Model description: 

This model is designed to simulate the Covid-19 outbreak in Burnie, Tasmania by estimating several factors such as exposed population, infection rate, testing rate, recovery rate, death rate and immunity loss. The model also simulates the measures implemented by the government which will impact on the local infection and economy. 

 

Assumption:

Government policies will reduce the mobility of the population as well as the infection. In addition, economic activities in the tourism and hospitality industry will suffer negative influences from the government measures. However, essential businesses like supermarkets will benefit from the health policies on the contrary.

 

Variables:

Infection rate, recovery rate, death rate, testing rate are the variables to the cases of Covid-19. On the other hand, the number of cases is also a variable to the government policies, which directly influences the number of exposed. 

 

The GDP is dependent on the variables of economic activities. Nonetheless, the government’s lockdown measure has also become the variable to the economic activities. 

 

Interesting insights:

Government policies are effective to curb infection by reducing the number of exposed when the case number is greater than 10. The economy becomes stagnant when the case spikes up but it climbs up again when the number of cases is under control. 

Overview
This model is a working simulation of the competition between the mountain biking tourism industry versus the forestry logging within Derby Tasmania.

A toy model to see what happens to employment when people must move through various states to get to certain jobs

A model which simulates the competition between logging versus adventure tourism (mountain bike ridding) in Derby Tasmania.  Simulation borrowed from the Easter Island simulation.

A detailed description of all model input parameters is available here. These are discussed further here and here.

Update 26 October 2017 (v2.7): Updated historical wind and PV deployment data for 2015-2016, adding projected PV deployment for 2017. Data via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country.

Update 18 December 2016 (v2.7): Added feature to calculate a global EROI index for all energy sources plus intermittency buffering (currently batteries only, but this could be diversified). The index is calculated specifically in terms of energy services in the form of work and heat. That is, it takes the aggregated energy services made available by all sources as the energy output term, and the energy services required to provided the buffered output as the energy input term.

Update 29 June 2016 (v2.6): Added historical emplacement for wind and PV capacity. The maximum historical emplacement rates are then maintained from year 114/115 until the end of the model period. This acts as a base emplacement rate that is then augmented with the contribution made via the feedback control mechanism. Note that battery buffering commences only once the additional emplacement via the feedback controller kicks in. This means that there is a base capacity for both wind and PV for which no buffering is provided, slightly reducing the energy services required for wind and PV supplies, as well as associated costs. Contributions from biomass and nuclear have also been increased slightly, in line with the earlier intention that these should approximately double during the transition period. This leads to a modest reduction in the contributions required from wind and PV.

Added calculation of global mean conversion efficiency energy to services on primary energy basis. This involves making an adjustment to the gross energy outputs for all thermal electricity generation sources. The reason for this is that standard EROI analysis methodology involves inclusion of energy inputs on a primary energy equivalent basis. In order to convert correctly between energy inputs and energy service inputs, the reference conversion efficiency must therefore be defined on a primary energy basis. Previously, this conversion was made on the basis of the mean conversion efficiency from final energy to energy services.

Update 14 December 2015 (v2.5): correction to net output basis LCOE calculation, to include actual self power demand for wind, PV and batteries in place of "2015 reference" values.

Update 20 November 2015 (v2.4): levelised O&M costs now added for wind & PV, so that complete (less transmission-related investments) LCOE for wind and PV is calculated, for both gross and net output.

Update 18 November 2015 (v2.3: development of capital cost estimates for wind, PV and battery buffering, adding levelised capital cost per unit net output, for comparison with levelised capital cost per unit gross output. Levelised capital cost estimate has been substantially refined, bringing this into line with standard practice for capital recovery calculation. Discount rate is user adjustable.

Default maximum autonomy periods reduced to 48 hours for wind and 72 hours for PV.

Update 22 October 2015 (v2.2): added ramped introduction of wind and PV buffering capacity. Wind and PV buffering ramps from zero to the maximum autonomy period as wind and PV generated electricity increases as a proportion of overall electricity supply. The threshold proportion for maximum autonomy period is user adjustable. Ramping uses interpolation based on an elliptical curve between zero and the threshold proportion, to avoid discontinuities that produce poor response shape in key variables.

Update 23 September 2015 (v2.1): added capital investment calculation and associated LCOE contribution for wind generation plant, PV generation plant and storage batteries.

**This version (v2.0) includes refined energy conversion efficiency estimates, increasing the global mean efficiency, but also reducing the aggressiveness of the self-demand learning curves for all sources. The basis for the conversion efficiencies, including all assumptions relating to specific types of work & heat used by the economy, is provided in this Excel spreadsheet.

Conversion of self power demand to energy services demand for each source is carried out via a reference global mean conversion efficiency, set as a user input using the global mean conversion efficiency calculated in the model at the time of transition commencement (taken to be the time for which all EROI parameter values are defined. A learning curve is applied to this value to account for future improvement in self power demand to services conversion efficiency.**

The original "standard run" version of the model is available here.

Visão geral

O modelo mostra a conexão e o conflito da indústria entre o turismo florestal e o turismo de montanha em Derby, Tasmânia. O objetivo desta simulação é descobrir o ponto de equilíbrio para a coexistência.

Como funciona o modelo?

Ambas as indústrias podem fornecer contribuições económicas para a Tasmânia. Em primeiro lugar, a venda de madeira através da exploração madeireira geraria renda. Além disso, os gastos dos ciclistas de montanha gerariam renda. No entanto, a baixa taxa de regeneração das árvores não pode encobrir a exploração madeireira, o que influencia as belas vistas e as experiências dos ciclistas. Embora a satisfação e a expectativa dependam das opiniões e da experiência, a demanda pelo mountain bike também seria influenciada pelas visitas repetidas e pelo boca a boca.

Informações interessantes

Embora a silvicultura possa fornecer uma grande contribuição económica para a Tasmânia, o excesso de exploração madeireira vai contra a estrutura ESG, além de criar conflito com o turismo de montanha. Desde que o número de visitas de cavaleiros seja estável, o turismo pode sempre proporcionar uma maior contribuição económica em comparação com a silvicultura. Portanto, o governo deveria considerar o ponto de equilíbrio entre as duas indústrias.

This is a reconstruction of the SIMM model presented in Chapter 2 of Feedback Economics (Contemporary Systems Thinking)

This is a reconstruction of the SIMM model presented in Chapter 2 of Feedback Economics (Contemporary Systems Thinking)

A detailed description of all model input parameters is available here. These are discussed further here and here.

Update 14 December 2015 (v2.5): correction to net output basis LCOE calculation, to include actual self power demand for wind, PV and batteries in place of "2015 reference" values.

Update 20 November 2015 (v2.4): levelised O&M costs now added for wind & PV, so that complete (less transmission-related investments) LCOE for wind and PV is calculated, for both gross and net output.

Update 18 November 2015 (v2.3: development of capital cost estimates for wind, PV and battery buffering, adding levelised capital cost per unit net output, for comparison with levelised capital cost per unit gross output. Levelised capital cost estimate has been substantially refined, bringing this into line with standard practice for capital recovery calculation. Discount rate is user adjustable.

Default maximum autonomy periods reduced to 48 hours for wind and 72 hours for PV.

Update 22 October 2015 (v2.2): added ramped introduction of wind and PV buffering capacity. Wind and PV buffering ramps from zero to the maximum autonomy period as wind and PV generated electricity increases as a proportion of overall electricity supply. The threshold proportion for maximum autonomy period is user adjustable. Ramping uses interpolation based on an elliptical curve between zero and the threshold proportion, to avoid discontinuities that produce poor response shape in key variables.

Update 23 September 2015 (v2.1): added capital investment calculation and associated LCOE contribution for wind generation plant, PV generation plant and storage batteries.

**This version (v2.0) includes refined energy conversion efficiency estimates, increasing the global mean efficiency, but also reducing the aggressiveness of the self-demand learning curves for all sources. The basis for the conversion efficiencies, including all assumptions relating to specific types of work & heat used by the economy, is provided in this Excel spreadsheet.

Conversion of self power demand to energy services demand for each source is carried out via a reference global mean conversion efficiency, set as a user input using the global mean conversion efficiency calculated in the model at the time of transition commencement (taken to be the time for which all EROI parameter values are defined. A learning curve is applied to this value to account for future improvement in self power demand to services conversion efficiency.**

The original "standard run" version of the model is available here.

This model shows the changing happened in forest industry and mountain tourism in Derby Tasmania. Logging will degrade mountain tourism while benefit the forestry industry. Simulation borrowed from the Easter Island simulation.

This is a reconstruction of the SIMM model presented in Chapter 2 of Feedback Economics (Contemporary Systems Thinking)

Basic Brain Drain System Dynamics Diagram

Simple mock-up model of how prioritizing various push-pull factors impacts the size of the immigrant population over time as well as economic benefits to the U.S. economy.

Simple SD version of Wheaton 1999  stock flow representation of DiPasquale-Wheaton 4 Quadrant steady state model (4QM) from Eskanasi 2014 and Zhang 2018 theses

A model which simulates the competition between logging versus adventure tourism (mountain bike ridding) in Derby Tasmania.  Simulation borrowed from the Easter Island simulation.

Z414 from System Zoo 2

Simple mock-up model of how prioritizing various push-pull factors impacts the size of the immigrant population over time as well as economic benefits to the U.S. economy.

Muhammad Firas Zahid Suryaatmaja

This is a system dynamic model to describe relationship between local logging industry and biking tourism in Tasmanian Derby Mountain.

In the dynamic model, the left-hand side shows how Derby get income from local biking tourism. The biking visitors number are influenced by scenery evaluation which depend on local size of forest and influenced government policy support when Biking Tourism income is over 1000 unit. Biking visitors with good recommendation will also back to Mountain Derby and bring income for local in twice or more times.  In the right-hand side, we found the income of logging industry was influenced by local logging growth rate and government policy if local Biking Tourism income is over 1000 unit. The increase of logging industry will also increase local employment which will influence employee cost. This factor will also affect total logging income in Derby Mountain.

 

The simulation results show, with governments support the Biking tourism will increase sharply in the first few years and finally instead local logging industry, at same time bring good environment and save local forest under local increase logging industry. The recommendation graph shows that, the number of good recommendation & bad recommendation for Derby Mountain biking tourism will also increase in high speed in front of few years with data fluctuation but finally maintain in a stable line. Last simulation graph shows that how policy factor influences logging and biking industry. The Government has strong support in local tourism, however, as number of tourists increase, the positive impact from government support will continue decrease. On the contrary, the government support influence will also decease to local logging industry when logging been instead by tourism.