Clone of PA_if_6_Carvajal_Osorio_Tamayo
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!
Clone of Energy and Economic Activity
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)
Clone of How many jobless graduates in the UK future scenarios
Clone of Clone of Clone of Recycling and Waste Treatment in Vancouver
Model supporting research of investment vs. austerity implications. Please refer to Modern Money & Public Purpose Video.
Clone of Investment vs Austerity v3
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?'
Clone of LIMITS TO ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROMINENT NEGATIVE FEEDBACK LOOPS
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 Burnie COVID-19 outbreak demo model version 2
Clone of Clone of Clone of PA_if_6_Carvajal_Osorio_Tamayo
Rich picture trying to explain in detail the economy of Peru.
Year: 2017
Rich Picture: Economía del Perú
Model supporting research of investment vs. austerity implications. Please refer to Modern Money & Public Purpose Video.
@LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube
Clone of Investment vs Austerity v3
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?'
Clone of LIMITS TO ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROMINENT NEGATIVE FEEDBACK LOOPS
Clone of Clone of PA_if_6_Carvajal_Osorio_Tamayo
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)
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)
Introduction
This model simulates the COVID-19 outbreaks in Burnie, the government reactions, as well as the economic impact. The government's strategy is based on the number of COVID-19 cases reported and testing rates and recovered.
Assumptions
In the same trend that government policy decreases infection, it also reduces economic growth.
When there are ten or fewer COVID-19 cases reported, government policy is triggered.
The economy suffers as a result of an increase in COVID-19 cases.
Interesting insights
The higher testing rates appear to result in a more quick government response, resulting in fewer infectious cases. However, it has a negative influence on the economy.
Model of COVID-19 outbreak in Burnie Tasmania - Xiaoqing Ren 525418
This is a reconstruction of the SIMM model presented in Chapter 2 of
Feedback Economics (Contemporary Systems Thinking)@LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube
Clone of Simple Macroeconomic Model (SIMM) (SFD)
Clone of Clone of PA_if_6_Carvajal_Osorio_Tamayo
Clone of Clone of PA_if_6_Carvajal_Osorio_Tamayo
Clone of PA_if_6_Carvajal_Osorio_Tamayo
Clone of Clone of PA_if_6_Carvajal_Osorio_Tamayo
This model is to explain the COVID-19 outbreak in Brunie Island, Tasmania, Australia, and the relationship between it and the government policies , also with the local economy.
This model is upgraded on the basis of the SIR model and adds more variables.
A large number of COVID-19 cases will have a negative impact on the local economy. But if the number of cases is too small, it will have no impact on the macro economy
Government policy will help control the growth of COVID-19 cases by getting people tested.
BMA708 Model of COVID-19 Outbreak in Burnie island. Ming Liu 501335
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.
Simulation Of Derby Mountain Bikes Versus logging
Model in support of an article being written about the relationship between investment and austerity. See Version 2
See also:
*
Inv vs Aust Sim [IM-2736]*
Inv & Output 1 [IM-2740]*
Inv & Output 2 [IM-2741]
Clone of Investment vs Austerity