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.

Model of Covid-19 Outbreak in Burnie, Tasmania

When reported COVID-19 cases begin to show a rapid increase, the government will initiate control policies to deal with the spread.As the number of people tested increases and measures such as isolation and medical assistance are implemented, the number of people infected will decline rapidly.Therefore, the government's policy is to reduce and eliminate sources of transmission by increasing the number of tests and initiating control measures.At the same time, it also shows the negative impact of economic growth, which according to the model will stop in the next 20 weeks.

Model description:

This model is designed to simulate the outbreak of Covid-19 in Burnie in Tasmania. It also tell us the impact of economic policies on outbreak models and economic growth.

 

Variables:

The simulation takes into account the following variables and its adjusting range: 

 

On the left of the model, the variables are: infection rate( from 0 to 0.25), recovery rate( from 0 to 1), death rate( from 0 to 1), immunity loss rate( from 0 to 1), test rate ( from 0 to 1), which are related to Covid-19.

 

In the middle of the model, the variables are: social distancing( from 0 to 0.018), lock down( from 0 to 0.015), quarantine( from 0 to 0.015), vaccination promotion( from 0 to 0.019), border restriction( from 0 to 0.03), which are related to governmental policies.

 

On the right of the model, the variables are: economic growth rate( from 0 to 0.3), which are related to economic growth.

 

Assumptions:

(1) The model is influenced by various variables and can produce different results. The following values based on the estimation, which differ from actual values in reality.

 

(2) Here are just five government policies that have had an impact on infection rates in epidemic models. On the other hand, these policies will also have an impact on economic growth, which may be positive or negative.

 

(3) Governmental policy will only be applied when reported cases are 10 or more. 

 

(4) This model lists two typical economic activities, namely e-commerce and physical stores. Government policies affect these two types of economic activity separately. They together with economic growth rate have an impact on economic growth.

 

Enlightening insights:

(1) In the first two weeks, the number of susceptible people will be significantly reduced due to the high infection rate, and low recovery rate as well as government policies. The number of susceptible people fall slightly two weeks later. Almost all declines have a fluctuating downward trend.

 

(2) Government policies have clearly controlled the number of deaths, suspected cases and COVID-19 cases.

 

(3) The government's restrictive policies had a negative impact on economic growth, but e-commerce economy, physical stores and economic growth rate all played a positive role in economic growth, which enabled the economy to stay in a relatively stable state during the epidemic.

Modern Monetary theory (MMT) has shown how modern monetary systems actually work. It has shown  that governments that issue their own currency, such as the US, can never run out of money or be forced to default on debt issued in their own currency. It has also demonstrated that government spending to stimulate the economy is logical and that the resulting deficit is irrelevant - the government always has the monetary means to eliminate it. This directly contradicts neoliberal doctrine that wants to limit government spending and posits that deficits destabilize the economy. Neoliberalism often constitutes a 'worldview' and 'personal identity'. Those who hold such strong beliefs cannot be persuaded to abandon them using rational arguments and facts - psychological reasons usually impede it as research has shown. The worldwide dominance of the doctrine, vested interests and psychologically grounded opposition suffocate MMT and rational arguments showing its superiority are seemingly of no avail. 

From Warren C. Sanderson in Population - Development - Environment, Wolfgang Lutz (Ed.), 1994, Springer.

To maintain economic wealth (roads, hospitals, power lines, etc.) power needs to be consumed. The same applies to economic activity, since any activity requires the consumption of energy. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the burning of fossil fuels was responsible for 79 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. So whilst economic activity takes place fossil fuels will be burned and CO2 emissions are unavoidable - unless we use exclusively renewable energy resources, which is not likely to occur very soon. However, the increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will have negative consequences, such droughts, floods, crop failures, etc. These effects represent limits to economic growth. The CLD illustrates some of the more prominent negative feedback loops that act as a break on economic growth and wealth.  As the negative feedback loops (B1-B4) get stronger, an interesting question is, 'will a sharp reduction in economic wealth and unavoidable recession lead to wide-spread food riots and disturbances?'

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

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 a compensation 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.

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

This is the original model version (v1.0) with default "standard run" parameter set: see detailed commentary here and here. As of 2 September 2015, ongoing development has now shifted to this version of the model.

The significance of reduced energy return on energy invested (EROI) in the transition from fossil fuel to renewable primary energy sources is often disputed by both renewable energy proponents and mainstream economists.​ This model illustrates the impact of EROI in large-scale energy transition using a system dynamics approach. The variables of primary interest here are: 1) net energy available to "the rest of the economy" as renewable penetration increases [Total final energy services out to the economy]; and 2) the size of the energy sector as a proportion of overall economic activity, treating energy use as a very rough proxy for size [Energy services ratio].
This model aggregates energy supply in the form of fuels and electricity as a single variable, total final energy services, and treats the global economy as a single closed system.
The model includes all major incumbent energy sources, and assumes a transition to wind, PV, hydro and nuclear generated electricity, plus biomass electricity and fuels. Hydro, biomass and nuclear growth rates are built into the model from the outset, and wind and PV emplacement rates respond to the built-in retirement rates for fossil energy sources, by attempting to make up the difference between the historical maximum total energy services out to the global economy, and the current total energy services out. Intermittency of PV and wind are compensated via Li-ion battery storage. Note, however, that seasonal variation of PV is not fully addressed i.e. PV is modeled using annual and global average parameters. For this to have anything close to real world validity, this would require that all PV capacity is located in highly favourable locations in terms of annual average insolation, and that energy is distributed from these regions to points of end use. The necessary distribution infrastructure is not included in the model at this stage.
It is possible to explore the effect of seasonal variation with PV assumed to be distributed more widely by de-rating capacity factor and increasing the autonomy period for storage.

This version of the model takes values for emplaced capacities of conventional sources (i.e. all energy sources except wind and PV) as exogenous inputs, based on data generated from earlier endogenously-generated emplaced capacities (for which emplacement rates as a proportion of existing installed capacity were the primary exogenous input).

The statement that there can be no economic activity without  energy and that fossil fuels are finite contrasts with the fact that money is not finite and can be created by governments via their central banks at zero marginal cost whenever needed.

An important fact about COAL, GAS and OIL (especially when produced via fracking) is that their net energy ratios are falling rapidly. In other words the energy needed to extract a given quantity of fossil fuels is constantly increasing. The falling ratio 'EROI' (Energy Return on Energy Invested ) provides yet another warning that we can no longer rely on fossil fuels to power our economies. In 1940 it took the energy of only one barrel of oil to extract 100. Today the energy of 1 barrel of oil will yield only 15. We cannot wait until the ratio falls to 1/1 before we invest seriously in alternative sources of energy, because by then industrial society as we know it doday will have ceased to exist. An EROI of 1:1 means that it takes the energy of one barrel of oil to extract one barrel of oil - oil production would simply stop! 

A model to gain understanding of the causes and effects of a population's interest in engineering.

Fig 2 to 14 Land Use added to 4 Quadrant Model SD Model from Eskanasi 2014  thesis 

Model supporting research of investment vs. austerity implications. Please refer to Modern Money & Public Purpose Video.

@LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube

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

ISCI 360 - Project Finale