The 2026 Strait of Hormuz closure and Ukraine's grid war show that energy security and climate are now the same investment case. Here's what the green transition fixes, the new risks it creates, and how investors can price resilience.
Short answer: yes, if it is built for resilience and not just for emissions. Countries that make more of their own power from wind, solar and storage are less exposed to fuel blockades and price shocks. But clean energy brings its own risks, from grid stability to the cost of capital. For investors, the question is no longer whether a project cuts carbon. It is whether it keeps working when something breaks.
On 28 February 2026, US and Israeli strikes on Iran triggered the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Roughly 20 million barrels of oil a day and about a fifth of the world's LNG normally pass through it (Strategic Energy Map). QatarEnergy halted LNG production and declared force majeure on 4 March. On 11 March, IEA members agreed a record 400-million-barrel emergency stock release, more than double the 2022 release (Fortune). The next day, Brent settled above $100 a barrel for the first time since August 2022 (World Oil).
Eight months on, there is still no peace deal. Traffic through the strait remains a fraction of normal, and tankers were struck by projectiles as recently as 22 and 23 October (IndustryWeek). Saudi and Emirati bypass pipelines have only about 3.5 million barrels a day of spare capacity, and Gulf LNG has no bypass at all. Missile strikes damaged two of Qatar's 14 LNG trains, about 17% of its export capacity, with repairs expected to take around three years. QatarEnergy has extended force majeure to the end of 2026 (Reuters via BOE Report).
In April, IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said the world is "facing the biggest energy security threat in history" (Times of Oman). Asia carries most of the pain: the Middle East supplies 60% of Southeast Asia's crude imports (IEA).
Fossil energy is built around large plants, long pipelines and a handful of shipping lanes. That design was optimised for cost, not resilience. It means one blockade, one strike or one supplier's decision can move prices worldwide.
Europe learned this in 2022. Russia supplied 45% of EU gas imports in 2021. By 2025 that had fallen to 12% (European Commission). In January 2026 the EU made the exit law: Russian LNG under long-term contracts is banned from 1 January 2027, and pipeline gas by 1 November 2027 at the latest (Council of the EU, Gulf News). Part of the gap was filled by renewables and efficiency. Part was filled by LNG, some of it from the Gulf. Swapping one import for another reduces political leverage, but it does not remove exposure.
Ukraine is the clearest live test. After the spring 2024 attacks, nearly two-thirds of its dispatchable generating capacity was occupied, damaged or destroyed (IEA). Large thermal plants and substations are efficient targets: one strike removes a lot of capacity.
The response has been to spread generation out. Ukraine added over 1 GW of solar in 2025, its best year, with rooftop solar plus batteries the fastest-growing segment (Euromaidan Press, citing the Solar Energy Association of Ukraine). Hospitals, water utilities and businesses are adding on-site solar, storage and small gas engines so they can keep running when the main grid fails. The IEA notes that geographically dispersed resources make the system harder to knock out with targeted attacks.
But the limits are real. Russian strikes in January 2026 still left up to 85% of consumers without power at the same time. Solar does little at night or on short winter days, when demand peaks. Ukraine's 2025 solar build was about a quarter of the roughly 4 GW a year the IEA says it needs. And the attacks have restarted: strikes on 1 October 2026 caused outages across several regions as Russia began its pre-winter campaign (Euronews). Distributed renewables buy time and keep critical services running. They do not replace a strong grid, firm capacity and interconnection.
A well-designed transition delivers four security gains:
Markets are moving this way. The IEA expects $3.4 trillion of global energy investment in 2026, with about $2.2 trillion going to renewables, nuclear, grids, storage, low-emissions fuels, efficiency and electrification. Grid spending is set to rise nearly 20% to about $550 billion, and power-sector battery spending to pass $100 billion (IEA, World Energy Investment 2026). In the Philippines, solar imports from China in the first quarter of 2026 were about three times the level a year earlier (IEA).
A cleaner system is not automatically a safer one. Three risks still need pricing.
Treating clean energy as security infrastructure is a good slogan. Here is what it changes in practice:
Projects that show these answers are easier to finance, because they show a lender how the asset performs when conditions turn bad.
The crises of 2022 to 2026 have shown that energy systems built around a few chokepoints hand leverage to whoever controls them. A transition built on domestic generation, storage and strong grids takes that leverage away. One that ignores grid stability, community consent and the cost of capital just moves the weak point somewhere else.
Climate and security are now the same investment case. The capital deployed this decade will decide which countries keep the lights on in the next crisis.
Yes, mainly by cutting imported fuel. Domestic wind and solar cannot be blockaded and have no fuel price to spike. They need storage, firm capacity and strong grids to keep supply reliable.
Generally yes, because generation is spread across many sites, so each strike removes less capacity. Ukraine shows the limit: transmission and substations remain targets, and solar cannot cover winter nights.
Roughly 20 million barrels of oil a day and about a fifth of the world's LNG normally pass through it. Saudi and Emirati bypass pipelines have only about 3.5 million barrels a day of spare capacity, and Gulf LNG has no bypass at all.
Grid stability, land and community, and the cost of capital. High-renewable grids need active voltage support and better ride-through rules. Large projects imposed without consent or benefit-sharing face delays and opposition. Financing costs in emerging and developing economies are already at least double those in advanced economies and China.
Stress-test fuel shocks, not just base prices. Write islanding capability, backup hours for critical loads and grid-support services into contracts and show them in the cash flows. Check whether a plant can provide voltage support and ride through disturbances, and diligence security and community risk early.
