Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, both here in the room in Helsinki and over the webcast. At the end of 2022, Fortum launched a feasibility study to explore the commercial, technological, and societal prerequisites for new nuclear in Finland and Sweden. We have now concluded this extensive study and will present our findings to you today. My name is Pauliina Vuosio, and I am responsible for corporate relations here in Finland. I will go first through a few practicalities and then invite our presenters on stage. At Fortum, safety always comes first. There are three exits which lead to the Rautatientori Plaza. To get to these exits, please follow the exit signs. In case of emergency, our staff is here also to help you. Now to the agenda. We will have three speakers this morning.
Fortum's President and CEO, Markus Rauramo, will talk about the clean energy transition and how nuclear fits in. Petra Lundström, our EVP for Nuclear Generation, will update you on our nuclear capabilities and the operating environment in Europe. And finally, Laurent Leveugle, our Vice President, New Nuclear, will go through the findings of Fortum's New Build Feasibility Study. Many of you have taken the opportunity to pre-book interviews. Mark will coordinate the interviews after the Q&A. And speaking of Q&A, we ask that you hold your questions until the end of Laurent's presentation. I will take questions from the room and also from you who have dialed in. Now, it's my pleasure to welcome our CEO, Markus Rauramo, on stage.
Okay, thank you, Pauliina. Distinguished guests, dear colleagues. Warmly welcome to this exciting event also from me. We are here today to share the outcomes of our new nuclear feasibility study that we have been working on for more than two years. Before our nuclear team shares the results of the study, let me start by saying a few words about where we are as a company. I will then describe the market situation and talk about how we see the clean transition in the Nordics. For the past couple of years, Fortum has been building the foundation to prepare for our future growth, in short and long-term horizons. We are currently in a solid financial position as we have been steadily implementing our strategy, and we have focused on our core businesses.
We have two strategic priorities: to deliver reliable and clean energy when needed and at scale to our customers and to the Nordic energy system, and the second priority is to drive the decarbonization in industries. We offer clean and reliable power supply for our customers' decarbonization needs today, tomorrow, and in the decades to come. We continue to see robust underlying customer demand, which we believe reflects power demand growth longer term. In the Nordics, power demand could even double by 2050. For example, in Finland, Fingrid estimates that electricity demand could grow by more than 50% already by 2030. There is a huge number of announced decarbonization and clean growth projects in the Nordic countries, of which only a part is illustrated here in this picture. We are in discussions with most of them, especially those in Finland and Sweden.
Our customers who are developing the new demand projects, data centers, electrification of existing industrial processes, or new energy-intensive industries primarily want stable and predictable low-carbon electricity supply. That seems to be common for almost all of them. On top of that, some require even 100% renewable and additional supply. For example, the technology companies developing data centers have set themselves rather strict clean energy targets, often wanting to procure additional new wind or solar power. Clean investments in heavy industry, for example, Blastr in Inkoo or Arctic Aluminium business in Kokkola here in Finland, also want zero emissions but may be less interested in additionality and rather focus on predictability. Most industrial investments at this stage want production to cover, for example, 80%-90% of the year's hours.
Electrification projects for district heating are a distinct exception to this, with their business case built around the flexibility of the demand, utilizing the lower power prices. In other words, our customers are telling us that what they want is very low emissions, stable electricity supply, possibly from selected, even additional sources at predictable and competitive prices. So that's what our customers are after. But what has the reality looked like for the past 10 years when it comes to power production mix and eventually electricity prices in the Nordics? The trends show strong growth in variable renewables, in onshore wind power in particular, and reduction in fossil-based capacity, which is in the graph categorized under other. In many ways, very positive and desired development supported by several policies and favorable technology development.
These factors, in combination with our relatively remote geographic location and limited interconnections, have led to the Nordic countries having the most affordable but also the most volatile power prices in Europe. Experience over the past few years has shown that extreme volatility can be difficult for stakeholders, power producers, our customers, and the society in general. In this growing Nordic system, new demand is met primarily with onshore wind and solar in the next 10- 15 years. However, in addition to this weather-dependent renewable power production, flexibility in various forms, as well as firm and stable production, will be needed. Otherwise, we may end up in a system that is increasingly susceptible to the risk of generation inadequacy, meaning very literally that the lights may go out and the corresponding extreme high peak prices, which, as said, nobody seems to like.
