The case for new nuclear power in Sweden, examined

Researchers from Uppsala University explore the arguments for new nuclear power

Nuclear power has returned as a desirable future technology, amidst concerns for the threat of a global climate crisis, fears of energy dependency, and recent technological developments, most notably small modular reactors (SMRs). Although a nuclear renaissance has been talked about since 2001, this time it feels qualitatively different. In this article, drawing on the case of Sweden, we examine this renewed interest in building nuclear power and explore the arguments made for new nuclear power as well as how they fit into a larger narrative of future society.

New nuclear in Sweden

The Swedish government has presented a roadmap for new nuclear, stipulating that, by 2035, nuclear reactors with the capacity to produce 2500 MW should have been built, with further increases to 10 000 MW by the year 2045 (Busch et al., 2023). To achieve this during the current mandate, there have been several official government inquiries launched, relevant laws have been changed, and a national new-build coordinator has been appointed.

Up until 1999, Sweden had 12 nuclear reactors in operation. These were built between 1964 and 1985, which marked what has been termed a ‘golden age’ for Sweden’s nuclear power industry. The expansion of nuclear power was, however, halted with a referendum in 1980, which was further accentuated by the phase-out of six reactors between 1999 and 2020. Against the canvas of this wave of discontinuation, the plans for new nuclear power mark a significant shift in how nuclear power is viewed. From being an old technology in decline, nuclear power has returned as a desirable technology for Sweden’s future energy production.

While no new nuclear is currently being constructed in Sweden, the direction being staked out by the government shows clear intent – a declaration that a future containing new nuclear power is necessary. Nuclear power, however, is not inevitable but comes connected to a vision of the desirable Swedish future wherein it acts as a guarantee for a number of associated outcomes. It is therefore important to study how this technological return towards a nuclear future has come to pass, as well as examine how relevant actors engage disparate visions of the future with the intent to affect the present, in order for us to understand what it is that makes a certain narrative dominant.

Nuclear from a sociotechnical perspective

The future of nuclear power should therefore, first of all, not be regarded as a purely technological question. Although nuclear technology stands at the centre of the issue, its future is just as dependent on societal development. In approaching this issue, the technological and social dimensions should furthermore not be regarded as separate, but rather as intimately connected. Technological development happens within social contexts, and societal development is intricately tied to technological progress (Jasanoff, 2004). We will therefore approach the question of nuclear power from a sociotechnical perspective, regarding society and technology as constituting one another, creating together a sociotechnical system.

Traditionally, research on these types of technological topics tends to focus on the emergence of new technology, on how they evolve and stabilise in order to replace older technology. Recently, however, research has emerged which takes both decline (Koretzky et al., 2023) and revival (Morgunova and Linné, 2026) into account. Such research notes that discontinuation seldom demarcates a clear end to a sociotechnical system, but that it is rather a lengthy and messy back-and-forth and that sometimes, such as seemingly is the case with Swedish nuclear, the system can make a return. This research, therefore, aims to investigate the re-emergence of Swedish nuclear and how it is connected to narratives of current events as well as Swedish nuclear history.

The article represents preliminary results from an ongoing qualitative study of the plans to build new nuclear plants in Sweden. A large number of interviews have been conducted with representatives of organisations either from or connected to the Swedish nuclear power industry. Additionally, we have done detailed readings of a variety of documents and grey papers, official investigations, reports, and policy documents that have been published in relation to new nuclear. From this data, we can reconstruct how the future with, or without, nuclear is being envisioned and how these futures affect the decisions being made today.

Robust, stable, and always producing

One of the ways nuclear is repeatedly argued for is that it is dependable, both in how it produces energy and how it functions within the energy grid. Several interviewees argue that nuclear power is stable, robust, and always producing – whatever the conditions, nuclear power plants will produce energy, 24 hours a day, every day. This is contrasted with renewable energy sources that are said to only produce energy under certain conditions, such as the wind blowing or the sun shining.

