Küresel Enerji Dönüşümünde Enerji Güvenliği Yolları: İthalat Bağımlılığı, Yenilenebilir Enerjiler ve Üretim Çeşitliliği Üzerine Gizli Sınıf Kanıtları

Özet (abstract)

Energy security has re-emerged as a central challenge of the global energy transition because countries must simultaneously reduce import exposure, integrate renewables, diversify electricity systems and maintain a reliable and affordable energy supply. This study aims to identify heterogeneous pathways to national energy security by examining how import dependence, renewable electricity deployment, generation diversity, nuclear availability, energy efficiency and economic development shape Energy Security Scores across countries. The analysis uses a panel of 121 countries over 2000–2023, with 2899 country–year observations, and applies two-way fixed-effects models with Driscoll–Kraay standard errors, finite-mixture latent-class modelling, interaction models, and a fossil-share robustness check. The benchmark fixed-effects model shows that import dependence and energy intensity are negatively associated with energy security, with coefficients of −1.928 and −5.953, respectively. In contrast, renewable electricity share, generation diversity, and nuclear availability are positively associated, with coefficients of 5.340, 4.234, and 4.719, respectively. The latent-class comparison identifies a four-class solution as the preferred specification, with the lowest AIC, BIC, and SABIC values of 15,779.55, 15,894.18, and 15,764.55, respectively, confirming that countries do not follow a single universal energy-security pathway. Regime profiles show that Class 2 has the highest average Energy Security Score of 58.42 and the lowest import dependence of 1.888. In contrast, Class 4 has the lowest score of 44.41, the highest import dependence of 3.509 and the lowest generation diversity of 0.354. Interaction models indicate that renewables and generation diversity are independently positive, but their interaction is insignificant, while import dependence remains negative; however, its post-2022 interaction is positive, suggesting its adverse effect weakened rather than intensified after the 2022 crisis.

Yazarların özeti; kaynağından alınmıştır. Energies, 2026 · DOI ↗