Subscribe
In short, India’s nuclear history includes 1998, desert tests, strategic doctrine, and deterrence. It is very exciting to read. But this story leaves out a quieter but more important change: India is counting on nuclear energy not as a sign of power, but as a source of it—electric power, the kind that keeps factories running and cities lit at night
This isn’t so much about geopolitics as it is about a problem that happens every day: how to keep the lights on in a society where demand is rising and mistakes are costly. For over three decades, oil price spikes, and the current Middle East crises, every global energy shock has exposed the structural weakness in India’s economy and its dependence on fossil fuels.
India’s need for electricity doesn’t follow neat, predictable patterns. The demand goes up during heat waves, irrigation cycles, and industrial surges, and it rarely goes back down. The grid has to stretch, take in, and send power, often all at the same time.
This load has been on coal for a long time. It’s common, plentiful, and deeply rooted in the system. But it is getting more and more expensive, both in terms of money and in terms of social and environmental costs. Air pollution, traffic jams, and land disputes are no longer minor issues; they are major limits.
Renewable energy has changed the discussion, but not the basic problem. Solar power drops when the sun sets. Wind power is not always steady. Large-scale storage is still costly.
So, the system needs a steady source of power that does not depend on weather or time. Nuclear energy helps provide this stability, not as a replacement for renewables, but as support for them.
“Baseload” isn’t a popular word, but it is important. “Baseload” is the minimum, constant level of electricity demand that a power system needs to meet at all times in a day. They need things to be the same. Nuclear plants provide this stability. Once they are up and running, they can run for a long time and keep making the same amount of output. As more and more variable renewables join the system, it is more important than ever to be consistent.
It’s easy to see why: nuclear power is a big part of keeping India’s energy system stable, while solar and wind power are still growing.
Imports like oil shipments and gas contracts make India’s energy situation much worse. Nuclear energy doesn’t completely get rid of dependence, but it does make it less likely to happen.
Nuclear reactors don’t need much fuel, their supply chains are more reliable, and they can handle long-term contracts better. India’s growing reliance on its thorium program over time shows that it wants to use local resources for some of its energy needs, even if that change takes a long time. This isn’t being self-sufficient in the strictest sense. It reflects a more modest but more practical aim: reducing fragility.
People often mix up India’s nuclear identity with its weapons program. It’s also not always the reality. Nuclear weapons function as a deterrent, signalling risk to potential adversaries. By contrast, nuclear energy within the power grid represents continuity, a commitment to providing stable electricity to the population. One is designed for moments of crisis; the other operates in the course of everyday life.
The grid is a sign of continuity, which means a promise to the people who live there. One works when things go wrong, and the other works when things are normal.
India is now trying to make long-term changes instead of going for a big change all at once. Nuclear energy is being integrated into a broader energy system that includes coal, renewables, and emerging technologies. It is neither the dominant core nor a marginal addition, but part of a balanced mix.
India’s climate commitments are often framed in terms of targets and timelines. In practice, however, they translate into a more difficult question: how to reduce emissions without constraining economic growth.
Coal cannot serve as a long-term solution. At the same time, a system that relies only on intermittent sources cannot function without reliable backup. Nuclear energy occupies an unusual middle ground: it is low carbon but capital-intensive to build; it is reliable but politically contested.
Still, it addresses a specific challenge, it allows India to add substantial low-emission capacity without depending entirely on emerging storage technologies. In this sense, nuclear power is a pragmatic option, not a perfect one.
The media is not likely to pay as much attention to India’s nuclear build-up as it did to its weapons programme. It will be slower, more contested, and often more technical. But its effects will be more significant.
The question is not whether nuclear energy is perfect; it is not. The question is whether India can build an energy system that is more reliable, less polluting, and less vulnerable to external shocks. Nuclear power is part of that solution, despite its challenges, not as a spectacle, but as part of infrastructure; not as a symbol of destruction, but as a means of sustaining a large and complex system.
Anusreeta Dutta is a columnist and climate researcher with experience in political analysis, ESG research, and energy policy.
Amit Anand is an independent human rights law researcher with a PhD in Law from Lancaster University, UK.
Views expressed are the authors’ own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth