Nuclear energy is a story of more frisson than fission

Undeniably, nuclear power has virtues unmatched by rival technologies. Capacity factors typically exceed 80%, delivering electricity untroubled by monsoons or dust storms. The land footprint is modest compared with solar or wind installations, and life-cycle emissions rank among the lowest of any energy source. For planners who need to replace dependence on coal-fired plants with clean sources without sacrificing  grid stability, nuclear appears to be well-suited, at least in theory. 

India’s nuclear energy mission, detailed in  the Union budget for 2025-26, earmarks investments for large and small modular reactors, while opening doors for private and multilateral capital. Conglomerates like the Jindal, Adani, Tata and Reliance groups have promised resources and multilateral funders like the World Bank have reversed exclusions on nuclear investment. These moves mark a turning point.

Also Read: Going nuclear will be the only way to keep the lights on as AI guzzles ever more electricity

Reaching the 100GW target requires vast amounts of capital—$180 billion in public and private investment, or $5 billion per gigawatt constructed, according to estimates by the International Energy Agency. In addition, execution barriers are formidable. Nuclear plants often require a decade or more to commission and India’s past performance offers little reassurance. The prototype fast-breeder reactor project in Tamil Nadu’s Kalpakkam, for example, started in 2004, but is yet to be commissioned. 

The sector’s operating model in India preserves state control over the nuclear core and revenue, while expecting outside capital to absorb the risks of construction and infrastructure. Liability reforms are on the agenda, but haven’t been enacted, and insurance coverage is limited. It’s not surprising that global players have confined themselves to expressions of interest and technology transfer but not committed capital.

The challenge extends beyond the scale of investment to the layering of risk. Regulatory delays, social opposition, land conflicts and global uranium market dependencies undermine delivery timelines often by decades. Combined with higher financing costs for long project cycles, investors ask if capital might be better deployed elsewhere. 

Also Read: India should keep all its nuclear power options in play

India’s nuclear sector has struggled to convert strategy into delivery. Over the past 30 years, nuclear power’s share in electricity output has hovered below 2–2.5%. Plants have overrun initial cost and time projections, with some experiencing decades of delays. These represent not just lost momentum, but opportunity cost: think of the resources diverted from lower-risk decarbonization pathways.

Underlying these disappointments is structural rigidity. Regulatory approval, land acquisition and environmental clearance remain Byzantine and unpredictable. Tariff and revenue models offer little flexibility. Public engagement and risk communication is limited, allowing local resistance to derail projects after planners approve them. Much domestic capacity depends on imported uranium, creating economic and geopolitical vulnerabilities. Small modular reactors remain unproven at commercial scale, with cost projections varying widely.

On the other hand, India’s renewables sector has seen a transformation. Solar and wind now account for more than 80% of the annual capacity addition, with tariffs of solar-plus-storage projects approaching a record low of ₹3–3.5 per kWh. These often have build-times of under two years. Battery storage is no longer distant. The Central Electricity Authority projections target 47GW of grid-scale storage by 2032, which will enable renewables to supply near-baseload power.

Also Read: Sumant Sinha: Nuclear energy is a crucial piece in the puzzle of climate action

Pumped hydropower storage and thermal energy storage conversions of retiring coal plants add despatch flexibility to the grid. Advances in grid management such as smart meters to enable a demand response to dynamic pricing and transmission upgrades have started flattening load curves.

No single solution exists to decarbonize the power grid baseload. Instead, a portfolio of nuclear, renewables, storage and grid innovation can help us meet emission and reliability goals. This would retain nuclear as a pillar, but not make it our principal bet for carbon neutrality. Energy prudence dictates flexible planning by deploying renewables and storage where economics and delivery allow, while clearing regulatory and liability bottlenecks if nuclear is to become more than a marginal contributor.

Also Read: Does nuclear power have a role in our climate change strategy?

India must ensure that every rupee spent on capacity passes tests of system value, scalability, affordability and risk. This requires a focus on regulatory reform, project execution, indigenous manufacturing and innovation, apart from the humility to scale what works while rethinking what does not. Delivering a decarbonized and stable power grid will not come from faith in any single technology, but through adaptation that marries reliability with cost-efficiency. Ambition is laudable. But India must not repeat past mistakes.

The author is an independent expert based in New Delhi, Kolkata and Odisha. Twitter: @scurve Instagram: @soumya.scurve.