Why India’s nuclear power plants should be shut down and why we need it

By Tariq MalikPublished May 07, 2019 10:01:49While India’s plans to build more nuclear plants have gone up in smoke, India’s own plan to reduce its nuclear footprint is moving forward.

On Monday, the government announced plans to shut down the plants that are part of India’s Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL), as the country seeks to reduce dependence on imported uranium.

India has about 15,000 nuclear reactors, but in order to reach its 2030 goal, it would have to reduce the number to under 3,000.

The country is currently building nuclear reactors for its fleet of four reactors, and plans to have about 12,000 reactors by 2026.

The shutdown of the nuclear plants would reduce India’s dependence on foreign uranium by about 40%, according to a government statement.

India is also working on developing nuclear power in China, which has its own ambitions to be a nuclear power superpower.

The country has been building nuclear power since the early 1990s, but after years of political turmoil, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who took office in May, has vowed to get rid of India.

His government has also made significant progress on its goal to build 100 nuclear reactors by 2022, and has been in negotiations with the US to build the second reactor, which is currently being built in Utah.

However, the US and Russia, both of which have nuclear ambitions, are still not in a position to help India reach its nuclear goal.

The US, which wants to build its own nuclear fleet, is currently in negotiations to build a second reactor at a cost of $8.5 billion, and the Russian government has announced plans for building a nuclear plant at the same site.

While India has a long history of nuclear power, it has not been built in a clean way.

The government’s plans were based on the assumption that uranium-fueled reactors were safer and more efficient than traditional fuel-based reactors, which are more energy intensive.

While India’s reactors are safer than traditional ones, they still have safety risks, including accidents and meltdowns, which can cause catastrophic fires.