BU233|Energy System Regime Switching under B_U B_U 体系下能源系统切换:高沉没成本、高残差与能源 standing 审计

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a theoretical model for evaluating energy transition as a regime switch with friction costs and residuals, offering a basis for future empirical work.

🏛政策担当者:Suggests that transition policies should account for full systemic costs and not rely solely on carbon reduction targets.

BU233 establishes Energy System Regime Switching under B_U as the mother file for the energy-transition standing branch. It defines energy-system transition as a high-sunk-cost, high-residual settlement event, rather than a simple replacement of fossil technologies with renewable technologies. The transition from fossil-dominant energy to renewable energy, and from centralized power systems to distributed energy systems, is treated as a deep carrier-level regime switch involving generation assets, grid architecture, storage capacity, market design, workforce structure, policy incentives, supply chains, energy security, and social acceptance. The core audit question is whether the transition path can remain source-axis anchored, friction-accountable, residual-auditable, weakly persistent, and standing-positive after contact with real-world settlement. The file identifies two coupled axes of energy-system switching. The first is carrier substitution: coal, oil, and natural gas lose their dominant base-carrier position as solar, wind, hydro, storage, hydrogen-related systems, and other low-carbon carriers enter the system. The second is architectural redistribution: large centralized power plants and unified grids are increasingly coupled with distributed generation, rooftop photovoltaics, microgrids, vehicle-to-grid interfaces, demand response, and intelligent grid coordination. BU233’s key point is that these two axes cannot be evaluated separately. Renewable carriers create new grid, storage, dispatch, security, market, and coordination requirements; distributed architecture creates new residuals in control, responsibility, pricing, reliability, and user participation. BU233 defines energy standing as the net capacity of an energy regime to sustain civilizational operation under real physical, economic, ecological, and social constraints. Energy standing cannot be reduced to carbon reduction alone. Carbon reduction is essential, but a transition path that lowers emissions while undermining energy security, affordability, grid stability, resilience, or social cohesion may still lose standing. The standing formula is: standing_energy(π) = Δ(Sustainability + Security + Affordability + Resilience + Environmental Integrity + Social Stability) − C_fric^energy(π) − rank_Xi_res^energy(π). A transition is standing-positive only when its long-term gains exceed real friction costs and residual burdens. The file’s core correction is that traditional evaluation methods undercount transition cost. Levelized cost, capacity installation, carbon targets, investment return, and technology cost curves remain useful, but they often see the asset rather than the regime-switching path. A renewable asset may look cheap on paper while requiring expensive balancing capacity, grid reinforcement, permitting, storage, curtailment management, supply-chain diversification, workforce transition, and political stabilization. BU233 therefore shifts evaluation from isolated asset economics to full-path settlement accounting. BU233 gives special weight to C_fric and Xi_res. C_fric includes asset retirement, grid reconstruction, storage investment, workforce retraining, policy redesign, supply-chain conversion, market reform, compensation, and coordination cost. Xi_res includes intermittency, transmission bottlenecks, storage insufficiency, stranded assets, employment disruption, regional inequality, policy path dependence, security exposure, environmental rebound, and market instability. These residuals are not rhetorical objections to transition; they are settlement loads that determine whether the path can stand. The final thesis is direct: energy transition becomes legitimate only when long-term sustainability, security, resilience, economic viability, environmental integrity, affordability, and social stability exceed the combined burden of C_fric and rank_Xi_res. A visually green transition can still be standing-negative if it destroys energy security, amplifies social residuals, overloads the grid, or hides its transition cost. BU233 therefore becomes the ontology and audit foundation for BU234–BU239: the later files operationalize, quantify, specialize, and calibrate this regime-switching framework.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21066676first seen 2026-07-20 04:55:19