Myth #1: Nuclear power is a clean source of energy.
Reality: Nuclear power processing creates toxic and radioactive waste. 
Although nuclear power has been marketed as a clean source of energy, in reality it generates a substantial amount of dangerous waste(1); indeed, the by-products of nuclear energy processing are highly toxic and radioactive, and can prove harmful to both humans and the environment. In terms of assessing the potential impact of such waste, it is necessary to make a distinction between liquid and solid waste: while the former can be treated in order to make it safe enough to release into the environment, the latter remains radioactive even after undergoing several steps of intensive treatment.(2) More specifically, nuclear isotopes continue to emanate from solid waste for decades after it had been produced, and so the disposal of such waste becomes a serious issue. The storage of solid waste is both a technically demanding as well as a costly process, and it does not altogether guarantee the protection of human or ecological health and safety.

Thus, the claim that nuclear power is a clean source of energy is misleading because it fails to account for the damage and expense associated with nuclear waste.

Myth #2: Nuclear power is a safe and reliable source of energy.
Reality: Nuclear disasters are not uncommon, and the consequences of such incidents are severe.
Nuclear energy has a long and dirty record of disasters, and these accidents have serious repercussions for surrounding communities as well as the world at large. Most notably, nuclear power poses serious risks to human health; populations affected by radiation experience higher rates of cancer, birth defects, and various other illnesses. Equally shocking is the fact that the unforgiving nature of nuclear technology means that “accidents anywhere are accidents everywhere.”(3) For instance, evidence collected by the World Health Organization indicates the far-reaching extent of nuclear accidents: for some time after the Chernobyl meltdown, radiation levels in Scotland (a distance of 2300km from Ukraine) were 10,000 higher than normal. Please consult our timeline of nuclear disasters for a more comprehensive list of human and ecological tragedies associated with nuclear power.

Reality: Research on nuclear power can lead to dangerous situations.
On the one hand, an increased emphasis on the development of nuclear energy sets the foundation for a transition to the production and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Conversely, nuclear reactors can become targets for terrorist attacks, effectively making them potential “dirty bombs in our own backyard.” Turning first to the issue of weapons proliferation, it should be noted that the technology used for generating nuclear energy (particularly with respect to enriching raw uranium) can be applied to the production of nuclear weapons. Certainly, the International Atomic Energy Agency monitors nuclear facilities around the world with a view towards preventing nuclear proliferation, but with existing safeguards it is virtually impossible to detect all diversions of nuclear material. Regarding the threat of terrorist attacks, nuclear reactors are relatively vulnerable targets because they tend to have limited security capacities, particularly in terms of preventing a large-scale attack. In this way, nuclear facilities represent a serious liability: for instance, reports submitted by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in the US House of Representatives suggest that an accident at (or an attack on) an American nuclear plant could kill more people than were killed by the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Accordingly, taking the aforementioned points into consideration, the question of expanding nuclear power should be broached with caution.

Myth #3: Nuclear power guarantees energy security for India.
Reality: Nuclear power is expensive, and the costs associated with nuclear power plants are regularly underestimated.
Nuclear power is generated by means of very capital-intensive process, and the high costs of developing, operating, and maintaining the required equipment make this form of energy prohibitively expensive. Furthermore, the cost of installing adequate safeguards to nuclear facilities as well as the expenses associated with waste treatment must be taken into account.(8) For instance, the capital cost of the reactors set for installation in Jaitapur is estimated at Rs 20 crore per Mw, compared to the estimated capital cost of Rs 15 crore per Mw for solar power and Rs 7 crore per Mw for wind power.(9) Certainly, it is undisputable that the technology and equipment needed to produce nuclear power comes at a very high cost. It is interesting to note, however, that these expenses are typically not financed only by nuclear corporations: indeed, consumers and tax-payers around the world have had to bear the brunt of the cost of nuclear power. For example, the American government has offered considerable subsidies and other incentives to nuclear companies in order to foster the expansion of the nuclear power industry.(10) These measures of support come at the expense of tax-payers, who have been made to bear the heavy economic burden of measures such as production subsidies, tax breaks, and loan guarantees for nuclear utilities.(11)

Finally, with regard to assessing the economics of nuclear power, it is important to acknowledge that nuclear corporations frequently underestimate the cost of constructing and operating reactors. India’s recent history is a testament to the high costs of nuclear energy: completion costs of the most recent 10 reactors were an average of 300% over budget.(12)

In light of the high cost of generating and subsidizing nuclear power it is not an economically wise or sustainable solution to meeting India’s increasing demands for energy.

Reality: Nuclear power does not meet the needs of India's decentralised system.
Despite the fact that there is a strong push for the development of nuclear facilities in India, the fact remains that nuclear power is not a practical response to the country’s energy consumption needs. Nuclear power is designed to supply a large grid for its base load, and this does not correspond to India’s current demographic profile: at present, the vast majority of the population (nearly 70 per cent) lives in over 60,000 villages.(13) It is the rural poor who most commonly lack access to electricity, yet nuclear energy will not serve the needs of these people due to the decentralised nature of village distribution. Thus, nuclear power will not have a significant impact in terms of meeting India’s peak load requirements, and for this reason cannot be perceived as a guarantee for energy security.

Myth #4: Nuclear power will provide a solution to the emerging climate change crisis.
Reality: Nuclear energy is not emissions-free.
The erroneous claim that nuclear power is a clean source of energy has been already been disproved, owing to the fact that nuclear reactors produce toxic and radioactive waste. Along these lines, it is important to critically assess the assertion that nuclear power is an environmentally-friendly energy alternative. Indeed, the process of uranium mining which is essential to the production of nuclear energy has particularly devastating effects on the environment and releases substantial levels of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.(14)

Reality: Nuclear reactors take too long to become functional, and therefore are unable to address the urgency of the climate change crisis.
Whereas the problem of climate change requires immediate action, the development and construction of nuclear reactors is a drawn out process. In fact, the World Energy Council suggests that the average amount of time required for the construction of a nuclear reactor has increased from 66 months in the mid-1970s to 116 months for completions between 1995 and 2000.(15) Moreover, a study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates that a minimum of 1,000 reactors worldwide must be functional in order for nuclear power to have a significant effect on climate change.(16) Given that there are presently no more than 400 or so functioning nuclear reactors, and considering the fact that there are only 22 reactors under active construction, the target set by MIT seems highly unrealistic.(17)