Nepal generates almost all of its electricity from hydropower facilities, producing enough surplus to export approximately $200 million worth annually to neighboring countries. However, a catastrophic flood event earlier in the week killed more than 1,300 people and caused significant damage to the nation’s power infrastructure, including 12 hydropower plants in the Trishuli River basin. The flooding resulted in the loss of more than 10% of Nepal’s total electricity generation capacity, with operators uncertain whether some damaged facilities can resume operations.
The disaster has intensified debate about Nepal’s energy strategy. The nation achieved remarkable progress in electrification, expanding from two-thirds population coverage with frequent blackouts to nearly universal 24-hour power availability by 2018 through hydropower expansion. Currently, 225 hydropower plants operate across the country with over 3,900 megawatts of installed capacity. However, high-altitude Himalayan regions are warming at roughly double the global average rate, exposing mountain-based hydropower installations to increased environmental hazards. Preliminary investigations attributed the recent flooding to a collapsed glacier, though scientists note it remains premature to establish definitive climate change connections.
Energy officials and experts are advocating for strategic diversification. Nepal’s electricity authority has indicated the need for policy reconsideration, suggesting reservoir-based plants could provide greater resilience through water storage capabilities, though such facilities would carry substantial environmental and economic costs. Some specialists recommend developing alternative renewable sources, noting that Nepal possesses solar energy potential approximately ten times greater than its hydropower capacity. However, other analysts caution that while diversification is beneficial, hydropower represents a unique competitive advantage for Nepal compared to regional neighbors.
The disaster has also raised questions about international financing oversight. Major hydropower projects received funding from institutions including the Asian Development Bank, the International Finance Corporation, and China’s Export-Import Bank. Advocates for river protection argue that lenders possessed awareness of disaster risks but did not implement adequate preventive measures. The financing institutions responded that project designs incorporated risk assessments based on available technical data, and that early warning systems were enhanced following previous flood events.
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
Article summary produced by Claude AI