A-Level Geography
2027 Predicted Essays
& A* Model Answers

Plan - Define energy security: available, reliable, affordable supply. Name the four “A”s or the import-dependence lens. - For: domestic renewables cut import dependence and price shocks (UK electricity; EU and Russian gas). - Against: intermittency and storage; system security shifts rather than disappears. - Against: new dependence on concentrated critical-mineral supply chains (IEA 2025). - Judgement: improves security if paired with firm capacity, storage, interconnection and diversified minerals; “rapid” helps on imports, hurts on materials in the short run.

Introduction [AO1] Energy security means having reliable access to enough energy at an affordable price. For an importing country, the main threat is dependence on a few foreign suppliers. Those suppliers can cut flows or raise prices. Renewable energy (wind, solar, hydro) uses flows of energy found at home. So, in principle, it reduces that exposure. The question is whether a rapid switch removes risk or simply moves it somewhere else.

Paragraph 1 — Renewables reduce import dependence [AO1/AO2] The strongest argument for renewables is that wind and sunlight cannot be embargoed. The UK shows how far this can go. Renewables generated 50.4% of UK electricity in 2024, with wind alone at 29.2% [1]. Each unit of wind power is a unit of gas that does not have to be imported. So the country is less exposed to a global gas price spike. This matters because gas is traded on world markets. When supply tightens anywhere, prices rise everywhere. Examiner-style note: this links a named place and a dated figure to the concept (import dependence). That is AO2 application, not description.

Paragraph 2 — The geopolitical case: Europe after 2022 [AO2] The European Union learned the cost of concentrated supply after Russia invaded Ukraine. The European Commission states that Russia’s share of EU gas imports fell from 45% to 19% under its REPowerEU plan [2]. In May 2025 it set out a roadmap to end all Russian gas imports by the end of 2027 [2]. Faster renewable build-out was one of the main tools, alongside saving energy and buying gas from other suppliers. This shows that renewables improve security most when the threat is political. A supplier using energy as a weapon loses that power when demand for its product falls.

Paragraph 3 — Intermittency moves the risk into the grid [AO2] However, renewables do not deliver security on their own. Wind and solar output varies with the weather. A cold, still winter week can cut wind output just as demand peaks. So a grid built on renewables still needs firm capacity. That could be gas plants kept on standby, nuclear power, storage, or interconnectors to neighbours. In the short run, many importing countries still rely on imported gas as that back-up. The risk has not vanished. It has moved from “Will the gas arrive?” to “Will the grid balance at 6pm in January?” Examiner-style note: the essay keeps returning to the command word. Each paragraph says whether security is improved, and by how much.

Paragraph 4 — New dependence: critical minerals [AO1/AO2] The most serious counter-argument is that a rapid switch creates a new dependence. Wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and grids need copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite and rare earth elements. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that China is the leading refiner for 19 of 20 energy-related strategic minerals, with an average share of about 70% [3]. For six key minerals, the top three producers’ share rose to 86% in 2024, up from about 82% in 2020 [3]. So supply chains for the energy transition are becoming more concentrated, not less. A country that swaps imported gas for imported panels and batteries may have changed its supplier, not its vulnerability. The difference is that a mineral shortage slows new building, whereas a gas cut switches off existing supply. That makes mineral risk slower-acting, though still real.

Paragraph 5 — Electricity is not the whole energy system [AO1/AO2] A common error is to treat the electricity mix as the whole energy mix. The 2022 examiner report warned candidates about exactly this. Electricity is only part of a country’s energy use. Heating, transport and industry still burn large amounts of gas and oil in most importing countries. So a country can generate half its electricity from renewables and still import much of its total energy. Renewables improve security fully only when those other uses are electrified too, through heat pumps and electric vehicles. That takes decades, not years. In the meantime, other low-carbon sources play a part. Nuclear power provides steady output that does not depend on the weather. But it needs imported uranium and long build times. So the most secure systems combine several sources rather than relying on renewables alone.

Paragraph 6 — Speed, cost and fairness [AO2] “Rapid” adds a further trade-off. Fast build-out needs large upfront investment and grid upgrades. Costs fall on households and firms before the savings arrive. Affordability is part of energy security. So a transition that raises bills sharply in the short run can weaken security for poorer households, even as it strengthens national import security. Wealthier importers can absorb this more easily than lower-income ones that must borrow to invest.

Conclusion [AO2] A rapid switch to renewables does improve the energy security of importing countries, but only partly and only under conditions. It clearly reduces exposure to fuel imports and to political pressure, as the UK’s electricity mix and Europe’s move away from Russian gas show. It does not remove risk. It moves risk into grid balancing and into concentrated mineral supply chains. So the extent of improvement depends on three things: enough firm back-up and storage, interconnection with neighbours, and diversified mineral supply. Where those are in place, renewables offer the most secure long-term system. Where they are not, a rapid switch trades one dependence for another.

A* differentiators - Define energy security in the first two sentences and judge against it throughout. - Show the risk moving (import → grid → minerals). That is the evaluative core. - Use one dated figure per claim; do not stack numbers. - Make the conclusion conditional and name what it depends on.

Sources

1. RenewableUK, Energy bible confirms renewables now provide over half of the UK’s electricity generation, 31 July 2025, reporting DESNZ, Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES) 2025. https://www.renewableuk.com/news-and-resources/press-releases/energy-bible-confirms-renewables-now-provide-over-half-of-the-uk-s-electricity-generation/ (secondary report of the DESNZ figure)
2. European Commission, Roadmap to fully end EU dependency on Russian energy, 6 May 2025. https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/roadmap-fully-end-eu-dependency-russian-energy-2025-05-06_en
3. IEA, Diversification is the cornerstone of energy security, yet critical minerals are moving in the opposite direction (Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2025 press release). https://www.iea.org/news/diversification-is-the-cornerstone-of-energy-security-yet-critical-minerals-are-moving-in-the-opposite-direction