Insight diagram
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.
Energy transition to lower EROI sources (v2.7)
Insight diagram
This is a reconstruction of the SIMM model presented in Chapter 2 of Feedback Economics (Contemporary Systems Thinking)

@LinkedInTwitterYouTube


Clone of Simple Macroeconomic Model (SIMM) (SFD)
Insight diagram
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.
Clone of Energy transition to lower EROI sources (v2.6)
Insight diagram
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.
Clone of Energy transition to lower EROI sources (v2.5)
Insight diagram
Clone of Elements of Human Security
Insight diagram
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.
Clone of Energy transition to lower EROI sources (v2.5)
Insight diagram
Clone of Clone of Factors affecting Brazilian soy export growth
Insight diagram

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.

Simulação de Mountain Bikes Derby versus Silvicultura
Insight diagram

Overview 

A simple model simulates the conflict between adventure tourism (mountain biking) and logging in Derby, Tasmania. It demonstrates how these industries co-exist and in what circumstances would affect the interests of both parties. 


How does the model work? 

The demand for mountain biking came from visitors' enjoyment of nature and desire for scenery. Adventure is driven by the excitement of visitors with their experience and friends' recommendations.  

The demand for timber leads to the amount of logging, and its price per log impacts forest revenue. It brought employment opportunities to the local residents in Derby Mountain. The excessive deforestation affects landscapes and scenery, so regrowth is essential. 


Interesting Insights 

The major rebate is reducing park spaces will degrade visitors' experience of enjoyment with nature. Still, at the same time, logging brings significant business benefits to the local residents.  The environmental effect of being well-managed between mountain bikes and logging needs to be depth-explored and balanced. 

Simulation of Derby Mountain Bike Riding Versus Logging
Insight diagram
Overview
A model which simulates the competition between logging versus adventure tourism (mountain bike ridding) in Derby Tasmania.  Simulation borrowed from the Easter Island simulation.

How the model works.
Trees grow, we cut them down because of demand for Timber amd sell the logs.
With mountain bkie visits.  This depends on past experience and recommendations.  Past experience and recommendations depends on Scenery number of trees compared to visitor and Adventure number of trees and users.  Park capacity limits the number of users.  
Interesting insights
It seems that high logging does not deter mountain biking.  By reducing park capacity, visitor experience and numbers are improved.  A major problem is that any success with the mountain bike park leads to an explosion in visitor numbers.  Also a high price of timber is needed to balance popularity of the park. It seems also that only a narrow corridor is needed for mountain biking
Clone of Simulation of Derby Mountain biking versus logging
Insight diagram
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
Housing dynamics 1
Insight diagram
Recycling Problem in Vancouver
Insight diagram
Z414 from System Zoo 2
Bossel: Z414 Resource Discovery
Insight 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.
Clone of Immigrant Populations and Policy Implications
Insight diagram
A model situmalte the relationship between moutain bikes and logging industry in Derby, Tasmania, It explains more when the number of visitors increases or decreses. 

How the model works
The left side shows when the number of travellers increase, the income from travellers rental of bike and stay of hotel increase simultaneously. However, there is a capacity for both parking lots and hotel venues, which means that the top ability of hospitality of Derby. The right side shows the logging industry of Derby and income from logging. It has a impact on how travellers would value Derby moutain.

Insights
As the number of travellers increase, it increases the total income of Derby, and in return, the local government will re-revest in Derby Moutain and will also maintain the forrestry logging industry. 
Simulation of Derby Moutain Bikes Versus Biking
Insight diagram
Clone of Factors affecting Brazilian soy export growth
Insight diagram
A sample model for class discussion modeling COVID-19 outbreaks and responses from government with the effect on the local economy.  Govt policy is dependent on reported COVID-19 cases, which in turn depend on testing rates less those who recover

Assumptions
Govt policy reduces infection and economic growth in the same way.

Govt policy is trigger when reported COVID-19 case are 10 or less.

A greater number of COVID-19 cases has a negative effect on the economy.  This is due to economic signalling that all is not well.

Interesting insights

Higher testing rates seem to trigger more rapid government intervention, which reduces infectious cases.  The impact on the economy though of higher detected cases though is negative. 