Fortum is developing all of these potential solutions for electricity production in a customer-oriented way. We have about 5 GW of renewable power production, namely onshore wind and solar power, in the permitting phase of development. When our customers are ready to make their investments, we can execute these ready-to-build projects very quickly. To balance the variable production, we are developing flexibility solutions across different technologies and throughout the value chain, from consumer and industrial scale demand response to batteries. We see that pumped hydropower storage, which we are investigating in Finland and Sweden, could be part of the mix around early 2030s, adding long-duration flexibility in large scale, and nuclear power, where our current focus is on the competitive, safe, and reliable operation and lifetime extensions of the existing fleet.
This event is about new nuclear, which we will continue to develop as an option and which could play a role sometimes towards the end of the 2030s and beyond. As said, our strategy is to deliver reliable clean energy when needed and at scale to our customers and the Nordic energy system. We drive decarbonization in industries and offer clean and stable power supply for our customers' decarbonization needs. In the energy production puzzle I have described today, there is a time and place for everything: weather-dependent renewable production, flexibility, and firm production. Wind and solar will be the generation technologies that grow to satisfy the increasing demand in the next 10- 15 years. Pumped hydropower storage will potentially bring additional large-scale long-duration flexibility to the system from the 2030s onwards.
New nuclear may bring online a new firm power supply later in the 2030s and beyond if so decided. The Nordic countries have the potential to benefit greatly from the green transition. Our power production mix is mostly low carbon already, and we have ample opportunities to increase clean production. Given the size of the opportunity in front of us, I believe it makes sense to keep all technologies on the table as options, including new nuclear. Investing in new nuclear will require confidence in the technology and a clear understanding of the cost, as well as visibility of the future income. Without these prerequisites, it will be impossible to finance and move forward with such projects. We must be able to think long term. For example, the current permit of our Loviisa plant is valid until 2050.
In nuclear, this is not a very long time, especially as it is not optimal to build new and decommission the old at the same time. Our thinking is that we want to make new nuclear possible as an option, and we will invest in it provided that there will be demand for it among our customers and societies. Our two-year new nuclear feasibility study has addressed these aspects in the current operating and market environments, which are in many ways different than they were when investment decisions on new nuclear were made the last time. To sum up my messages for today, Fortum's focus is to deliver reliable and clean energy in the Nordics and drive the decarbonization of industries. Electricity demand is expected to grow. Our customers want zero emissions, stable electricity supply at predictable and competitive prices.
The Nordic power system is increasingly weather-dependent, and that results in the highest price volatility in Europe. Flexibility in various forms will be needed to minimize the risks of generation inadequacy, meaning corresponding extreme high peak prices and potentially even very literally the lights may be going out. Fortum is developing a fit-for-the-future power portfolio with very low emissions. We have projects in wind and solar. We are developing flexibility solutions. We are looking into the possibilities of pumped hydro, and we see nuclear as an important part of the future system as well. With that, I am now happy to hand over to my colleague Petra Lundström, who will share some more insights into Fortum's nuclear capabilities and the operating environment in Europe.
Thank you, Markus. Good morning, everyone. Also great to see so many of you here in the room and also online. So I will actually build upon where Markus ended, basically the outlook of significant demand growth due to the electrification development. And then the question that how can we meet that demand? How will also the needed production investments happen? And now there are, in a way, two very different time perspectives to this whole question. Starting from here and now, we are now every day operating on the Nordic power market. As a company, we are basically it provides us the framework for operating and optimizing our fleet and our power plants, how we operate them. So that's basically the framework, and it works just fine, and it's very efficient, and it provides the price signals and works just fine. So this is here and now.
But then the question regarding maybe in 10 years from now, like we were talking about, will the very significant production investments, some of them are very long-term development efforts like nuclear, will they happen also on this current market and on the, let's say, traditional business models? And then the issue here is exactly like we saw here before, that the volatility of the power prices is very, very big here in the Nordics. We have lots of negative prices. We have super high prices, and this varies very quickly. Also, another issue for this very long-term investment is that we do not, on this market, have a long-term visibility into the future. So something that takes maybe five or seven years to develop, we do not have the visibility in what the demand will be and what the prices will be. And this creates uncertainty.
So therefore, our very firm and clear view, based on the work that we have done, is that on the current Nordic power market, on the traditional merchant business model, just to invest it there, new nuclear will not happen. This is a very, very clear conclusion. And then, of course, there are lots of things that we can continue working on in this respect. And like we are doing in Fortum every single day, we are signing bilateral power purchase agreements with our customers, who also need to have a firmer view on the price of their electricity. And then it also kind of provides stability from our perspective. So we can work with the customers basically on this issue. We can work further on the business model and on the financing possibilities.
But then also, what is a fact that in many, many countries in Europe and globally, also the government risk-sharing mechanisms have been and are being developed. And this is the case in Sweden, for example, right now, and we will hear more about that later on. Then I always want to mention briefly maybe here, but Fortum, of course, has a lot of competence and strength in nuclear and a 45-year track record of safe and reliable nuclear operations. So we have the Loviisa plant, obviously fully owned, which is undergoing lifetime extension right now. We are co-owners of TVO and then also Oskarshamn and Forsmark in Sweden.
And then, of course, I particularly always want to mention Posiva, the spent fuel disposal company, which will actually start its operations in some year from now. Actually, the actual disposal operations of spent fuel as the first one in the world. Some 52% of Fortum's electricity last year was produced with nuclear, and we have roughly 800 colleagues working in nuclear. Then about the time perspective, and Markus touched upon this also in the beginning here, our perspective actually spans a century. And this might sound a little bit odd, but looking at the picture here, the potential lifetime extensions of our existing fleet will basically push nuclear operations, already those, into the second half of this century. So this is what we are talking about here.
And then, of course, also when we have been thinking about what needs to happen for new nuclear to be available, possible for meeting the growth maybe in the next decade, we also at the same time get the insights into how we should replace our existing fleet and what the timing of that needs to be. And then, of course, what I always want to emphasize with regards to nuclear, for anyone thinking about continuing lifetime extensions or building even new nuclear, it's really, really important also that the current operations, they are safe and they also take place in a fair and reasonable regulatory and business environment. That's the basis for everything basically going forward.
Here, to provide some more perspective maybe geographically, the scope of our feasibility study is clearly Finland and Sweden, but it is a fact that new nuclear development is gaining a lot of momentum throughout Europe. So you can see there on the picture, there are well-progressing developments in Central and Eastern Europe, in many countries there, as you can see. And then also, of course, in France and in the U.K. So this is really a fact that maybe this also maybe we have certain greetings also to Brussels regarding this topic. What would be very important is that nuclear is recognized as the low carbon energy source. It really is. And also, especially maybe when you think about clean hydrogen and steel production. Then also regarding financing, financing is a very important topic in new nuclear, as we will hear in a little while here.
It would be very important if institutions like the European Investment Bank would also be able and allowed to invest in nuclear. And then I would say maybe the general stance here is that having a level playing field for all net zero technologies is a very important starting point, again, for anyone who thinks about the future and building perhaps for the future. So now, before diving into more specifics of what we are actually concluding and saying today, just to summarize what the feasibility study was all about, our goal was clearly to explore the preconditions for growth in new nuclear, and we really wanted to do this study, and we have done it in active dialogue with numerous stakeholders. So we have explored commercial, technological, societal, political, legal, and regulatory conditions for new nuclear.
