared with the state. Not a single nuclear reactor has been built without government subsidies [5]. Why? Because it's still too expensive. 4. Part of the delay (to 2035) seems to be that no final decision has been made on design to use. Proximity to consumers is best for efficiency but faces opposition from people not wanting to live near nuclear power stations. Also, larger reactors, by definition, will have a larger mean transmission distance to customers just because they cover more customers. Proponents of smaller nuclear reactor designs ignore that these are fundamentally less efficient and none are commercially in operation, for a reason; 5. Costs of nuclear powers tend to be lower on initial capital costs but higher on operational costs. Nuclear advocates tend to ignore the latter. If addressed at all, it's argued that economies of scale will lower overall costs despite there being decades of building hundreds of plants and no evidence of that at all; 6. While the cost of climate change is of course high and needs to be addressed, no single fossil fuel plant has a catastrophic failure mode comparable to a single nuclear reactor. Actual disasters (eg Chernobyl, Fukushima) get written off as outliers or due to some other reason but the cleanup for Fukushima is in Japan so Soviet Union factors don't apply (and tsunamis and earthquakes happen so you can't ignore that eiher). The cleanup of Fukushima is going to take decades, has already cost $82 billion and the final cost may exceed $1 trillion [6]. For one reactor incident. 7. Nuclear is also pushed compared to renewables by their ability to produce base load. But do we really need base load? Not really [7]. It's really a function of having a large, interconnected energy grid. Fission power still doesn't make sense. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Sweden [2]: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-plans-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2035-can-take-costs-2023-11-16/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-plans-new-nuc... [3]: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliab... [4]: https://www.uniper.energy/sweden/about-uniper-sweden/nuclear-power-sweden https://www.uniper.energy/sweden/about-uniper-sweden/nuclear... [5]: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-still-not-viable-without-subsidies https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-still-not-via... [6]: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fukushima-cleanup-costs-swell-with-no-end-in-sight https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fuku... [7]: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/06/28/we-dont-need-base-load-power/ https://cleantechnica.com/2022/06/28/we-dont-need-base-load-...