In autumn 2024, Russia launched massive aerial assaults on Ukraine, striking its energy infrastructure and triggering fears about the safety of nuclear power plants. Several reactors were disconnected from the grid and one shut down entirely.
“It wasn’t that we were scared,” says Shaun Burnie, a Greenpeace veteran nuclear specialist who has worked in some of the most radioactive places on earth. “It was that we were terrified.” His concern was that a prolonged loss of external power could disable cooling systems. Nuclear plants rely on continuous external electricity to run systems that cool the reactor core and spent fuel; if the grid fails, they switch to diesel generators, and if reconnection is impossible cooling can fail and reactors can overheat.
Ukraine knows the stakes. On 26 April 1986, a reactor at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded, forcing mass evacuations and contaminating large areas of Europe. “Chernobyl is part of our collective memory. Everyone has family or community stories about it,” says Lena Kondratiuk, 25, from Rivne. “And now, during the war, this meaning has become even more real.”
A system under pressure
Though nuclear still supplies more than half of Ukraine’s electricity and the country plans more reactors, the worst-case nuclear scenarios have been averted so far. The threat persists as Russia continues to target energy infrastructure: more than half of Ukraine’s power generation capacity has been damaged or destroyed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called the situation “the world’s biggest threat to nuclear safety.”
Because large, centralized plants — whether nuclear, coal or gas — concentrate huge power output in single sites, they are attractive and vulnerable targets. That makes decentralization appealing: a more dispersed grid is harder to disable in a single strike. Renewables fit this model — they are harder to target, cheaper and faster to repair or replace, and quicker to deploy.
Chris Aylett, an energy specialist at Chatham House, notes that a single missile might destroy a 250-megawatt coal plant, while it would take many more strikes to eliminate the same capacity in wind. Solar parks also show resilience: damaged panels can often be swapped out rather than require rebuilding entire plants.
These advantages are pushing Ukrainian energy companies, NGOs and communities toward renewables. Rooftop solar has been installed on hospitals, schools and public buildings. In 2025, Ukraine added enough solar capacity to power over a million homes despite ongoing attacks.
Keeping the lights on with renewables
Kondratiuk is part of that push. She joined the NGO Ecoclub as a volunteer at 18 and became a renewables analyst in 2020. After Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ecoclub shifted from advocacy to direct action, launching the Solar Aid for Ukraine campaign as power outages became routine.
At 21 she began managing projects. “I agreed to it because of the war, because I understand that, for example, I can die tomorrow,” she says. Her work takes her across the country, including to Mykolaiv, about 60 kilometers from the front line. On her first visit the city was being shelled and running on diesel generators. Now she travels there regularly, bringing solar and battery systems to communities under strain.
For many Ukrainians these systems are more than green energy; they are lifelines. Kondratiuk has helped bring nearly 90 solar installations online. Hybrid solar and battery setups keep water utilities running during blackouts, enable hospitals to continue operating, and allow children to charge phones so they can stay in contact with family. In one example, solar panels at a care home for women with mental health and neurological conditions eliminated the need for staff to wake at 4:00 a.m. to prepare meals before power cuts; access to electricity meant patients could have hot food.
Lessons learned from Ukraine
The priority for Ukraine is keeping power flowing. Nuclear energy has been essential, and without it Ukraine would be in a worse position given the destruction of much fossil-fuel capacity. But the conflict has highlighted the value of spreading infrastructure geographically, diversifying generation with renewables and storage, and stockpiling standardized components so repairs take weeks rather than months.
Aylett says Ukraine’s experience has taught Europe about what is vulnerable and what it takes to rebuild quickly under attack. The war, along with other geopolitical tensions that have affected fuel supplies, strengthens the case for rapid decarbonization and scaling up renewables in fossil-fuel-poor regions, alongside efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
On nuclear’s future, Aylett is pragmatic: in countries where it is already a major source of low-carbon power, such as France, there is little reason to abandon it. The goal is to expand low-carbon capacity while making it as secure as possible.
Kondratiuk, born long after Chernobyl, hopes to continue her work after the war. “I still want to help my country, still want to continue my work at the Ecoclub,” she says. “Even after the war and after our victory, there would be even more work compared to now because we have to rebuild the country and rebuild it in a greener and better way.”
Edited by: Tamsin Walker
This story was adapted from an episode of DW’s Living Planet podcast.