Within the context of the energy grid, it is argued that there is a need for balance, which is achieved through having a baseload within the energy production. This baseload, our interviewees argue, can offset the imbalances caused by the volatile energy production of renewable energy sources. Within the Swedish system, the baseload usually comes from either hydropower or nuclear power. However, it is argued that there is a limit to how much more hydropower can be expanded from the current capacity. The rivers of Sweden, where hydropower is already present, are practically utilised at capacity and, according to most interviewees, a further expansion would have a large impact on the environment while yielding a relatively small increase in energy output. The four remaining, undammed, ‘national rivers’ are also protected from hydro expansion by law (SMHI). Nuclear power, it is argued, suffers from no such limits. It can be almost infinitely expanded, limited only by cost and need. However, this disregards that the nuclear re-emergence itself required extensive legal work. Similar laws stipulating the maximal number of reactors allowed, as well as where they could be built, were in place. Furthermore, just as with hydropower, questions concerning reactor placement on local ecology, property value, and local communities and cultural heritage are central to the counter-movements. What is deemed as possible or prohibitive is therefore something that is constructed through social action rather than inherent to the technology.

The nuclear technology is also perceived as stable, as it is well known. Sweden, it is explained, has extensive experience in building and operating nuclear power plants and drawing on this history, nuclear is portrayed as the natural choice of future technology to meet increased electricity demand. Sweden’s experience of nuclear power is thus engaged through the frequent narrative that “we have done it before; we can do it again”. Even though the previous era of nuclear construction was preceded by decades of stepwise advancement, this past is still mobilised in the present and used as a way of portraying Sweden’s favourable nuclear position now.

Clean, ‘green’, energy to replace fossil fuels

Another recurring argument for why nuclear power is needed is that it is a clean energy source. With the Swedish government making the change to the goal of national energy production in 2040 from being 100% renewable to 100% fossil-free, nuclear power is also included in the energy mix of the future (Proposition 2022/23:99). A similar event took place on the EU level, with the inclusion of nuclear power in its ‘green taxonomy’ (European Commission, 2022). This also groups nuclear power with the renewable energy sources as a ‘green’ way of producing energy. It should be noted here that, while uranium is in no way renewable, there is plenty of it, and it does not emit greenhouse gases. Nuclear power in this context serves as a way of producing energy that is portrayed as both sustainable and robust.

With nuclear power being categorised as sustainable, building new nuclear power also becomes a way of replacing fossil fuels. According to our interviewees, fossil fuels have it in common with nuclear power that they are robust, stable and plannable. However, unlike nuclear power, they are neither clean nor ‘green’. Therefore, the new nuclear power that gets built would replace fossil fuels. As it was described in one governmental report:

“To manage the climate transition, a major expansion of electricity generation needs to be carried out, with the goal that Sweden will have 100% fossil-free electricity production by 2040, enabling industry and the transport sector to be electrified and to stop using fossil fuels.” (Official governmental report (SOU) 2025:104, p.83)

From the pro-nuclear perspective, building more of the technology is thus perceived as necessary to facilitate a climate transition and to combat climate change. Nuclear power, by means of being clean and green, will replace fossil fuels and thereby deliver us from the climate crisis.

Development and protection of industry, economy, and society

A third argument for new nuclear power is that it is needed for resilience. Although this argument is not as prominent within our interviews, public reports have highlighted resilience as one of the more important factors for why new nuclear power is needed (e.g., Official governmental report (SOU) 2025:104). With the increase in conflicts around the world, the need for Sweden to have a national capacity to produce stable energy has increased. “Against the background of climate change and shifts in the security policy landscape, an increased need for a fossil-free energy supply has been identified.” (Official governmental report (SOU) 2025:104, p. 398). Building new nuclear power is thus seen as a way of safeguarding Sweden from the risks and perils of the surrounding world. For proponents of nuclear, the war in Ukraine, e.g., and subsequent energy crisis opened a window of opportunity (Sardo and Pfotenhauer, 2025), a space and time wherein changes in the sociotechnical landscape are more acceptable. Within this continuum, the feeling of urgency and need for a solution can be utilised to bring a previously declining sociotechnical system back to vitality.

Lastly, Sweden plans to perform a green transition of its industries, which will most probably require an influx of green and stable energy if it is to be truly sustainable. While this could be achieved through any energy source, nuclear is often highlighted in our material as the facilitator, with the arguments of stability outlined above. In turn, it is argued that this will be important for the Swedish economy as well as society at large, as energy is understood to facilitate the economy. By building new nuclear power, they say, Sweden can improve its economy by providing cheap, clean, and robust energy, thus both facilitating its domestic industries as well as attracting investments from other countries. Access to energy is also underscored as a way of improving society and everyday life for everyone living in Sweden.

Conclusion

The narrative championed by the nuclear proponents is thus one of security and stability, of ‘green’ energy that never sleeps and never changes and that makes industrial electrification and transition possible. This narrative is repeated by the industry actors, by changing regulations, and by governmental voices. At the same time the narrative often minimises, for example, how cost estimates seldom are met; the notion of “having done it” before does not take note of the fact that so had Finland and England who still faces large cost overruns in new builds. This narrative portrays a vision of the desired future Swedish nuclear society — a vision that is “animated by shared understandings of forms of social life and social order attainable through, and supportive of, advances in science and technology.” (Jasanoff & Kim, 2015: p.4) This vision, however, is not the only possible vision of the future, nor the only possible outcome. By identifying and detailing this vision and how it is produced, we can understand how a certain future vision becomes dominant in a society.

In spring 2026, Sweden is turning to new nuclear power as at least three different potential sites are actively being developed, and one application for approval has been sent in. However, in the light of such decisions, it is important to understand that the choice is a sociotechnical one. Laws that hinder certain development can be viewed as prohibitors in some cases, or simply as obstacles subject to change in others. The choice to turn back towards nuclear is both influenced and made possible by multiple factors; the history of Swedish nuclear is mobilised as an enabler as is the fickle sun and wind, which demands nuclear stability. Since every such narrative or vision, at least in part, precludes the existence of others, it is important that we can see clearly the ways in which nuclear energy is portrayed and argued for.

Acknowledgement

This work has been carried out within the framework of the ANItA collaboration and has been financially supported by the Swedish Energy Agency under project number 52680–1.

References

Busch et al. (2023). Färdplan för ny kärnkraft i Sverige. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet

European Commission. (2022). Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 of 9 March 2022 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 as regards certain energy activities (OJ L 188, 15.7.2022, pp. 1–45). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2022/1214/oj

Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge. DOI:10.4324/9780203413845

Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (Eds.). (2015). Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press

Koretsky, Z., Stegmaier, P., Turnheim, B., & Van Lente, H. (Eds.). (2022). Technologies in decline: socio-technical approaches to discontinuation and destabilization. Taylor & Francis

Official governmental report / Kärnkraftsprövningsutredningen [The Nuclear Licensing Inquiry] (2025). Ny kärnkraft i Sverige – ett samlat system för omhändertagande av radioaktivt avfall: Delbetänkande. Stockholm: SOU 2025:10

Morgunova, M., & Linné, Å. (2026). A technological innovation system in revival: Nuclear energy in Sweden. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 60, 101121

Regeringen (2023). Vårändringsbudget för 2023. Proposition 2022/23:99. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet

Sardo, S., & Pfotenhauer, S. M. (2025). Technology discontinuation as a continuous process: diesel, sustainability, and the politics of delay. Research Policy, 54(4), 105198

SMHI. (n.d.). Vattenreglering och vattenkraft. SMHI. Retrieved April 10, 2026, from https://www.smhi.se/kunskapsbanken/hydrologi/mansklig-paverkan-pa-sveriges-hydrologi/vattenreglering-och-vattenkraft

Please note, this article will also appear in the 26th edition of our quarterly publication.