Chernobyl is not just the memory of an explosion on a night in 1986, but the echo of a mistake that still shapes energy policy and nuclear safety in EuropeFour decades later, the former Soviet power plant continues to be a place of work, surveillance, and controversy, while its ruins remain scarred by radiation and a war that has returned the facility to the center of the geopolitical map.
Although it has not generated electricity for years, the power plant remains active behind the scenes: tasks include containment, dismantling, fuel control, and radiological monitoring They coexist with controlled tourism and the memory of those who were evacuated, never to return. The anniversary has reopened the debate about the risks of nuclear energy on a continent seeking to decarbonize without repeating past mistakes.
The night that changed Europe: what really happened in Chernobyl
The dawn of April 26th 1986During a safety test at reactor number 4, the Chernobyl nuclear plant entered a chain of errors that led to the worst civilian nuclear disaster to date. Operators were simulating a power outage to verify whether the auxiliary systems could maintain cooling until the emergency generators started.
In practice, that maneuver was executed in an explosive context: design flaws in the RBMK reactor, deactivation of protection systems, operation outside permitted limits, and a work culture where compliance with orders took precedence over safety.By the time Aleksander Akimov, the shift supervisor of block 4, ordered the AZ-5 button to be pressed to shut down the reactor, the situation had already spiraled out of control.
In a matter of seconds, it happened two violent explosions which blew off the reactor's containment structure and released highly radioactive materials into the atmosphere. The graphite core burned for days, fueling a plume of smoke and gas that reached nearly a kilometer in height and spread over Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and much of Europe. Various estimates indicate that the radiation released was hundreds of times greater than that of the Hiroshima bomb.
Those who lived in the neighboring city of Pripyat heard hardly anything that night. Many children went to school as normal the next day, with the radioactive cloud already over their heads.No iodine tablets were distributed, nor were the risks explained. Translator Olga Tarnovska recalls how her parents tried unsuccessfully to get her out of the city on their own, until the official evacuation was ordered on Sunday, almost 36 hours after the accident.
The Soviet Union initially tried to downplay the magnitude of the disaster, delaying key decisions and hiding information from both its citizens and the outside world. Paradoxically, it was engineers from a Swedish nuclear power plant who first detected anomalous levels of radioactivity in Western Europe.They ruled out that the explosions originated from their own facilities and pointed east, forcing Moscow to acknowledge what had happened.
Evacuation, liquidators, and a human wound still open
Following the explosion, Soviet authorities organized a mass evacuation: More than 100.000 people were evacuated from the area, including the approximately 50.000 residents of Pripyat.They boarded the buses thinking they were only going away for a few days. Many never returned home. A 30-kilometer exclusion zone was established around the plant, which remains partially closed even today.
To contain the disaster, hundreds of thousands of people known as liquidatorsFirefighters, military personnel, miners, chemists, healthcare workers and all kinds of workers who were in charge of putting out the fire, removing highly contaminated debris, building the first concrete sarcophagus and limiting the radioactive dispersion as much as they could.
The health consequences were devastating. Dozens of workers and firefighters died in the following weeks from acute radiation syndromeAnd, in the long term, research has detected significant increases in thyroid cancer and other health problems in the most affected areas, especially among those who were children at the time.
The Belarusian writer and Nobel Prize laureate in Literature Svetlana Alexyevich She dedicated a decade to gathering the voices of everyone involved: survivors, family members, scientists, soldiers, and authorities. Her book, "Chernobyl Prayer," has become a seminal work for understanding not only the technical aspects but also the personal impact of the accident. She herself has recounted how she fell ill after sharing meals and living quarters with those who had been exposed to high doses of radiation.
Among the most harrowing testimonies are those of the partners of the firefighters who went to extinguish the fire at the power plant believing it was a conventional fire. Stories of hospitals hermetically sealed by the KGB, of bodies covered in invisible burns, and of families barely allowed to say goodbye. They have been fixed not only in books, but in multiple audiovisual productions that continue to feed the collective memory.
From the sarcophagus to the "Ark": a steel giant under fire of war
To try to seal the destroyed reactor quickly, the USSR built a first concrete sarcophagusIt was conceived as an emergency solution. Over the years, it became clear that the structure had cracks, leaks, and increasing deterioration, forcing the international community to finance a more lasting solution.
The installation of the New Safe Lockdown (NSC), a gigantic arch-shaped metal structure, also known as "The Ark." Designed to last for about a century, its purpose is to encapsulate the old sarcophagus, allow for the controlled dismantling of the reactor, and prevent radioactive dust from being released into the environment.
This project, one of the world's most complex nuclear engineering feats, has not remained untouched by the current war. Russian troops occupied Chernobyl at the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, once again placing the facility at the center of the strategic chessboard. During those weeks, [the following events were recorded] power outages, difficulties rotating technical staff, and troop movements which raised contaminated dust, with slight temporary spikes in radiation.
The risk intensified in February 2025, when a Russian drone crashed into protective structure of the damaged reactor. Ukrainian authorities and independent agencies indicated that the attack did not cause a significant leak or an alarming increase in radiation levels outside, but it did highlight the vulnerability of these infrastructures in a war scenario.
A recent report by Greenpeace Ukraine indicates that the drone may have The NSC's cover was partially punctured and key systems were damaged.such as the insulating membrane, the internal crane mechanism, and the humidity control system. The repairs, estimated at hundreds of millions of euros, are extremely complicated while fighting continues, and experts warn of the importance of preventing the structure from deteriorating to the point of compromising the original sarcophagus enclosing the destroyed core.
Chernobyl and the other major risk zone: Zaporizhia
Although Chernobyl retains a strong symbolic weight, much of the international community considers that The greatest nuclear threat in the current war is located at the Zaporizhia nuclear facility.The largest nuclear reactor in Europe, with six reactors and enormous spent fuel pools, has been occupied by Russia since 2022. The plant has suffered grid outages, bombings in the surrounding area, and periods of instability that have forced the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to maintain a constant presence on the ground.
The combination of nuclear facilities, armed conflict, and the use of drones has opened up an unprecedented scenario: For the first time in history, active and decommissioned nuclear power plants have become instruments of military and political pressure.Analysts and environmental organizations insist that, although deliberately destroying a reactor would be suicidal even for the attacker, the mere fact of operating under threat substantially increases the risk of serious incidents.
In this context, Chernobyl serves as a double warning. On the one hand, it reminds us the consequences of a technical and human failure in a nuclear infrastructureOn the other hand, it illustrates the dangers of having high-risk facilities at the heart of a conflict where traditional rules of engagement are blurred. The area, once a symbol of an industrial accident, has also become part of a battlefield.
The political and social impact in Europe: from shock to eternal debate
Beyond the human and environmental tragedy, Chernobyl marked a turning point in the Public perception of nuclear energy in EuropeIn the mid-80s, many countries on the continent were experiencing a phase of nuclear expansion: new power plants were planned, reactors were under construction, and an official discourse presented nuclear power as a safe and cheap solution.
The radioactive cloud that crossed Europe in 1986 shattered that narrative. The initial opacity of the USSR, the delays in warning the population, and the images of evacuated villages They generated a wave of distrust in European public opinion. The issue ceased to be a merely technical debate and became a top-priority political matter, with mass mobilizations, referendums, and new regulations.
Some countries took drastic turns. Italy held a referendum in 1987 that It opened the door to abandoning nuclear energy.Meanwhile, in Germany, the accident fueled a long process of social protest that decades later would culminate in a schedule for the gradual closure of its reactors. Other states, however, maintained their commitment to nuclear power: France continued to see its plants as a pillar of energy sovereignty.
In terms of construction, the blow was evident. Before 1986, Europe was inaugurating dozens of reactors per decade.After that, the pace of new projects plummeted. Many projects were canceled, others were frozen, and for long periods, hardly any new units were added. In Western Europe, only a few reactors, such as Olkiluoto 3 in Finland or Flamanville 3 in France, have managed to become operational or are in the final stages of construction, almost always years behind schedule and with significant cost overruns.
Europe currently maintains a considerable nuclear fleet, with over a hundred operational reactors across the European Union, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Ukraine, and Russia. However, It is an aging park, largely built in the 70s and 80s., which struggles to renew itself. In this context, the so-called "nuclear renaissance" What some governments are proposing is, in reality, an attempt to reverse three decades of paralysis rather than a genuine expansion comparable to that of the past.
Spain and Chernobyl: mistrust, moratorium and planned closure
In Spain, the radioactive cloud arrived in a highly attenuated state and did not cause significant health consequences, according to available studies. However, the accident It reinforced a climate of distrust towards nuclear energy that already existed.The so-called nuclear moratorium, approved in 1984, had halted the construction of new power plants for economic, regulatory, and political reasons.
After Chernobyl, that setback became much more difficult to reverse. The Chernobyl nuclear power plant Valdecaballeros (Badajoz) It is the most symbolic example: despite being practically finished, it never became operational. The 1986 disaster was not the direct cause of its abandonment, but it was the turning point that solidified a decision made in a context of electrical overcapacity and growing doubts about the cost and social acceptance of nuclear power.
In recent years, Spain has strengthened its strategy of growing weight of renewablesThe schedule agreed upon with the companies that own the power plants foresees the phased closure of the seven operating reactors between 2027 and 2035, starting with Almaraz (Cáceres). If this is achieved, the country would be free of nuclear power production by the middle of the next decade.
