Why the Countries With the Most Renewable Power Are Not Always the Most Energy Secure

A country can generate much of its electricity from renewables and still face serious energy-security risks. Another can rely heavily on fossil-fuel generation yet score relatively well on security. The difference, according to a study spanning 121 countries, lies partly in exposure to energy imports, the range of electricity sources available and how much energy an economy uses to produce output.

Published in Energies, the study "Energy-Security Pathways in the Global Energy Transition: Latent-Class Evidence on Import Dependence, Renewables and Generation Diversity" by Andrzej Gawlik, Liudmyla Starchenko, Bohdan Bieg, Oleksii Havrylenko, Arsen A. Petrosyan and Marcin Rabe examine those relationships across 2,899 country-year observations from 2000 to 2023. Their findings challenge the idea that a single measure, whether renewable share or national wealth, can capture how secure an energy system has become.

An import shock can reach beyond the power grid

Across the full sample, greater dependence on imported energy is associated with a lower Energy Security Score. Higher energy use per unit of GDP is also associated with a lower score. Taken together, the results point to two forms of exposure: a country may depend heavily on external supply, use large amounts of energy to sustain economic output, or contend with both pressures at once.

This difference is critical when governments choose where to spend. Adding domestic electricity generation could address part of an import problem, but the study's import measure extends across the wider energy system. Fuels used in transport and industry may remain exposed even as the electricity mix changes. Likewise, reducing energy intensity requires closer attention to how energy is used, rather than assuming that additional supply will resolve the underlying risk.

The researchers also find that GDP per capita is not statistically significant in their overall model once energy-system measures and differences across countries and years are taken into account. Wealth may give a government more options, but rising income alone does not explain an improvement in the measured security score. What countries do with their resources, and which vulnerabilities they address, deserves closer scrutiny.

The most renewable group is not the most secure

Renewable electricity and a more diverse generation mix are each positively associated with energy security in the study's overall analysis. Yet the country groups reveal why neither indicator can serve as a verdict on its own. The group with the largest average renewable share has an Energy Security Score of 47.23 and relatively high energy use per unit of GDP. Renewable generation is an important part of its profile, but it does not erase its other weaknesses.

The highest-scoring group averages 58.42 and has the lowest import exposure among the four groups, despite a relatively high fossil electricity share. At the other end, the lowest-scoring group averages 44.41, with the highest import exposure and the least diverse electricity generation. These comparisons do not show that fossil fuels improve security or that renewables diminish it. They show that a generation target tells only part of the story.

A further statistical test finds positive associations for renewables and generation diversity separately, but no clear evidence that greater diversity increases the particular benefit associated with renewables. The result narrows the claim policymakers can draw from the data. Investing in both may be sensible for a country's own reasons; the study does not establish that combining them produces an additional security gain beyond their separate associations.

The post-2022 surprise is a warning against easy conclusions

The energy crisis of 2022 might lead readers to expect the measured disadvantage of import dependence to have intensified. Import exposure remained negatively associated with energy security in the study, but its negative association was weaker during 2022–2023 than in earlier years. The authors suggest that emergency adjustments, reduced demand or changes in supply arrangements could help explain the result. Their analysis cannot determine which, if any, drove it.

Two years are too short a period to judge whether such adjustments endure. A country may temporarily manage a supply shock without removing the conditions that made it vulnerable. Later data will be needed to test whether the weaker association persists, disappears or reverses. Policymakers should therefore treat the finding as a question for investigation, rather than reassurance that imported energy has become less risky.

The contrast between electricity diversity and economy-wide import exposure also warrants attention. A country may generate power from several sources while still depending on a narrow set of suppliers for fuels used elsewhere. The study's diversity measure captures electricity generation; it does not reveal the resilience of import routes, contracts or the full fuel supply chain.

A stronger transition starts with the constraint a country actually faces

The study offers a practical way to frame energy investment decisions: identify the weakness before selecting the remedy. For an import-exposed economy with a concentrated electricity mix, supply arrangements and generation options merit close examination. For a renewable-intensive economy that uses substantial energy per unit of output, efficiency may deserve more emphasis. A relatively secure system still has to consider how to reduce fossil reliance while maintaining reliable, affordable supply.

Such choices carry particular weight where public funds are limited. Developing-country governments and their financing partners may face simultaneous demands for new generation, stronger networks and more efficient energy use. The research does not calculate which project would deliver the best return in any particular country. It does, however, show why applying the same investment sequence everywhere could miss the risk that most needs attention.

The findings also have limits that should shape their use. The Energy Security Score is a composite index, and import dependence and generation diversity overlap with elements of its underlying framework. Their measured associations may partly reflect how the score is constructed. Country-level annual data cannot fully capture local grid constraints, brief outages or seasonal stress, while storage capacity, grid congestion and critical-mineral exposure are not directly included.

The next step is to test these broad country profiles against conditions on the ground and follow them beyond 2023. Energy security is ultimately experienced through dependable, affordable supply, not a favourable national score alone. The study's key takeaway is that expanding clean power, cutting import exposure and improving efficiency are connected tasks, but the order and design of those efforts must respond to the energy system a country has.