THE CONTEXT: The clean‑energy debate in India has long revolved around a trilemma: maintaining energy security, fuelling economic growth and meeting climate commitments. India’s per‑capita electricity consumption was 1,208 kWh in 2022, versus China’s 4,600 kWh and the United States’ 12,500 kWh highlighting the developmental gap. Simultaneously, coal still generates three‑quarters of India’s electricity, constraining decarbonisation ambitions. By explicitly tying the 100‑GW nuclear objective to 2047 and juxtaposing it against the Net Zero 2070 pledge made at COP26, the Budget has reframed nuclear energy from a niche technology to a keystone of national strategy.
Two external developments strengthen this domestic push. First, the Dubai COP28 ‘Declaration to Triple Global Nuclear Capacity by 2050’ brought nuclear squarely back into the multilateral climate conversation. Second, the World Bank–International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) partnership (June 2025) broke the three‑decade taboo on multilateral financing for nuclear projects, potentially lowering capital‑cost barriers for developing economies.
HISTORICAL TRAJECTORY: PROMISE, SETBACK, RESILIENCE:
India’s nuclear journey began with Apsara (Asia’s first research reactor, 1956) and the Tarapore Light‑Water Reactors (1963). Refusal to sign the Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty (1968), the Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (1974) and associated technology‑denial regimes forced India to innovate. The country developed the Pressurised Heavy‑Water Reactor (PHWR) that uses natural uranium. Subsequent milestones include:
-
- Uprating to 540 MW (Tarapur 3‑4, 2005‑06) and 700 MW (Kakrapar 3‑4, 2024) illustrating localisation and scale‑up.
- The 2008 Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver which restored access to uranium and advanced designs, although the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act 2010 (CLNDA) deterred many foreign vendors.
India now operates 24 reactors (18 PHWR, two Boiling‑Water Reactors and four Russian VVER‑1000 units) with an average lifetime load factor of about 82 percent. The new 100‑GW target therefore signals both course correction and strategic leap.
WHY NUCLEAR ENERGY MATTERS:
-
- Raising per‑capita income from USD 2800 to USD 22000 by 2047 will require at least a five‑fold rise in annual electricity output. Renewables already account for almost half of installed capacity yet delivered only about 12 percent of generation in 2024. Grid stability therefore needs clean, firm and dispatchable
- Lifecycle studies place PHWR emissions at roughly 12 g CO₂‑eq per kWh, lower than solar photovoltaic plus battery storage (about 45 g). Nuclear also needs far less land – roughly one‑fifteenth of the area required by equivalent solar capacity.
- Uranium supplies are diversified across Kazakhstan, Canada, Russia and domestic deposits such as Jaduguda and Tummalapalle, reducing exposure to fossil‑fuel volatility while nurturing high‑tech manufacturing.
BUDGET 2025‑26 NUCLEAR ENERGY MISSION:
The Mission allocates ₹20 000 crore for four tasks:
1. Design and license up to 300‑MW(e) Bharat SMRs adapted from the 220‑MW PHWR platform.
2. Localise critical components under the Make in India initiative.
3. Fund innovation in advanced fuels such as high‑assay low‑enriched uranium.
4. Strengthen the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).
Planned amendments to the Atomic Energy Act 1962 and CLNDA 2010 would allow private equity and up to 49 percent foreign direct investment (FDI) in balance‑of‑plant assets while the Union retains sovereign control over the nuclear island.
TECHNOLOGY FOCUS: SMALL MODULAR REACTORS:
-
- SMRs, mostly 300 MW(e) or smaller, use factory fabrication, passive safety and shorter build times.
- Global designs include NuScale VOYGR (United States), Rolls‑Royce SMR (United Kingdom), GE‑Hitachi BWRX‑300 (Canada‑US) and Russia’s RITM‑200.
- India’s advantage lies in PHWR competence, existing heavy‑water infrastructure and a vast market for replacing captive coal plants in industries like steel and cement.
- SMRs could also support desalination, and green hydrogen.
GOVERNANCE AND REGULATION:
Legal Reforms:
-
- The Atomic Energy Act 1962 grants the Union a monopoly on nuclear power. Proposed revisions would create joint‑venture models in which non‑nuclear assets can be majority‑owned by Indian private firms.
- Moderating supplier liability under Section 17(b) of CLNDA 2010 is essential to attract global vendors while protecting victims.
Independent Oversight:
-
- The AERB was set up by executive order and lacks statutory independence.
- Reviving the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill 2011 would give it budgetary and appointment security, matching best practice in the United States and Canada.
Tariff Certainty:
-
- A recent Appellate Tribunal placed nuclear tariffs under the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission; Supreme Court confirmation is pending.
