On this day 40 years ago, an explosion at reactor 4 at the Chornobyl nuclear power station released radioactive contamination across Europe, forcing entire communities to abandon their homes, and leaving a toxic legacy that endures to this day. The consequences did not end as the story faded from the headlines. Lives and livelihoods were lost, land remains uninhabitable, and the clean-up continues to carry enormous human and financial costs. This is not simply a commemoration of a past event, 40 years later, this is an ongoing nuclear emergency.
Today, the impacts continue to play out in an increasingly unstable world. Since the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, nuclear infrastructure has been exposed to the realities of modern warfare. Nuclear power stations have been attacked and occupied, and critical systems placed under immense pressure. As Greenpeace Ukraine Senior Campaigner, Polina Kolodiazhna said "Forty years after the start of the Chornobyl disaster, we are still living its consequences. The severe risks from nuclear power demonstrated by Chornobyl are being deliberately used by Russia as a weapon of war."
Nuclear power remains the biggest source of electricity in Ukraine. But the context has changed. In a world shaped by war, geopolitical tension and intensifying extreme weather, large centralised energy systems are exposed. When things go wrong, the consequences are systemic and enduring.
There is however, another side to the story, that shows what is already possible and points to a better future.
Across Ukraine, decentralised renewable energy is already performing well under pressure. Solar power and battery storage has kept hospitals, schools and communities functioning during blackouts caused by Russian attacks on electricity infrastructure. Renewable systems are harder to disable, quicker to repair, and continue generating even when parts of the grid are damaged.
In Horenka, near Kyiv, a damaged outpatient clinic was rebuilt, with Greenpeace Ukraine support, with a hybrid solar system and heat pump instead of gas. Its director, Olena Yuzvak, said that means patients can be tended to despite Russian attacks. "But we became far more than 'just' a green outpatient clinic," she said. "During energy shortages, people come to us for medical help but also to simply charge their phones or have a hot cup of tea. The Horenka Clinic is a lifeline."
This is what resilience looks like
Distributed renewable energy systems reduce vulnerability because they don't concentrate risk in a single point of failure. They can be deployed quickly, scaled flexibly and rapidly restored. That matters in a volatile environment.
By contrast, the risks of nuclear power remain, including at Chornobyl. A new analysis commissioned by Greenpeace Ukraine reveals that the primary functions of the New Safe Confinement (NSC), which contains the Sarcophagus and ruins of Chornobyl reactor unit 4, have been severely compromised as a consequence of last year's deliberate, Russian drone strike. The assessment concludes that its ability to perform its containment role has been compromised, raising concerns about the potential release of radioactive material.
Inside the damaged reactor and its original shelter lies a complex mix of radioactive dust, fuel remnants and debris. The NSC was designed to enable the safe dismantling of these materials while preventing contamination from escaping. With that function impaired, the risks become harder to manage, particularly amid war.
Greenpeace nuclear specialist Shaun Burnie has warned that the situation increases the danger of radioactive material being released if structural failure occurs, highlighting how conflict amplifies the long-term risks of nuclear disaster. This is one of the key lessons of Chornobyl and should serve as a warning. The consequences of a nuclear disaster are not confined to a single moment. They endure, evolve and can be exacerbated by new pressures, such as war or extreme weather.
The question of accountability
Russian forces continue to threaten nuclear facilities in Ukraine and systematically attack the Ukraine grid. This could lead – in a worst case scenario – to multiple emergency failures at Ukraine's nuclear reactors and the release of catastrophic levels of radioactivity, even beyond what we have seen at the Chornobyl disaster forty years ago. At the same time, the Russian state nuclear corporation, Rosatom, continues to play a key role in global energy markets by exporting technology and nuclear fuel. Reducing dependency on Rosatom is not just an energy issue, but one of international security.
Continuing to rely on nuclear systems tied to geopolitical risk, whether through fuel supply, technology or infrastructure, leaves countries exposed to political, economic and security pressures that go well beyond energy policy.
The lesson of Chornobyl is not only about what can go wrong, but about what it costs when it does, across borders, generations, and under conditions that are more volatile than ever.
The choice is not abstract. It is playing out now.
Governments can continue to invest in centralised systems that concentrate risk and deepen geopolitical dependence. Or they can accelerate the shift to decentralised renewable energy that is safer, more resilient and harder to weaponise.
