Fact Check: Nepal’s Hydropower Dependence Exposes Major Climate and Disaster Risks

Claim

Nepal’s heavy dependence on hydropower has made its electricity system vulnerable to climate-related disasters, particularly floods and glacial events. The recent floods demonstrate the risks of relying too heavily on one energy source and building major hydropower projects in fragile Himalayan regions.

Verdict

Mostly True — but the broader conclusion needs context

Nepal’s dependence on hydropower is substantial, and the recent floods exposed serious risks to its electricity infrastructure. However, hydropower remains Nepal’s strongest domestic energy advantage. The evidence supports diversifying the energy mix and improving disaster resilience, rather than abandoning hydropower altogether.

What is the claim?

Nepal has invested heavily in hydropower to overcome chronic electricity shortages and develop an export-oriented energy sector. The country now generates almost all of its electricity from hydropower and earns significant revenue from electricity exports.

But many hydropower plants are located in high-altitude, mountainous areas exposed to floods, landslides, glacier-related events and rapidly changing weather patterns. The recent disaster has raised questions about whether Nepal’s energy strategy has placed too many resources and facilities in a single vulnerable sector.

What happened?

More than 1,300 people were reportedly killed in the recent floods, while thousands remained missing. The disaster severely damaged 12 hydropower plants in the Trishuli River basin and disrupted more than 10% of Nepal’s total electricity-generation capacity. Operators were still assessing whether the damaged facilities could return to service.

Despite the damage, the Nepal Electricity Authority said electricity supplies remained adequate. Its spokesman acknowledged that increasingly frequent climate-related disasters meant the country needed to reconsider aspects of its hydropower policy.

Nepal’s hydropower dependence

Nepal’s electricity sector has changed dramatically over the past two decades. In 2010, only about two-thirds of the population had access to electricity, and many connected households experienced power cuts lasting up to 16 hours a day.

Investment in hydropower, improvements in the electricity system, and energy imports from India helped Nepal achieve much more reliable electricity supplies by 2018. Today, the country has approximately 225 hydropower plants with more than 3,900 megawatts of installed capacity. Hundreds of additional projects are under construction or in the planning stage.

Almost 100% of Nepal’s electricity comes from hydropower, and the country earns nearly $200 million annually from electricity exports to India and Bangladesh.

Why are the risks increasing?

Many Nepalese hydropower projects are built high in the mountains, where fast-flowing rivers provide strong power-generation potential. However, many facilities have little or no water-storage capacity, leaving them exposed to sudden changes in river flows and extreme weather.

The Himalayan region is warming faster than the global average. Preliminary investigations into the recent flood pointed to a collapsed glacier and its bedrock as a possible cause, although scientists said it was too early to establish a definitive link to climate change.

Nepal’s Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority has previously reported that more than nine in ten disasters recorded between 2018 and 2024 were climate-related. This does not prove that every individual flood was caused by climate change, but it demonstrates the country’s growing exposure to climate-linked hazards.

The case for diversification

Experts argue that Nepal should expand solar and wind power to reduce the risks associated with depending almost entirely on hydropower.

Renewable-energy expert Kushal Gurung warned that Nepal should not put “all its eggs in one basket” and said the country needs to embrace alternatives such as solar and wind. Vivek Shastry of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy similarly argued that adding wind and solar could improve resilience by reducing the risk of single-point failures across the electricity system.

A report supported by the German aid agency suggested that Nepal’s technical potential for solar power could be around ten times greater than its hydropower potential.

However, other experts caution that diversification can only go so far. Nepal’s mountainous geography and abundant rivers still give hydropower a major competitive advantage over many other energy sources in the region.

Infrastructure and planning concerns

The disaster has also raised questions about the design and location of hydropower projects.

The Upper Trishuli-1 project, valued at approximately $647 million, was described as one of Nepal’s largest foreign-investment ventures and was reportedly almost destroyed in the floods. Other damaged projects included Upper Trishuli 3A, which received financing from China’s Export-Import Bank.

Critics argue that lenders and project developers were aware of the risks posed by floods, landslides and glacial events. The ADB and IFC said the project design had considered flooding and landslide risks through independent technical assessments. They also said the project’s early-warning system had been strengthened after earlier floods and that further risk assessments had been conducted.

The precise causes of the August 2026 disaster, the performance of the project design and the effectiveness of protective measures remain under investigation.

Previous disasters show a recurring pattern

The Trishuli River basin has experienced serious floods in recent years.

In September 2024, an unprecedented cloudburst triggered flash floods in parts of Rasuwa, Nuwakot and Dhading. In July 2025, a glacial lake in Tibet’s Gyirong county burst and sent floodwaters into Nepal, killing at least 11 people, damaging infrastructure and disrupting trade along the Nepal-China corridor.

These events suggest that the recent disaster was not an isolated risk. Hydropower developers and public authorities may need to account more carefully for repeated extreme events rather than relying only on historical climate and river data.

What should Nepal do?

The evidence points to several possible measures:

• Improve flood-resistant design standards for hydropower plants.
• Avoid locating critical facilities in the most exposed river corridors.
• Expand early-warning and emergency-evacuation systems.
• Increase investment in solar and wind power.
• Consider reservoir-based projects where they are economically and environmentally appropriate.
• Improve regional cooperation on glacier monitoring, flood forecasting and disaster response.
• Require lenders and developers to reassess projects after major climate-related events.

Reservoir-based hydropower could provide greater flexibility by storing water and releasing it when needed, but such projects also involve significant financial, social and environmental costs.

Conclusion

The floods do not prove that Nepal’s hydropower strategy is fundamentally misguided. Hydropower has helped the country end severe electricity shortages, expand access to electricity and develop an export industry.

But the disaster clearly demonstrates that Nepal’s current model carries major risks when large numbers of facilities are concentrated in vulnerable Himalayan locations. Climate change, glacier instability, flash floods and landslides make it increasingly important to combine hydropower with other renewable sources and stronger disaster-prevention systems.

Nepal’s challenge is therefore not simply to reduce hydropower dependence, but to make its energy system more diverse, geographically resilient and better prepared for extreme events.

Final Verdict

Mostly True — with important context. Nepal’s hydropower-heavy energy system is vulnerable to climate-related disasters, and the recent floods exposed serious weaknesses. Nevertheless, hydropower remains central to Nepal’s energy security and economic potential. The strongest response is diversification and improved resilience, not an abrupt abandonment of hydropower.