Quotes from article repeating my points but missing context. 2011 was 12th 5-year plan, post Fukushima + desire to indigenize nuclear stack, they revised down nuclear ambitions / timelines, but it's not indicator they're cancelling / downgrading nuclear rollout. As in 13th, 14th plan hasn't deviated from nuclear targets revised 15 years ago, i.e. generation goal has been consistent given reasonable adjustments 100GW by 2030, 200GW by 2035 vs 300 GW in timeline without Fukushima + indigenization. Nuclear contribution downgrade as % of energy mix wasn't because they plan to curtail / cut back nuclear GWs, it's because their projection for future energy demand has grown above prediction, so planned nuclear share is going to be smaller %, i.e. nuclear share falls even if GW targets consistent. It just so happens they lucked out that solar/wind matured rapidly to fill gap.

Current construction / execution issues involves in dealing with 1st wave of indigenous plants, again it's shrinking as % of grid/mix because denominator is higher than expected, which is independent of central gov desire to multiply nuclear build rate, which they can't reliably commit to until tech is mature. So the best we can say is they're a few years off their planned nuclear GWs and if tech matures, they can go forth and multiply. Of course if alternative LCOE makes nuclear not economical that could change, i.e. if storage blows up. But there's no actual policy hints that nuclear is being revised down, as in not in the last 15 years, which even then is mostly target being pushed a decade due to factors listed. Now they're on trend and the delays are single digit year execution related, not 10+ year we have to rebuild the tech stack delays.