Amid global low-carbon transition and China's dual-carbon strategy advancement, the Energy Internet (EI), as a core platform for energy transformation, faces complex systemic risks due to cyber-physical integration, multi-energy coupling, and socio-environmental interactions, threatening its safe operation and sustainable production. Existing studies mostly focus on static assessment of single subsystems, lacking integrated analysis of multi-dimensional risk dynamic coupling. To address this gap, this study constructs a multi-dimensional risk assessment framework covering social-environmental, Cyber-Physical System (CPS), and Integrated Energy System (IES) dimensions, and establishes a dynamic coupling risk quantification model by combining System Dynamics (SD) with entropy weighting method. Validation based on Inner Mongolia's EI demonstration base shows that CPS risks and IES reliability are dominant, presenting an inverse bathtub curve trend, rising initially due to technical bottlenecks, then declining with technological progress and preventive maintenance, while social-environmental risks remain low and gradually decrease. This study uncovers the dynamic evolution mechanisms of coupled risks in EI, the findings provide actionable strategies with practical implications. The multi-dimensional dynamic assessment logic offers a China-oriented policy framework reference for global energy transition, especially for developing countries, bridging the gap between systemic risk theory and sustainable production practice. • Systematic assessment framework capturing dynamic couplings among EI integrated risks. • Constructed SD model enables quantitative evaluation of EIIR classified into three tiers. • Case study validates the proposed model, with CPS/IES risks dominant. • CPS risks overtake IES reliability risks with rising renewable penetration. • Methodology support for EI security and Chinese solution for low-carbon energy systems.
Xu et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: