Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- topics:systems [2026/03/19 21:45] – admin
+++ topics:systems [2026/03/20 00:02] (current) – Status updated to development admin
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 updated: 19 March 2026
 sensitivity: low
-ai-disclosure: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Anthropic) assisted with research synthesis and section drafting; all sources independently verified.
+ai-disclosure: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Anthropic) assisted with research synthesis and section update. Verification is in progress.
-status: draft
+status: development
 short-desc: Conceptual frameworks for understanding energy systems as socio-technical, cyber-physical, and innovation-oriented configurations.
 </WRAP>
@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
-Energy systems are not simply technical objects with well-defined components. They are sociotechnical configurations in which physical infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, economic actors, and everyday practices are mutually constituted. Systems thinking — drawing on traditions from engineering, ecology, and social science — provides tools for analysing how change propagates, where leverage points exist, and why interventions produce unintended consequences.((Meadows, D. H. (2008). //Thinking in systems: A primer//. Chelsea Green Publishing.))
+Energy systems are not simply technical objects with well-defined components. They are sociotechnical configurations in which physical infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, economic actors, and everyday practices are mutually constituted. Systems thinking draws on multiple traditions such as engineering, ecology, and social science, and provides tools for analysing how change propagates, where leverage points exist, and why interventions produce unintended consequences.((Meadows, D. H. (2008). //Thinking in systems: A primer//. Chelsea Green Publishing.))
 <WRAP callout>
@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 ===== References =====
-Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., & Rickne, A. (2008). Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. //Research Policy//, 37(3), 407–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003
-Erlinghagen, S., & Markard, J. (2012). Smart grids and the transformation of the electricity sector: ICT firms as potential catalysts for sectoral change. //Energy Policy//, 51, 895–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.045
-Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. //Research Policy//, 33(6–7), 897–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015
-Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T., & Sorrell, S. (2017). The socio-technical dynamics of low-carbon transitions. //Joule//, 1(3), 463–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2017.09.018
-Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. //Research Policy//, 41(6), 955–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013
-Meadows, D. H. (2008). //Thinking in systems: A primer//. Chelsea Green Publishing.
-NARUC (2021). //Understanding Cybersecurity for the Smart Grid//. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. https://pubs.naruc.org/pub/73C0CA00-155D-0A36-31DB-ABA572C6A65F
-NIST (2021). //Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 4.0//. National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://www.nist.gov/ctl/smart-connected-systems-division/smart-grid-group/smart-grid-framework