Why is both not an option? Nuclear works well where solar and wind don't.

Which is like in the polar high north of the arctic circle?

What’s the relevance?

Or on a windless night?

Those system cost analyses easily solve, at far lower costs than involving new nuclear.

I favor a "diversify" approach more than I have a dogmatic interest in any one source. The benefits of developing any of these far outweigh the costs.

The article doesn't provide much details about installed solar, wind capacity, installed battery capacity, electricity produced each month, and so on. But this is data that Ukraine would not like to get public.

The biggest issue is only hinted in the article:

> ‘There’s just enough sun [in January/this winter thus far] to make it work,’ says Olena Kondratiuk

Solar+batteries work well in summer months, but for winter months, solar has much lower output. This is why Russia is attacking thermal plants especially in winter.