- Aligning nuclear tariffs with the levelised cost of energy method used for other sources will improve power‑purchase agreements.
FINANCING AND RISK ALLOCATION:
Nuclear capital costs are high – approximately USD 2 million per MW for a 700‑MW PHWR – but operating costs are low over a 60‑year life. Three tools can reduce risk:
-
- Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model, already used for Sizewell C in the United Kingdom.
- Blended finance through the new World Bank‑IAEA window combined with sovereign guarantees, which can push the weighted‑average cost of capital below seven percent.
- Green bonds once nuclear is classified as clean‑firm in India’s taxonomy, unlocking ESG‑oriented capital.
FUEL‑CYCLE SECURITY AND THORIUM:
-
- Domestic uranium now meets less than a quarter of demand, but new deposits and long‑term import contracts improve resilience.
- India follows a closed fuel cycle: reprocessing spent fuel and ultimately deploying the Advanced Heavy‑Water Reactor (AHWR) to exploit vast thorium reserves.
- Aligning the 100‑GW plan with fast‑breeder and AHWR timelines will secure fuel independence.
SOCIOPOLITICAL FACTORS:
Large reactors need coastal or riverine sites and often face protests, as at Kudankulam and Jaitapur. Three measures build trust:
1. Early, transparent engagement and regular emergency‑drill disclosure.
2. Community benefit sharing equal to one percent of project cost for local health, education and infrastructure.
3. A single‑window system that coordinates land, coastal and environmental approvals without diluting safeguards.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
-
- Nuclear power has the lowest lifecycle emissions among large‑scale sources once storage is included.
- An independent Radioactive Waste Management Agency and a deep geological repository targeted for 2032 will address long‑term waste. Passive‑safety systems such as gravity‑driven cooling minimise accident risk, but a strong safety culture and robust regulation remain essential.
SCENARIO PATHWAYS TO 100 GW:
-
- Base case: Complete the current pipeline (19 GW by 2035) and add one 700‑MW PHWR every 18 months to reach 40 GW by 2047.
- PHWR acceleration: Standardised construction with 36‑month timelines leads to 60 GW by 2047.
- Recommended integrated strategy: Combine 60 GW PHWR, 20 GW SMR and 20 GW imported Generation III+ reactors to reach 100 GW by 2047. Success depends on affordable finance, reformed liability law and efficient land acquisition.
REFORM AGENDA
-
- Reform: Amend the Atomic Energy Act, temper CLNDA Section 17(b) and establish an autonomous Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority.
- Finance: Classify nuclear as clean‑firm under the national green taxonomy and tap World Bank–IAEA blended finance to push borrowing costs below seven percent.
- Deploy: Standardise PHWR builds and pilot SMRs at retired coal sites to create a practical pathway to 100 GW while ensuring fuel security and public trust.
THE WAY FORWARD:
Phase 1 (0‑3 years):
-
- Pass amendments to the Atomic Energy Act and CLNDA; enact the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Law.
- Launch two SMR pilots on retired coal sites and secure land for the Mahi Banswara PHWR cluster.
- Include nuclear in India’s green taxonomy and finalise blended‑finance terms with the World Bank and IAEA.
Phase 2 (3‑8 years)
-
- Adopt assembly‑line PHWR construction with turnkey engineering, procurement and construction contracts.
- Expand domestic uranium production and begin a pilot enrichment plant for high‑assay low‑enriched uranium.
- Roll out a digital single‑window portal for all nuclear clearances.
Phase 3 (8‑20 years)
-
- Replace at least 50 GW of captive coal with SMR clusters that can also supply green hydrogen and desalination.
- Commission the AHWR and the deep geological repository and build expertise in fast‑breeder technology.
- Package Bharat‑SMR and PHWR technology for export under concessional credit lines.
THE CONCLUSION:
Reaching 100 GW of nuclear capacity by 2047 is ambitious but feasible. Success requires opening a decades‑old government monopoly, empowering an independent regulator, innovating in blended finance and maintaining unwavering public‑safety standards. Meeting these milestones will provide clean, reliable baseload power, cut carbon intensity, enhance strategic autonomy and create export‑ready industrial capabilities. The policy blueprint therefore aligns national energy strategy with the constitutional vision of economic and social justice.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. With growing energy needs should India keep on expanding its nuclear energy programme? Discuss the facts and fears associated with nuclear energy. 2016
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. India’s plan to build 100 GW of nuclear capacity by 2047 offers synergies and trade‑offs with its renewable‑energy goals. Critically analyse.
SOURCE:
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/redeeming-indias-nuclear-power-promise/article69842203.ece
Spread the Word