STORY
The UK has been ranked 41st out of 187 countries and territories in a new global energy security index published by the Adam Smith Institute, placing it behind countries including Romania, Azerbaijan, Serbia and Ukraine. The free market think tank said its findings raised concerns about Britain’s ability to respond to disruptions in energy supplies, particularly because of its growing reliance on electricity generated from wind and solar power. The research, published on 19 October 2026, places the UK behind several other G7 economies, including the United States, Canada, France and Japan.
The Global Energy Security Index assesses countries using four equally weighted measures covering the availability of electricity generation that can be controlled on demand, diversity of energy sources, security of energy imports and economic capacity to purchase energy during periods of shortage. The UK received an overall score of 76.4 out of 100, but ranked 175th out of 187 countries for dispatchability, which measures the proportion of electricity generated from sources capable of responding to demand. The Institute highlighted that wind and solar accounted for approximately 36% of UK electricity generation in 2024, compared with 17% in the United States and 10% in Norway.
The report acknowledged that the UK performed more strongly in other areas, including the diversity of its energy supplies and its ability to purchase energy internationally. Britain ranked 30th for energy diversity and 16th for its economic capacity to afford energy. The researchers also found that the country’s import arrangements benefited from established relationships with relatively politically stable suppliers, including Norway, the United States and the Netherlands. However, the Institute argued that these advantages were insufficient to compensate for what it considered weaknesses in domestic electricity generation.
The Adam Smith Institute called for changes to energy policy, including greater investment in nuclear power, additional domestic oil and gas production and a reduction in Government support for wind and solar generation. Dr Oliver McPherson-Smith, a senior fellow at the Institute and co-author of the research, argued that the UK’s position reflected policy decisions that had increased its dependence on intermittent electricity sources. Reform UK’s deputy leader, Richard Tice, also criticised the Government’s approach to net zero, arguing that greater reliance on renewable energy had weakened the country’s energy security.
The findings have prompted disagreement over how energy security should be measured and improved. The index places particular emphasis on electricity generation that can be dispatched on demand, although this measure does not directly assess the reliability of the electricity grid or the contribution of storage and other flexibility measures. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero defended the UK’s electricity system, saying that investment in domestic nuclear, wind and solar generation would improve resilience and reduce exposure to international energy markets. Solar Energy UK also disputed the Institute’s conclusions, arguing that reducing dependence on fossil fuels was important for long-term energy security. The debate reflects continuing differences over the balance between renewable generation, domestic fossil fuel production and nuclear power in Britain’s future energy strategy.