Nuclear power "only" accounts for 29% of total production. Wind and especially offshore wind has huge potential to expand, but the government has taken an obstructionist stance towards that mode of power production. It doesn't make sense cutting wind subsidies amounting to a few billion while guaranteeing 400 billion to nuclear investments.

There has already been challenges in balancing out the extreme fluctuations from wind with the current amount (leading to the need to start gas turbines which were meant for emergency power multiple times over the last few years, and even oil plants), and expanding it would only make this worse, as there would not be enough easily balancing power sources close by (hydro can be used to balance to some extent, but are hundreds to thousands of km away, with limited capacity in the extremely long power lines, meaning that it can't account for all of that).

Not quite true as the power meant for emergencies has not been activated. Oil power plants has been in use because oil prices have been low while electricity prices have been high. That the price of electricity fluctuates is a feature of the system not a drawback because it shapes consumer demand according to availability.

The balance is built into the system. When elecricity prices are low wind power just disconnects generation capacity, while nuclear has to sell electricity for negative prices.

Firstly, the fluctuations happen on a timescale (hours, not days) where price fluctuations don't really have a chance to influence behavior via the market (which is mostly dealt with the day before). In particular heavy industries which are the bulk consumers, can't typically change their production plans on the hour, while on the other hand a wind front might arrive one hour late or early, causing a huge deviation in the production plan, that must immediately be balanced.

And this leads to the second point: There needs to be enough of available balancing power to be able to handle even the worst such deviation to keep the balance, as otherwise a breakdown of the whole system can happen, which would take days to restore from (yea, you can do emergency operations like closing down industries or apartment areas to keep the system from breaking down, but that in itself can have huge economic consequences if nothing else).

Why wouldn't price fluctuations influence consumer behavior? Electricity is purchased in bulk in Nord Pool whose prices fluctuate by the hour. Consumers, who account for 58% of production, certainly regulate their consumption based on prices. Even industries do and there have been several high-profile examples of paper mills reducing their production due to high electricity costs. Wind availability and temperature is what determines electricity prices, neither of which is particularly hard to predict.

Regarding your second point, this is handled via imports and exports and standby capacity. The Nordic power grid is getting denser which reduces the chances of catastrophic failure. While the Swedish right-wing press has predicted brownouts and "electricity ransoning" ever since the right-wing party made more nuclear part of their election platform back in 2020 (what a coincidence...), those dire predictions has not come true.

I think society will have to adapt to wildly swinging rates. Earlier in history, per minute metering was just not possible, but today it is. It's time we make use of that.