Clone of Clone of Burnie COVID-19 outbreak demo model version 2
Insight diagram
Model description:
This model is designed to simulate the outbreak of Covid-19 in Burnie in Tasmania, death cases, the governmental responses and Burnie local economy. 

More importantly, the impact of governmental responses to both Covid-19 infection and to local economy, the impact of death cases to local economy are illustrated. 

The model is based on SIR (Susceptible, Infected and recovered) model. 

Variables:
The simulation takes into account the following variables: 

Variables related to Covid-19: (1): Infection rate. (2): Recovery rate. (3): Death rate. (4): Immunity loss rate. 

Variables related to Governmental policies: (1): Vaccination mandate. (2): Travel restriction to Burnie. (3): Economic support. (4): Gathering restriction.

Variables related to economic growth: Economic growth rate. 

Adjustable variables are listed in the part below, together with the adjusting range.

Assumptions:
(1): Governmental policies are aimed to control(reduce) Covid-19 infections and affect (both reduce and increase) economic growth accordingly.

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

(3) The increasing cases will negatively influence Burnie economic growth.

Enlightening insights:
(1) Vaccination mandate, when changing from 80% to 100%, doesn't seem to affect the number of death cases.

(2) Governmental policies are effectively control the growing death cases and limit it to 195. 

Burnie Tasmania Covid - 19 outbreak simulation Model by Yankang Huang 541 277
Insight diagram
This model aims to show that how Tasmania government's Covid-19 policy can address the spread of the pandemic and in what way these policy can damage the economy.

This model assumes that if the COVID-19 cases are more than 10, the government will take action such as quarantine and lockdown at the area. These policy can indirectly affect the local economy in many different way. At the same time, strict policy may be essential for combating Covid-19.

From the simulation of the model, we can clearly see that the economy of Burine will be steady increase when government successfully reduces the COVID-19 cased and make it spreading slower.

Interesting finding: In this pandemic, the testing rate and the recovery rate are important to stop Covid-19 spreading. Once the cases of Covid-19 less than 10, the government might stop intervention and the economy of Burnie will back to normal.

Model of Covid-19 outbreaks at Burnie (Yingchao Yang,503757)
Insight diagram
This is a reconstruction of the SIMM model presented in Chapter 2 of Feedback Economics (Contemporary Systems Thinking)

@LinkedInTwitterYouTube


Clone of Simple Macroeconomic Model (SIMM) (SFD)
Insight diagram
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.

According to the analysis, logging does not reduce tourism income. With the increase of number of bike guide, tourism income will increase as well. Also, in forest industry, timber income is higher than the harvest spending which means the industry always gain profits from logging. Therefore, the main concern is that the logging should be balanced between the Mountain Tourism and the forest industry.
Simulation of Derby Mountain bikes versus logging
Insight diagram
Overview
This model is a working simulation of the competition between the mountain biking tourism industry versus the forestry logging within Derby Tasmania.

How the model works
The left side of the model highlights the mountain bike flow beginning with demand for the forest that leads to increased visitors using the forest of mountain biking. Accompanying variables effect the tourism income that flows from use of the bike trails.
On the right side, the forest flow begins with tree growth then a demand for timber leading to the logging production. The sales from the logging then lead to the forestry income.
The model works by identifying how the different variables interact with both mountain biking and logging. As illustrated there are variables that have a shared effect such as scenery and adventure and entertainment.

Variables
The variables are essential in understanding what drives the flow within the model. For example mountain biking demand is dependent on positive word mouth which in turn is dependent on scenery. This is an important factor as logging has a negative impact on how the scenery changes as logging deteriorates the landscape and therefore effects positive word of mouth.
By establishing variables and their relationships with each other, the model highlights exactly how mountain biking and forestry logging effect each other and the income it supports.

Interesting Insights
The model suggests that though there is some impact from logging, tourism still prospers in spite of negative impacts to the scenery with tourism increasing substantially over forestry income. There is also a point at which the visitor population increases exponentially at which most other variables including adventure and entertainment also increase in result. The model suggests that it may be possible for logging and mountain biking to happen simultaneously without negatively impacting on the tourism income.
Remake of Simulation of Derby Mountain biking versus logging
5 months ago
Insight diagram
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.
Clone of Energy transition to lower EROI sources (v2.5)
11 months ago
Insight diagram
Clone of SIR model
11 months ago