The recent news that NTPC is scouting 30 potential sites across India for a massive nuclear power expansion should be a wake-up call for every citizen. While the state-owned utility frames this as a bold stride toward a 100,000 MW nuclear capacity by 2047, a cold look at India’s nuclear saga over the last few decades suggests this ambition may be more illusory than achievable. More importantly, it carries implications that could fundamentally alter the safety, environment, and economic health of our communities.
For decades, nuclear power in India has been confined to just seven sites across five states. The proposed expansion means many more states will now be invited to host these "privileged" installations. However, this shift from a handful of sites to dozens brings the threat of uncontrolled nuclear radiation to the doorsteps of countless more communities. Beyond the invisible risks of radiation, the physical footprint of such an ambition is staggering. Achieving the 2047 target would require the diversion of many thousands of hectares of forest and agricultural land, not only for the reactors themselves but for the massive high-voltage transmission lines required to evacuate the power.
Perhaps most critical is the issue of water. India is already a water-scarce nation. Nuclear plants require enormous amounts of fresh water for cooling purposes. In a country where farmers and urban centers are already at odds over water rights, we must ask if we can really afford to divert billions of liters to maintain a thermal technology that is as thirsty as it is risky. We must also confront the "human overhead." Forced displacement and the denial of community access to natural resources—such as the loss of fishing rights seen near the Kudankulam reactors in Tamil Nadu—are wounds that can never be adequately compensated, even with the best of political willingness.
Furthermore, we are passing a toxic legacy to future generations. To date, there is no known technology of relevance to our country to permanently store spent nuclear waste. Currently, these materials must be stored safely for hundreds of years, and the practice in our country has been to keep them on-site on a long-term basis. This leaves communities living near these 30 new locations with the permanent potential risk of radiation.
As a Power and Climate Policy Analyst, I believe we must urgently examine whether nuclear power is truly essential to our country when keeping in view all the associated costs, such as long gestation periods, cost overruns, and the massive subsidies required. We must ask whether nuclear power can ever be proven less costly than solar and wind power technologies, especially when including modern energy storage systems. It is puzzling why our authorities refuse to come up with a diligent study to establish why India cannot meet the majority of its electricity needs through these more benign sources.
It is even more unfortunate that no robust discussions at the societal level can be seen on these issues, either in the media or among concerned civil society groups. Such silence or indifference can be construed by our authorities as tacit approval for this expansion plan. Our regulatory agencies, especially the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, have not covered themselves with glory as far as protecting our natural resources is concerned, making societal oversight even more critical.
Is this path truly in the overall interest of our people? It is high time that civil society groups consider these issues from a perspective of overall welfare and persuade our authorities to become rational and diligent. Before we commit to dozens of new installations, we must demand transparency and a rigorous comparison of nuclear power against the safer, cheaper alternatives available today.
---
*Power & Climate Policy Analyst based in Karnataka
Comments