Nepal bet nearly everything on hydropower – the floods show why that’s a problem
Nepal generates almost all of its electricity from hydropower, an industry that has transformed the country's energy supply and earned it nearly $200m a year from exports to India and Bangladesh. However, devastating floods last Wednesday killed more than 1,300 people, left thousands missing, and severely damaged 12 hydropower plants in the Trishuli River basin, wiping out over 10% of the country's generating capacity and exposing how vulnerable its climate-dependent infrastructure has become.
Most of Nepal's 225 hydropower plants, with a combined capacity of over 3,900MW, are built high in the mountains to harness fast-flowing water, but this leaves them exposed as the Himalayas warm 50% faster than the global average; preliminary findings blame a collapsed glacier for the flooding. Officials, including Nepal Electricity Authority spokesman Rajan Dhakal and former Energy Minister Kulman Ghising, say the disaster demands a rethink involving flood-resilient design, early-warning systems and possibly reservoir-based plants, while energy expert Kushal Gurung argues Nepal must diversify into solar and wind rather than relying so heavily on hydropower.
- Floods killed 1,300+ and knocked out over 10% of Nepal's power capacity.
- Nepal's near-total reliance on mountain hydropower leaves it exposed to climate risks.
- Officials and experts urge diversification into solar, wind and flood-resilient design.
New here? Start with this
Nepal generates nearly all of its electricity from hydropower, a system that harnesses fast-flowing mountain rivers to produce energy both for domestic use and for lucrative exports to India and Bangladesh, worth close to $200m a year. The country has 225 hydropower plants with a combined capacity of over 3,900 megawatts, most of them built high in the Himalayas to make the most of the terrain's steep, fast-moving water.
That mountain location is also what makes the system fragile. The Himalayas are warming much faster than the global average, increasing the risk of glacial melt and sudden flooding, and last week's floods in the Trishuli River basin killed more than 1,300 people and badly damaged a significant share of the country's power infrastructure, wiping out over a tenth of its generating capacity.
The disaster has raised broader questions about whether Nepal's heavy reliance on a single, climate-sensitive energy source leaves it dangerously exposed. Officials at the state-run Nepal Electricity Authority and figures such as former energy minister Kulman Ghising are weighing changes like flood-resistant plant design and better early-warning systems, while some energy experts argue the country needs to diversify into other sources, such as solar and wind, rather than depending so heavily on hydropower alone.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates of staying the course argue that hydropower has been transformative for Nepal, turning its abundant rivers and steep terrain into a reliable source of clean electricity and nearly $200m a year in export earnings to India and Bangladesh. They contend that the sensible response to this disaster is not retreat but resilience: better flood defences, early-warning systems and a shift towards reservoir-based plants that can better withstand sudden surges. Abandoning or sharply scaling back an industry in which Nepal has a genuine comparative advantage, they argue, would squander decades of investment and expertise for an uncertain payoff elsewhere.
The case against
Those calling for diversification argue that the floods expose a structural vulnerability that no amount of engineering can fully eliminate, given that the Himalayas are warming 50% faster than the global average and glacial collapse is becoming more frequent. They contend that concentrating so much generating capacity in climate-exposed mountain infrastructure leaves the country dangerously dependent on a single, increasingly unpredictable resource, and that spreading investment into solar and wind would reduce the risk of catastrophic, simultaneous losses like the 10% of capacity wiped out in this event. For them, prudent energy planning means hedging against a warming climate rather than doubling down on the status quo.