Just for clarification: The government has not decided to build new reactors. It lifted the ban on building new ones but the only operators that may build new reactors are the ones already running the old. So there are a lot of if’s and but’s in the 2009 decision.
The government is a coalition including one party that is almost religiously opposed to nuclear power. However, the opposition holds some 2½ parties of the same conviction
That said, the article is correct in many ways: Solar power is useless on a latitude that roughly equals that of Alaska, we would get the most when we need it the least, and wind is never more than a complement. If it can be used for burning less oil or coal, fine. That is not the case in Sweden but might be in the US. Also, the US uses a lot of electricity for air conditioning, which the swedes don’t so solar power may be useful to the US after all.
The Swedish nuclear reactors are getting old though. They need to be replaced some day but no new reactor is so far even projected.
I like passive solar, but solar panels seem (to me) to be a scam. They are very expensive and only seem worth considering when the govt. subsidizes their purchase. I also wonder about what they do to your roof in the high winds we experience in the midwest. Some govt. and commercial businesses mount an array of panels on the ground in the “yard” but that also seems to waste valuable green space IMHO.
We had a case just last week when solar panels on the roof of an industrial building prevent firemen from fighting a fire, and the building was a total loss.