Africa should stop treating energy shocks as surprises

retained text

The Strait of Hormuz crisis has exposed just how vulnerable African economies remain to energy shocks. Many higher-income countries, though challenged by the disruption, have cushioned the blow by tapping strategic reserves or using their financial and political clout to secure emergency supplies. African countries have had far fewer options. Fuel prices have surged or supplies have simply disappeared, with consequences rippling through economies. Diesel prices in Lagos nearly doubled, fishing vessels in Maputo were left on the beach, and construction projects in Addis Ababa stalled, sending workers home.
The disruption may ease. But African governments should not mistake a ceasefire, or even the reopening of the strait, for a return to business as usual. The Hormuz crisis is not a black swan. It is the latest reminder that repeated energy shocks are an expensive and largely unpriced risk for African economies.
That should change how policymakers think about energy security. Rather than treating each disruption as an emergency, leaders should build systems that are resilient by design — improving efficiency, diversifying energy sources, strengthening domestic supply chains, and pricing volatility into investment decisions.
The first opportunity is efficiency. African power grids lose roughly 12% to 20% of generated electricity through transmission and distribution networks — more than twice the OECD loss rate. Advanced transmission technologies can reduce those losses and increase existing network capacity without requiring entirely new lines. Pooling distributed generators into minigrids or virtual power plants can similarly allow them to operate closer to optimal levels and reduce fuel consumption.
Diversification is the second line of defense. The more an economy depends on a single fuel or imported energy source, the more exposed it is to disruptions beyond its control. Kenya offers one example: about 90% of its electricity comes from renewables. Its growing fleets of electric motorcycles and buses have been less exposed to the fuel-price shock than peers elsewhere on the continent, and have seen demand rise. Pakistan’s rapid expansion of solar power has similarly cushioned its dependence on imported liquefied natural gas while lowering electricity costs. Nuclear power, where viable, can offer another source of relatively stable generation costs.
But access to energy is not the same as control over it. Even countries with abundant oil and gas can be exposed when resources are committed to foreign markets or when they lack sufficient refining capacity and remain dependent on imported petroleum products.
Egypt is a case in point. After Kuwaiti crude supplies were disrupted, it turned to Libya for oil, providing an alternative source of supply. Nigeria offers a different lesson. Despite being one of Africa’s largest oil producers, the Dangote Refinery initially struggled to secure enough domestic crude and had to turn to international suppliers at a premium. Producing energy is valuable; having the infrastructure and policy framework to direct it where it is needed during a crisis is something else.
That distinction should be central to national energy planning. Governments need to treat volatility as a risk alongside currency fluctuations, interest rates, and credit costs. Quantifying the cost of disruptions — from fuel subsidies and emergency imports to lost output and idle workers — would make the case for resilience more tangible.
This is not an argument for any single technology or a retreat from global energy markets. It is an argument for redundancy: more efficient grids, a broader generation mix, greater domestic refining capacity, and distributed systems, with investment decisions accounting for the possibility that supplies may suddenly become far more expensive — or unavailable altogether.
The technologies exist, and the economics are increasingly compelling. The same investments that improve energy security can lower consumer costs, reduce emissions, strengthen industrial capacity and support growth.
The lesson from Hormuz should not be to wait for the next crisis to pass. It should be to use this one to rethink what energy security means.
African leaders should seize the moment to build energy systems that can withstand the next shock — wherever it comes from.
Nana Menya Ayensu is an energy strategy and infrastructure investment executive, a former White House Special Assistant to the President, and a fellow at the Columbia Global Center on Energy Policy.

document fetched 2026-09-08 02:58 · canonical https://semafor.com/article/09/07/2026/africa-should-stop-treating-energy-shocks-as-surprises