The full-scale war has radically changed Ukraine’s energy landscape. Russian attacks have destroyed over half of the power plants. In this critical situation, the country is urgently searching for new solutions capable of quickly compensating for the lost capacities.
Despite active lobbying for the construction of nuclear energy blocks, Ukraine has a more effective alternative – the rapid expansion of renewable energy sources (RES) with storage systems.
Ukraine aims to integrate into the European Union, where one of the priorities is the European Green Deal, which aims to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. One of the main directions of this course is the decarbonization of the energy system, including the transition to energy that relies significantly on renewable energy sources.
For Ukraine, this is not only a requirement for future membership but also an opportunity to attract investments in its own energy sector and create new jobs. Green energy projects are already receiving funding from international partners, while nuclear power plants require decades for payback and depend on foreign nuclear fuel.
According to the Solar Energy Association of Ukraine, in 2024, about 800-850 MW of solar power plants are being built through businesses and households. In addition, state banks in Ukraine approved financing for the installation of 83 MW of rooftop solar power stations with energy storage systems last year, a record high for such projects in the country.
However, we must accelerate the installation of solar panels and increase ambition, as the national targets for the development of RES are currently not very optimistic. According to the National Energy and Climate Plan for the next five years, Ukraine plans to build only 4.8 GW of new solar power capacities, which is about the same or even less than some countries build in a year.
For instance, Poland built 4.6 GW of new solar energy capacities in 2023, Italy almost 5 GW, and Germany 14.1 GW in 2023 and almost 10 GW in the first half of 2024. Overall, Ukraine’s plans for the next five years are considerably smaller than the largest solar power plant (6 GW) planned to be built in Australia.
Nuclear power has traditionally been considered cheap, but that’s a myth. According to an investment bank’s calculations Lazard, solar power with batteries is already cheaper than electricity generation from new nuclear blocks.
However, in Ukraine, nuclear power appears cheap due to tariff regulation specifics. The state artificially maintains low prices for consumers, and the difference is compensated by state companies “Energoatom” and “Ukrhydroenergo” through the PSO mechanism (Special Obligations). This conceals the real cost of nuclear energy, which includes not only construction but also substantial operational, waste management, and safety costs; while artificial price regulation does not reflect the real economic efficiency of the project.
This means that the actual costs of electricity production and transportation remain higher than we are used to paying.
On a global scale, solar energy has already surpassed nuclear. The capacity of solar power plants exceeds 1,000 GW, which is five times more than the total capacity of nuclear energy (367 GW), according to the 2024 report on the state of the global nuclear industry.
One of the key arguments against renewable energy is its dependence on weather conditions. However, modern technologies significantly mitigate this risk factor:
The development of these technologies means that RES can function effectively without substantial interruptions in electricity supply.
Building nuclear blocks, let alone entire new stations, is extremely expensive and will take years. In the context of full-scale war and the energy crisis, Ukraine simply does not have the time and resources for such adventures.
For example, completing the third and fourth blocks of the Khmelnytsky Nuclear Power Plant will cost approximately 160 billion hryvnias. This sum is a preliminary estimate as the last technical and economic feasibility study was developed in 2018, and significant changes in economic conditions and exchange rates have occurred since then. Currently, the Kyiv Research Institute “Energoproject” is working on updating the feasibility study, the results of which are expected in a few months.
At the same time, environmental organizations in Ukraine have already issued a principle position demanding a complete halt to the project. A critical moment is the absence of proper environmental impact studies, which are required by law.
The international context also adds skepticism. The American case of the Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant in Georgia is almost a textbook example of failed infrastructure projects. The initial cost of $14 billion turned into $36.8 billion. The first reactor was only launched in 2023 instead of the planned 2013.
If we compare the forecasts from the Ministry of Energy – $5 billion per reactor for the completion of the fifth and sixth blocks of the Khmelnytsky NPP – with the American reality of $18 billion, it becomes evident: either Ukrainian estimates are overly optimistic or we are living in parallel realities.
A significant example is the Polish example. In cooperation with the American company Westinghouse, they plan three AP1000 reactors. The projected cost is $40 billion, with a commissioning deadline of 2040. Thus, even at the planning stage, they allocate $13.3 billion per reactor and a 15-year construction cycle.
For Ukraine, this only means one thing: even if construction starts immediately, the reactors will not help overcome the current energy crisis in the coming years.
In conditions of war and systemic transformation of the energy sector, such mega-projects appear anachronistic. The country needs fast, flexible solutions capable of ensuring energy resilience today. For example, large solar power stations are built in 6-12 months, and wind farms in 1.5-2 years.
In addition to the high costs and long construction times of energy blocks, there are several other key risks.
The open distribution site of a nuclear power plant is a complex of equipment that includes transformers, switches, disconnectors, etc. It is necessary for transmitting electricity from the station to the grid. However, due to its centralized structure and open territory, these facilities are easy targets for Russian shelling.
In contrast, decentralized generation allows for quicker responses to changes in electricity consumption and ensures supply stability. If one part of the grid is damaged, local energy sources can continue to operate and supply electricity to individual communities and, even entire regions. This will help avoid complete power outages and facilitate the restoration of energy supply.
Highly radioactive waste, which contains fission products and heavy radioactive elements (e.g., plutonium), can remain hazardous for tens of thousands of years. For example, plutonium-239 has a half-life of about 24,000 years.
At the beginning of the full-scale invasion, nuclear energy accounted for over 50% of electricity generation in the country. Therefore, it is not surprising that it still plays a central role in electricity supply.
This dependence has become the result of years of energy policy and infrastructural decisions. This approach quickly showed its shortcomings as the occupation of the Zaporizhzhia NPP caused us to lose about 20-25% of total electricity generation in Ukraine. This further emphasizes the vulnerability of centralized electricity generation.
On the other hand, renewable energy sources:
Modeling by specialists of “Ukrenergo” shows that RES — wind and solar generation with a total capacity of more than 8 GW (4.5 GW of wind and 3.8 GW of solar), up to 1.5 GW of biofuel power plants, and 1 GW of energy storage systems along with some auxiliary gas power plants can play a crucial role in ensuring stability in the coming years.
Our country urgently needs rapid recovery, especially considering the destruction of generating capacities — we cannot afford to waste limited resources on projects that can drag on for decades without yielding positive results.
Details read here: EcoAction