Naturskyddsföreningen claims that nuclear power, if renewed in Sweden, would be subsidized by the state.
I must say that I don't think energy should be subsidized at all. I guess there are two reasons for subsidizing. It could be national safety, if one considers the risk for conflict with Russia if the less expensive natural gas would be utilized. It could be investing in a cleaner Earth on taxpayers money.
In earlier discussions that I listened to on the radio the costs were not featured. Jan Björklund argued that we need power in the future for the heavy industry and supported the lobbying of some major energy utilizing Swedish companies.
However, Maria Wetterstrand said in the Saturday interview that there will be a surplus of electricity and that nuclear power should not be used rather should there be investments in renewable power sources.
A CEO in one of the lobbying companies said that it is very difficult to estimate the exact need for energy in the future if you have to predict some 20 years ahead. What we have then is Björklund's guess on the energy need against Wetterstrand's guess that renewables will be sufficient for our need.
If this becomes an election question next year, I would like to see a discussion on how much we are ready to pay with taxes for clean energy or safety against the Russians. Subsidizing energy demanding companies with tax money does not seem to be something that we should involve ourselves in?