Organizations like Greenpeace point to the anniversary of Chernobyl as a reminder of what is at stake. From their perspective, Extending the lifespan of aging reactors through successive extensions diverts resources and attention that could be used to strengthen a renewable and decentralized model, more resilient to conflicts, cyberattacks or extreme weather events.
The Spanish government, for its part, faces cross-pressures: electricity industry, unions, territories that depend economically on power plants and European climate commitmentsThe fundamental question is whether nuclear energy should continue to play a transitional role in decarbonization or whether its legacy of risk and uncertainty outweighs renewable alternatives.
Could a Chernobyl disaster happen again today?
One of the recurring questions that resurfaces every anniversary is whether a catastrophe like Chernobyl could be repeated in present-day Europe. Many experts agree that a An accident identical to the one in 1986 is highly improbable today. in Western nuclear power plants. The RBMK reactor design combined a positive reactivity coefficient—which made the reactor more unstable as the temperature increased—with the absence of a robust containment building to seal the leak in case of an explosion.
In the light water reactors predominant in Western Europe (PWR and BWR), the system physics tends to stabilize the reaction as the temperature increases, and Containment buildings are designed to withstand extreme pressuresFurthermore, since Chernobyl, operating protocols, safety culture, and automatic shutdown systems have been strengthened, making it difficult to chain together human and design errors to a similar degree.
However, that does not equate to zero risk. Serious accidents have occurred in systems considered advancedExamples include Three Mile Island in the United States and Fukushima in Japan, where a tsunami triggered a collapse of the cooling systems. What changes is not so much the existence of risk, but its nature and the capacity of the infrastructure to absorb the impact without releasing large amounts of radiation.
Voices like that of nuclear engineer Kirsty Gogan insist that current technology should not be judged solely through the lens of 1986, while other climate experts, such as James Hansen, argue that Nuclear energy has prevented more deaths from air pollution than it has caused. Thanks to the reduction in emissions from burning fossil fuels. In any case, the shadow of Chernobyl remains present in every public discussion about new projects or life extensions.
Living memory: documentaries, series and testimonies 40 years later
Four decades later, Chernobyl has also become a cultural phenomenon. Fiction and documentaries have contributed to establishing a shared narrative about what happened, those responsible and its consequences, often relying on testimonies and declassified documents that have come to light over time.
The miniseries "Chernobyl," released on HBO Max, remains one of the most influential productions. Across five episodes, It reconstructs the nuclear crisis, the role of the technicians, the political pressures, and the initial cover-up.highlighting how the difference between telling the truth and lying in an emergency can mean thousands of lives affected. Its success reignited global interest in the accident and in previous works such as Svetlana Alexievich's.
Platforms like Movistar Plus+ and Filmin have added several titles focused on the disaster. Documentaries like "Chernobyl: The First 48 Hours of the Disaster" delve into The critical moments of the security test, the race-against-time evacuation, and the desperate effort to prevent a second, more lethal explosion, with interviews with nurses, paramedics, and former plant workers. Other works, such as "Chernobyl Declassified" or "Chernobyl: Utopia in Flames," provide new testimonies and documents that help to nuance the official Soviet version.
The connection between Chernobyl and other countries has also generated lesser-known stories. The documentary "Chernobyl, 40 Years Later: Tarará, the Other Story" recovers, for example, The comprehensive reception and recovery program that Cuba offered to more than 26.000 Ukrainian, Russian, and Belarusian children affected by radiation, moved to the town of Tarará for two decades, in the midst of a scarcity of resources on the island.
In Spain, the anniversary commemoration has been accompanied by the premiere of «Chernobyl: at the heart of the disaster"," a National Geographic documentary available on Disney+. Divided into four episodes—"Hell," "Cover-up," "Sacrifice," and "Aftermath"—it combines reenactments, archival footage, and interviews with people who They still live in the exclusion zone or worked in the emergency response., and covers both the first days of the accident and the way in which the tragedy has been recounted and managed to this day.
Other programs, such as "Nuclear Power Plants in War Zones" on La 2 and RTVE Play, broaden the perspective to the specific risks of maintaining active power plants in conflict zones, directly linking the legacy of Chernobyl with the situation in Ukraine in the last decade and with the role of nuclear energy in a more unstable world.
Quadrupled in books, series and documentaries, the voices of survivors, liquidators, experts and evacuated inhabitants have ensured that Chernobyl is not lost in the mists of a remote Soviet past. The catastrophe has become a shared memory and an essential point of reference. every time Europe discusses technological risk, energy policies, or the management of large-scale crises.
Four decades after that early morning in Pripyat, Chernobyl remains a place where science, geopolitics, and memory intersect: a territory of exclusion where nature encroaches upon empty buildings, an industrial facility transformed into a symbol of the limits of technology, and a constant reminder that Today's energy decisions will be measured for generations. in lives, territories, and public trust.
