India’s nuclear energy vision is a landmark step in the country’s effort to secure clean, reliable and affordable power while strengthening long-term energy security. The target of achieving 100 GW of nuclear capacity by 2047, covering both large reactors and small modular reactors (SMRs), signals a major scale-up of India’s nuclear programme.SHANTI Act (File)Several enabling steps have already been initiated. The SHANTI Act provides a framework for opening the sector to private and public-private participation. The Nuclear Energy Mission, with an allocation of ₹20,000 crore for research and development of SMRs, reflects the government’s intent to accelerate indigenous capability. Rules and regulations under the SHANTI Act are expected to be notified shortly. Site selection exercises are underway, while policy and regulatory studies are examining ways to reduce nuclear power tariffs. In parallel, advances are taking place in reactor safety, fuel management and waste management at both national and international levels. India’s bilateral and international cooperation is also supporting technology transfer and investment in the nuclear sector. These developments create a favourable foundation for moving towards the 100 GW goal.The major challenge, however, is public acceptance. Public concern is not unique to nuclear energy; several infrastructure projects face resistance over land, livelihoods, environment and local benefits. In the case of nuclear power, these concerns are more sensitive because of the lasting public memory of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Questions are often raised on health impacts, radioactive waste disposal, accident risk, water use affecting fisheries and agriculture, adequacy of emergency response measures and nuclear proliferation risks. Misinformation, vested interests and political mobilisation can further deepen public apprehension. If such concerns are not addressed early and credibly, projects may face delays, cost escalation or, in some cases, abandonment.The experience is not limited to India. Germany’s nuclear phase-out was shaped by decades of public opposition and political mobilisation. Japan’s restart of reactors after Fukushima has been slow because local confidence has taken time to rebuild. In India, Kudankulam faced intense protests after Fukushima; Jaitapur continues to face concerns over seismic safety, marine ecology and livelihoods; Mithi Virdi was shifted after opposition linked to fertile agricultural land and rehabilitation; and Haripur and Kovvada have faced delays around land, compensation and local acceptance. Recent developments underscore these constraints: Tata Power’s entry into nuclear energy has encountered resistance in Odisha, where land acquisition challenges have stalled progress despite site exploration in multiple states. These examples show that technical soundness alone is not sufficient. Nuclear projects also need a social licence to operate.A well-conceived public outreach strategy is therefore essential for achieving the 100 GW target by 2047. DAE, AERB and NPCIL already conduct public outreach programmes in areas around nuclear plants. However, the planned scale of expansion, along with proposed private-sector participation, requires these programmes to be widened and strengthened. Public outreach should not remain limited to project developers and government agencies. Reputed research institutions, academic organisations, medical professionals, retired nuclear experts, local doctors, science communicators and credible civil society organisations should also be involved. Their participation can help build public confidence and reduce the perception that nuclear communication is one-sided.Public outreach should begin alongside site selection. Early engagement would help authorities understand the concerns, expectations and basic needs of people in the project area and surrounding regions. It would also help develop a site-specific outreach strategy based on the local social, economic and livelihood context. Such an approach can reduce the risk of concerns becoming more complex over time, especially when influenced by misinformation or vested interests.Case studies of existing nuclear power plant sites should be prepared and placed in the public domain. Tarapur, Kudankulam and Kalpakkam can provide useful examples. These sites show how nuclear projects can contribute to employment generation, transport demand, local business opportunities and infrastructure development. Improvements in sanitation, education, healthcare, road connectivity and drinking-water facilities should be documented along with plant safety records. Such case studies should not be limited to written reports. People from proposed project areas, media representatives and policymakers should be taken to existing nuclear sites to see the socio-economic impact directly and interact with local communities, plant officials and independent experts.Radiation-related concern remains one of the most important issues affecting public confidence. This concern should be addressed through regular disclosure of radiation levels from nuclear power plants. The information should be placed in the public domain in a simple and understandable format. It should show how actual radiation levels compare with regulatory limits and international safety standards. To make this more relatable, radiation levels from nuclear plants should also be compared with natural background radiation that people are exposed to in daily life from soil, buildings, food, cosmic rays and medical procedures. Such data should be displayed at panchayat offices, district websites, plant-level dashboards and public information centres.Public hearings should also be treated as platforms for genuine engagement rather than procedural requirements. Findings of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment studies should be explained in the local language before and during hearings. Communities should be informed about expected environmental and livelihood impacts, inherent safety features, emergency response measures, compensation principles and grievance-redressal mechanisms. Interactions should also be held with policymakers, panchayats, community representatives, local media and other influential groups.The ESIA process should cover all affected groups, not just landowners. In coastal and rural regions, nuclear projects may affect tenant farmers, agricultural labourers, fishers, boat workers, fish vendors, transport workers, shopkeepers and informal service providers. A livelihood register should be prepared to identify expected impacts, compensation routes, skilling support and rehabilitation measures. This register should be verified by panchayats and community representatives before land acquisition begins.Emergency preparedness should be demonstrated visibly. Communities should know the meaning of sirens, evacuation routes, nearest healthcare facilities, emergency contact numbers and response protocols. Periodic mock drills involving schools, hospitals, panchayats and district authorities can help convert technical assurance into public confidence.India’s nuclear expansion will require reactors, finance, technology, regulation, manufacturing and skilled manpower. It will also require credible communication, visible safety data and fair local development. Public acceptance cannot be assumed after project approval. It has to be built from the site-selection stage through transparency, participation and trust. For India’s nuclear vision to succeed, public confidence must become as central to project planning as technology and finance.(The views expressed are personal)This article is authored by K Ramanathan, Distinguished Fellow Emeritus, Aniket Tiwari, research associate and Shubhangi Choudhary, intern, The Energy and Resources Institute.