This randomized trial analyzes energy structure risks in China, suggesting a cooperative game enhances governance and reduces risks.
Against the background of the low-carbon energy transition, China’s energy system faces energy structure risks caused by high-carbon path dependence, external dependence on oil and gas, and insufficient new energy substitution capacity. This paper decomposes China’s energy structure risk into three subsystems: high-carbon lock-in risk, oil and gas external dependence risk, and new energy transition vulnerability risk. It uses system dynamics to construct a causal feedback structure and dynamic model, and links the three risk subsystems to observable indicators based on China’s historical data for parameter calibration and model validation. On this basis, the paper analyzes the formation mechanism of China’s energy structure risk. The findings are as follows: (1) China’s energy structure risk is not a static outcome caused by a single factor shock, but the result of the simultaneous presence, interaction, and continuous accumulation of three types of risks, as supported by the historical calibration results. (2) Changes in risk source strength and risk linkage intensity alter both the internal composition and overall level of energy structure risk; stronger linkages among risks make local risks more likely to evolve into structural risks. Robustness tests based on alternative weights, dynamic response parameters, and benchmark models confirm the stability of these findings. (3) The decision-making relationship between the energy supply department and the energy financial system further affects the formation of China’s energy structure risk. Compared with the Nash non-cooperative game and the finance-led Stackelberg game, the cooperative game is associated with higher entity governance input and financial support intensity, and therefore corresponds to a lower long-term level of energy structure risk under the model assumptions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: