Earlier quoted context omitted.
The previous government didn't stop the shutdown planned 40+ years ago (due to a national referendum), in part because the owners (Vattenfall) said it's not economically feasible to run them anymore without subsidies. It's complex.
This doesn’t accurately reflect what’s happening. 1) the national referendum was held in 1980, not exactly a recent decision. Most people who voted in that referendum are probably dead. 2) The referendum consisted of four different choices, basically all voting options were a No to nuclear, the only difference between them is how slowly the existing plants should be decommissioned(slowest option won). 3) The majority…
3a)
Looks like I was right, but it happened in less than a week not months. The CEO of Vattenfall wants to extend the lifetime for the operational Forsmark and Ringhals nuclear reactors up to a total lifetime of 80 years(!).
Personally I would prefer new reactors instead of keeping these relics alive, but Sweden has a limitation of maximum 10 reactors, complicating the construction of new reactors.
https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/vattenfall-vill-forlanga-re...