India has come a long way in its energy journey since its independence. According to the Central Electricity Authority (CEA), total power generation capacity (utilities and non-utilities) surged from 1,362 MW (1.36 GW) in 1947 to 521.31 GW by March 2024. Per capita electricity consumption rose from 16.3 kWh in 1947 to 1,395 kWh in 2024. Transmission infrastructure expanded from 23,238 circuit kilometers (ckm) to 14,895,025 ckm during the same period.
Yet, post-independence India faced an energy crisis: impoverished, energy-dependent, and reliant on global resources. It was Dr. Homi Jehangir Bhabha, the architect of India’s nuclear program, who envisioned a self-reliant future. He championed nuclear energy as a cost-effective alternative to coal in regions devoid of hydroelectric potential or distant from coal reserves.
However, a critical hurdle emerged: India possessed just 2% of global uranium reserves, essential for conventional nuclear reactors. Undeterred, Bhabha pivoted to thorium, a mineral abundant in India’s coastal sands, holding 25% of the world’s reserves. With no existing blueprint for thorium-based energy, he devised a three-stage nuclear program to harness it. Tragically, Bhabha’s sudden death in a 1966 plane crash in Switzerland stalled momentum. Today, nuclear energy generates just 3% of India’s electricity, far from his vision.
While bureaucratic delays, funding gaps, and public skepticism over safety have hindered progress, a deeper issue persists: misconceptions about nuclear energy. This article addresses the most pervasive myths surrounding nuclear power and why it is essential for India’s future.
Nuclear is Not Safe
One of the biggest misconceptions is safety. To dismantle these myths, consider the statistical reality of energy safety, as highlighted by researchers Hannah Ritchie and Pablo Rosado in their analysis of nuclear energy. Using their framework of a hypothetical European town of 150,000 people (“Euroville”) consuming 1 terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity annually (Ritchie & Rosado, Our World in Data):
- Coal would cause 25 premature deaths/year (air pollution).
- Oil: 18 deaths/year; Gas: 3 deaths/year; Hydropower: 1 death/year.
- Wind: 0.04 deaths/year (1 death every 25 years).
- Nuclear: 0.03 deaths/year (1 death every 33 years).
- Solar: 0.02 deaths/year (1 death every 50 years).
Source: Death rates per unit of electricity production. Data from Markandya & Wilkinson (2007), Sovacool et al. (2016), and UNSCEAR (2008; 2018). Licensed under CC BY via Our World in Data.
Nuclear energy’s safety record rivals renewables, yet fear persists. Critics often ignore its role in providing stable, low-carbon baseload power—a necessity for phasing out coal in India’s fossil-fuel-dominated grid. Meanwhile, thorium-based reactors, once realized, could offer safer, waste-efficient energy with minimal proliferation risks.
Ashok Ojha, a respondent to this article’s crowdsourced analysis, argues:
“The current and medium-term geopolitical environment leaves very little option for India but to scale up its nuclear energy portfolio from 3% to at least 20%. The mix we should be looking for is nuclear, hydro, and hydrogen contributing at least 50% at consumption level… Strategic placement of large reactors in low-population zones like Rajasthan or Telangana, alongside small modular reactors (SMRs), could address land and political challenges—provided water sourcing issues are resolved.”
Nuclear Waste Is Unsolvable
Concerns about nuclear waste often exaggerate its volume and danger. According to Orano, 96% of spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed into reusable fuel, leaving only 4% as high-level waste. This residual waste is vitrified, or encased in stable glass matrices, and stored in engineered facilities like France’s CIGEO project, a deep geological repository designed to isolate waste securely for over 100,000 years.
The actual volume of nuclear waste is also strikingly small. Nuclear engineer Nick Touran calculates that if all U.S. electricity came from nuclear power, each person would generate just 2.6 kilograms of waste in their lifetime—less than the weight of a soda can.
One anonymous contributor to this article’s crowdsourced analysis argued, the debate often overlooks a critical double standard: society readily accepts storing other toxic byproducts, such as heavy metals from solar panels or rare-earth mining waste in facilities like Germany’s Herfa-Neurode mine or Zielitz potash mines, despite their indefinite hazards. Yet nuclear waste, which diminishes in radioactivity over time and is rigorously contained, faces disproportionate scrutiny.
Nuclear Power Plants Enable Weapons Proliferation
Uranium enrichment is a process that increases the concentration of U-235, a key component of nuclear fuel. It is used to produce low-enriched uranium (LEU) for power generation and highly enriched uranium (HEU) for nuclear weapons. Though both use the same technology, natural uranium has only 0.7% U-235, requiring a huge number of centrifuges to make weapons-grade material. While LEU is sufficient for reactors, producing HEU requires large-scale industrial operations that are closely monitored internationally. (Arms Control Center, 2021).
Global frameworks like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) ensure dual-use technologies remain peaceful.
Nuclear Energy Is Too Expensive
According to Lazard’s 2020 Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) analysis, nuclear power plants (2,200 MWe) have capital costs of $7,675–12,500/kW, resulting in an LCOE of $129–198/MWh. This makes nuclear competitive with coal ($60–143/MWh) and gas ($65–159/MWh) but more expensive than renewables, excluding system costs. While nuclear fuel costs are minimal (5–10% of total expenses), capital outlays are significantly higher than fossil fuels. However, nuclear’s system costs, including grid stability, backup power, and storage, are far lower than those of intermittent renewables, which require expensive infrastructure to manage variability. To be noted, decommissioning and waste management costs (1 to 15% of initial capital) are pre-funded and included in LCOE calculations, ensuring full lifecycle accountability.
The World Nuclear Association (2023) notes, nuclear remains cheaper than coal and gas in markets without subsidized fossil fuels.
While numerous misconceptions about nuclear energy persist, this article has addressed the most pervasive: safety myths, waste management fears, proliferation risks, and cost concerns. The evidence is clear—nuclear power ranks among the safest and cleanest energy sources, its waste is manageable through modern solutions, and its costs are competitive when accounting for grid stability and long-term benefits.
India’s energy landscape stands at a critical juncture. With electricity demand soaring, net-zero targets looming, and grid reliability paramount, nuclear energy offers a proven, scalable pathway to reduce fossil fuel dependence.
Author: Shivani Singh, Power Peak Digest.
The featured photograph is for representation only.