So it's really not a technology exercise, only looking at the possible new nuclear power technologies. And we are very interested in SMR developments, and so we have covered both SMR and large reactor developments. We started the work with 11 designs, and we will hear in a little while where we are heading with regards to the technologies. And then what I would also say that Fortum has been part of many recent new build projects, and it has been important in this study really also to record the learnings, what we have learned from past projects that have not been that easy. And then we have conducted site evaluations, and also we have been in active discussions with both STUK, Säteilyturvakeskus and SSM in Sweden, also in what we call pre-licensing discussions to see how the regulatory bodies view the various technologies.
But now, actually over to Laurent, we will go more in depth regarding our conclusions.
Thank you, Petra, and good morning, everyone. Really glad to have the chance to share the conclusions. Indeed, we looked at new nuclear from a lot of different aspects, and I already want to thank everyone who has been involved in this study these last two years. The first conclusion, like Petra has mentioned, is that the business case needs to be considered. New nuclear has to be profitable, and new nuclear will not be built on merchant basis due to the moderate price of electricity and the volatility as well. And this is not only our conclusion. This is also the conclusion that has been met across Europe. The second conclusion is about the technologies. We performed a comprehensive analysis of the technologies available in the Western world.
One conclusion is that large reactors, they have been built, they are in operation, so they are mature, whereas most of the SMRs are still under development. One key condition for this technology is to be competitive for large and small reactors. It is that these designs shouldn't be tailored for each country in order to benefit from the series effect. The third conclusion is about Fortum. We are a strong nuclear operator, like Petra has mentioned also. We have been involved in the recent projects, but we also know that we will need partners in the future. As a conclusion, we know that not all the conditions are currently met to invest in new nuclear, but Fortum will continue to explore and develop these preconditions in order to build new nuclear as an option in the future for growth. Nuclear takes time.
We all know that, and this is a really step-by-step process. We are now entering a new phase called project development, and the goal of the project development phase is to develop further, explore further the preconditions that we identified in order to consider an investment, possibly. You can see on the timeline that an investment decision would come later because preparation is key, and we want to do that properly. If the conditions are right, we expect or we assume that more nuclear capacity could be put online during the second half of 2030. And I will now explain the preconditions that we identified in order to consider an investment later on. You can see from the slide the four main preconditions, more focused areas that must all be fulfilled. If one is missing, then a project cannot proceed.
If we start from the top, co-investors, who will finance the project, who will lead the project, then from the customer's perspective, who will buy the electricity, the financing perspective, who will finance the project and under what conditions. Then, last but not least, project execution, how to deliver a project on time, on budget, considering sites and technologies. And now we will zoom in on each of them in order to explain better what we have in mind. And we will start with the customers. We talked about the demand growth, and something that is very clear, especially in a society like in the Nordics where the electricity mix has been decarbonized already, new supply must be linked to new demand. In addition, for this type of long-term CapEx-intensive investment, such as new nuclear, it requires income visibility because the electricity-only market currently fails to provide that.
Such visibility can be provided either with an agreement with the state, contract for difference, but also possible long-term agreements with the industry. Actually, both could also be combined. We will continue the dialogue that we started already during the feasibility study regarding the risk-sharing and the discussion with the customers. If we continue to the cost of capital, that can be also called interest rate. We know that the cost of capital is a key driver for the production cost, the cost for the customers eventually. As a rule of thumb, we like to say that if the interest rate goes from 3%-10%, the production cost will actually double. Something I also want to highlight when we talk, for example, about loans and state loans is that a loan has to be paid back. This is not free money.
It's important to understand that a competitive risk-sharing framework, like it's been discussed, for example, in Sweden and across Europe, will benefit directly the customers by reducing the production cost of a possible new asset. We will continue the dialogue on the financing mechanisms with the Swedish and Finnish states. Something we want also to explore further is the possibility to use investment funds to finance these projects. Not every country is able to provide state loans as such. That's also why we refer to state guarantees. We will explore, for example, with the European Investment Bank and also export banks from the country exporting, what could be the conditions for financing such a project. If we continue with co-investors, these projects are large. For financial reasons, but also in order to build competent and strong owners' organization, Fortum will need partners.
We believe that having a too fragmented ownership is adding challenges to leading a project like this, and instead, we recommend having a limited amount of strong owners in order to lead the project efficiently. We started the discussions already with some interested parties in the past, and we will continue now seeking for partners that could be interested in co-investing in nuclear in Finland and Sweden in the future. Something also very important, and we want to say it quite clearly, the nuclear industry has to be competitive. Recent projects have showed some challenges, but also a lot of lessons learned, and the recipe that we try to draw here is basically based on the lessons learned. We visited a lot of different sites where new build has been done. We discussed with many stakeholders in order to gather all these learnings.
The first one is that preparation is key. We recommend not to start the construction too early. In practice, it means that it's easier to change paper than concrete on site when the construction has started. Preparation . The second one, in order to avoid a new design type of risks, we recommend to select a proven technology. Also, in order to benefit from the series effect, to be able to repeat and be more competitive, we want to limit country-specific changes. Third one, very important, of course, verify thoroughly the contractor's capabilities.
And in addition to that, the fourth point, we estimate that building more than one reactor is also very beneficial economically because there are a lot of costs that are actually linked to the first reactor, such as the licensing, that don't have to come again for the next units, plus the learnings, of course. So again, repetitivity in this kind of project is key. Fifth point, to ensure that the supply chain exists, but also is mobilized in order to deliver the project. And finally, the fact that if I come back to the owners' organization, instead of starting from scratch, to try to rely as much as possible on existing competencies in order to make this project a success.
I touched upon the technologies a little bit, and here we want to give a clear message as well that we don't want to, we do not want to oppose large reactors and SMRs. We believe they all have a role to play, depending on the application and depending on the business case. So when it comes to grid electricity, because of their intrinsic economy of scale, we believe that large reactors have an advantage. SMRs per unit should be more costly, but this could be compensated maybe by installing a larger fleet. When it comes to on-site connections applications, meaning that the reactor needs to be closer to a factory or an industrial area, we believe that SMRs have a potential or an advantage because they have the potential for being located closer.
It's possible to do it with a large reactor, but of course, a remote location will have an impact on the business case. We talked about demand growth, we talked about electrification, and industrial heat needs to be decarbonized also. And even though this wasn't in the scope of the study, the Generation IV, which is basically the next technology of nuclear reactors, they will be better suited for electrifying these industrial heat cases because they can deliver temperature at 500 degrees and more when light water reactors that we know have been installed in the Nordics are limited in terms of temperature. Nevertheless, for example, for hydrogen production, using the steam of light water reactors can improve the hydrogen production. Something also that is being discussed a lot, especially in Finland, is the district heating, urban heat.
And it's a bit the same case as these on-site connections. If SMRs or heat-only boilers can be located closer to the municipalities, there is obviously an advantage. We also think that in order to improve the competitiveness of SMRs, using the waste heat for the district heating would make the business case more competitive. Large reactors can do it. They are actually doing it already in Switzerland, in the Czech Republic, but of course, because of their remote locations, again, the pipeline for heat would be longer. So again, I want to insist on this. They all have a role to play, and that's why we want to continue investigating all of them. And that leads us to the three technologies with which we want to deepen our collaboration. As already mentioned, we performed a comprehensive study from 11 designs to now three technologies.
Many criteria have been considered to make this selection, and I just want to highlight two of them, very important for us: the maturity of the design and also the competence of the technology provider. So the selection that you can see here is the first one, large reactor AP1000, designed by Westinghouse to be built together with Hyundai, that has been built in the U.S., in China, and there are several planning projects ongoing, for example, in Poland. The second one, EPR from EDF, that has been installed in Finland, actually, in China. Flamanville 3 has been connected to the grid in 2024, and projects are ongoing also, as mentioned previously, in the U.K.
The last one, an SMR with GE Hitachi, the BWRX-300, which is the most mature and closest to actual deployment of the SMRs technologies that we have assessed, which is built on experience from the boiling reactors. The first unit should start to be constructed in 2025 in Darlington, in Canada. Very important to mention also that even though now we decided to focus on these three technologies, we will continue to monitor the progress of the other technologies. What does deepening our collaboration mean in practice? We mentioned already that we want to limit the country-specific changes, and we want to copy past as much as possible to benefit from the learnings from the previous projects.
We want to continue pre-licensing, which took the regulator in Finland, but also SSM, the regulator in Sweden, in order to assess some design features and assess their licensability in order to secure and avoid design changes that can be very costly eventually. It is not only about nuclear requirements, it's also about non-nuclear requirements. One of the learnings that we have from the previous project is that there are requirements that can impact the construction that needs to be thoroughly assessed. To proceed with a nuclear project, you need a technology, but you also need a site. In Sweden, we have investigated some of them already, and we will continue screening for a potential new nuclear site. Our requirement for such a site is that it has to be flexible depending on the plant configuration, whether it be big reactors, but also the SMRs.
In Finland, recently, we made big progress collaborating with the municipality of Loviisa, agreeing on the possible purchase of 300 hectares just next to the existing Loviisa Nuclear Power Plant that could locate a new nuclear project. There would be, in this case, of course, a lot of synergies between the existing unit and the new units, but we also want to point out that this area could be used for other CO2-free kind of projects in the future, and as a conclusion, and based on everything that we just said, we believe that new nuclear can play a role in the future in the second half of the 2030s if the right conditions are met, and what we want to do next now, after identifying these conditions, is to develop these conditions.
Fortum will enter a new phase, the development phase, in order to develop new nuclear as a viable option to meet demand growth, but also potentially anticipate the replacement of our existing units.
Thank you, Laurent. Please stay on stage. We are now happy to take your questions. Would Petra and Markus please also join Laurent on stage? You can ask your questions in English, Finnish, and Swedish, and we will do all the necessary interpreting. For those of you in the room, please wait for the microphone so that the attendees online can also hear your questions. We'll start with questions in the room. Anni Lassila, Helsingin Sanomat, please. And please state your name and media when you start speaking.
Yes, I'm Anni Lassila from Helsingin Sanomat. Sweden's government has decided on lots of support for new nuclear, also financing by the state. Would you say that building a new nuclear reactor is closer in Sweden than it is in Finland? Or how could you, why haven't you sort of decided about it yet?
Yes, I can take that one, so indeed, what new nuclear needs is technology, visibility on cash flows, and visibility on financing, and the Swedish government has stated very clearly, the current government, that it will want to see new nuclear being developed, and the proposals that the various studies in Sweden have pointed to are exactly these kind of foundations, but these are not yet decisions, so we will see. This is part of our future development, so we will continue to develop, and of course, with interest, we will follow what is happening in Sweden, but it's still many steps away from being really robust conditions to make new investments happen.
Any more questions from the room?
Thank you. Is the microphone on? Yeah, yes. I'm Anne Kauranen from Reuters. Previously, you have stated that government backing was important for such projects, and I refer to nuclear here. Have you backed out from that position somehow? Now you made reference to state loans or state guarantees, but is your position no longer that you would require a state to be involved in the project? Thank you.
Thank you. So maybe Petra, do you want to take that then?
Yes, I could start. So basically, what we have said consistently is that all the projects that are new nuclear projects that are making progress in Europe, even more widely, globally right now, they all do have some sort of government risk-sharing, government backing, government guaranteeing. This is a fact that we have seen clearly in the feasibility study and also stated. So this is how new nuclear moves forward right now, right here and now. We have not changed any view on that one. Then, of course, I mean, we are a power company. We know our own roles, and the governments have their own role, of course, and their work to do and their analysis to do in how we go towards the growth vision, perhaps.
There we are very happy to provide our insights and be in a dialogue, but fully understanding that there are different conditions and different possibilities, of course, also in the different countries. We also want to be very clear that there are, of course, also other things that we are developing. As I said, doing all the time, we are signing power purchase agreements bilaterally with our customers. I really do think that what the customer wants and needs is of essential importance in this whole development. That is also a way, obviously, to have a more stable outlook for a potential investment even. Or maybe it will be a combination of these things. We clearly see that what is going forward right now has some sort of government backing, internationally speaking. Maybe Markus wants to add, but.
