It’s a waste spending time and money on nuclear today. Building a nuclear plant takes a decade and costs more than renewables. Better to go all in on renewable sources, especially wind and solar power.
Sweden, like many other countries, already experience a huge interest in, and investments and production of renewables. Why not build on that? It’s less expensive, has faster time to market, and results in a more resilient power grid when large single points of failure can be avoided.
What is sorely needed in Sweden is making it easier to getting approval for building wind turbines, especially at sea where noise and light pollution is a non-issue, and power grid improvements to support distribution from these new production sites. One area where government support could be really useful is investing in large scale energy storage to be able to deal with peak load.
AFAIU. Swedish regulations as a general principle state that arms cannot be sold to states that are either, actively engaged in a military conflict, have a non-democratic rule, or violates human rights.
The catch is that there are some exceptions in the law which are often used as a loop hole. F.x Sweden sell arms to Saudi Arabia, USA, Pakistan, and Thailand. All of whom violates one or more of those rules to some extent.
So in reality that law does not stop Sweden from supplying Ukraine with arms, and indeed Sweden has already repeatedly supplied Ukraine with weapons after February 2022.
Jag hoppar också till lite varje gång jag ser den svenska översättningen, Djurens gård. Det beror nog på att den engelska titeln är så inarbetad. Men också för att jag tänker på den stalinistiska och sovjetiska eran som mer av en farm än en gård. Mer opersonlig, storskalig och massproduktionsfokuserad än småskalig och mänsklig alltså.
Engelskans “farm” översätts väl annars bäst till just gård, så därför går min röst ändå emot min intuition och landar i att Djurens gård är rätt.
Djurgården däremot, nah, let’s not go there… ;)