That was comprehensive.
In the front. Emma, here in the front.
Thank you. Anni Keski-Heikkilä, STT. What's the earliest? I have a question about the timeline. What's the earliest when you could be able to tell about an investment decision on nuclear?
Like I showed on the timeline, so the electricity demand in the Nordics and in Finland is expected to grow quite rapidly, and our thinking is that in the short term, in the next five to 10 years, the answer will be solar and wind and batteries and flexibility of different sorts, then maybe in the early 30s, if the pumped hydro feasibility studies are successful, then we could have large-scale, long-duration flexibility in the system, which enables even further penetration of wind and solar. From almost any point of time, if you would take a decision on new nuclear, it is around 10 years or more that it takes for new nuclear to be online. The conditions we discussed already earlier for new nuclear, so we need visibility on technology, on cash flows, and on the financing.
Like Petra and Laurent opened, the conditions are not quite there yet, even in Sweden. Even directionally, Sweden is going towards the direction, but in Finland less so, so now the needs can be satisfied with other means. But we think it's really important to have all tools in the toolbox, so the more alternatives we have, the better off we are for the future.
Do we have more questions in the room? Let's maybe then move to the callers on the webcast.
If you wish to ask a question, please dial pound key five on your telephone keypad to enter the queue. If you wish to withdraw your question, please dial pound key six on your telephone keypad. The next question comes from Anna Webb from UBS. Please go ahead.
Hi, good morning. Thank you for taking my question. I've got two actually. Firstly, how much balance sheet do you see available to deploy in new nuclear? And you talk about in the presentation the benefits of multiple reactors, which obviously would represent quite a significant investment if you're talking about conventional nuclear. So roughly what kind of ballpark are you thinking about there? And secondly, can you talk a bit more about how progressed the discussions are in Finland? Obviously, we have some more information about Sweden, but yeah, what your discussions have been with the Finnish government on new nuclear? Thank you.
Thank you. And maybe I take the balance sheet question and on the discussions in Finland, how they are going. So maybe Petra, Laurent, if you want to answer that. But it is correct that if the prerequisite for new nuclear is building a series of reactors, then the capital outlay would be big. And if we look at our CapEx guidance now for the next three years, we are talking about EUR 1.4 billion in CapEx in total. So it's clear that when our CapEx levels are like these, then our participation in building new nuclear would be in a consortium or a joint venture. So Fortum alone could not, with the cost levels that were, for example, the EPRs or AP1000, what the costs are, then this would not be something that Fortum would do alone.
And I'll emphasize also that if we would be considering to take investment decisions, there would have to be a very clear view on that there is firm customer demand backing that up. So we would not build new nuclear to the market without demand being there. And then to the Finnish discussion, where are we with that?
That question was about the Finnish discussions with Finnish governments regarding.
Overall the discussion in Finland, maybe vis-à-vis Sweden.
Vis-à-vis Sweden, yeah. We are, of course, actively discussing many matters related to nuclear with the ministries and with the government. But the question probably now with regards to the new nuclear, we are in active discussions. We are providing our views and many of the insights from this study, basically what the preconditions might be, and listening and having a very good dialogue. And then the discussion in Sweden, of course, is we are also very actively discussing with the Swedish government, and that is then at a slightly different stage, let's put it like that. So I would say very, very active good discussions. And I think the joint interest here in those discussions is about growth. And now if I talk about Finland especially, how can we promote growth of the Finnish economy that has not been growing for a very, very long time?
And I think there is a lot of openness actually in looking into possibilities to do that. And that's for me where the good discussions are right now. And then we fully recognize that we as a company, our job is to operate in the conditions that we have and do our very best and produce nuclear safely and make wise decisions as a company. And then the government has its own role in how it wants to pursue, let's say, a longer-term growth vision.
Let me then check if there are any further questions. None. So thank you all for your excellent questions. And we will now conclude the Q&A part for this morning and say thank you to everyone joining online.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.