Model supporting research of investment vs. austerity implications. Please refer to additional information on the  SystemsWiki Focus Page  and  Modern Money & Public Purpose Video .

Model supporting research of investment vs. austerity implications. Please refer to additional information on the SystemsWiki Focus Page and Modern Money & Public Purpose Video.

 Model supporting research of investment vs. austerity implications. Please refer to  Modern Money & Public Purpose Video .  Follow us on  YouTube ,  Twitter ,  LinkedIn  and please support  Systems Thinking World .

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

Follow us on YouTube, Twitter, LinkedIn and please support Systems Thinking World.

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" value
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.
A model to gain understanding of the causes and effects of a population's interest in engineering.
A model to gain understanding of the causes and effects of a population's interest in engineering.
Model showing the effect of bank lending of deposited money as a multiplier in the creation of new money. Multiplier effect is shown as related to the bank reserve requirement on deposited funds.
Model showing the effect of bank lending of deposited money as a multiplier in the creation of new money. Multiplier effect is shown as related to the bank reserve requirement on deposited funds.
     Description:    
Model of Covid-19 outbreak in Burnie, Tasmania  This model was designed from the SIR
model(susceptible, infected, recovered) to determine the effect of the covid-19
outbreak on economic outcomes via government policy.    Assumptions:    The government policy is triggered when t

Description:

Model of Covid-19 outbreak in Burnie, Tasmania

This model was designed from the SIR model(susceptible, infected, recovered) to determine the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on economic outcomes via government policy.

Assumptions:

The government policy is triggered when the number of infected is more than ten.

The government policies will take a negative effect on Covid-19 outbreaks and the financial system.

Parameters:

We set some fixed and adjusted variables.

Covid-19 outbreak's parameter

Fixed parameter: Background disease.

Adjusted parameters: Infection rate, recovery rate. Immunity loss rate can be changed from vaccination rate.

Government policy's parameters

Adjusted parameters: Testing rate(from 0.15 to 0.95), vaccination rate(from 0.3 to 1), travel ban(from 0 to 0.9), social distancing(from 0.1 to 0.8), Quarantine(from 0.1 to 0.9)

Economic's parameters

Fixed parameter: Tourism

Adjusted parameter: Economic growth rate(from 0.3 to 0.5)

Interesting insight

An increased vaccination rate and testing rate will decrease the number of infected cases and have a little more negative effect on the economic system. However, the financial system still needs a long time to recover in both cases.

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
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.
 Model supporting research of investment vs. austerity implications. Please refer to additional information on the  SystemsWiki Focus Page  and  Modern Money & Public Purpose Video .

Model supporting research of investment vs. austerity implications. Please refer to additional information on the SystemsWiki Focus Page and Modern Money & Public Purpose Video.

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
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. 
A model to gain understanding of the causes and effects of a population's interest in engineering.
A model to gain understanding of the causes and effects of a population's interest in engineering.
 Model supporting research of investment vs. austerity implications. Please refer to additional information on the  SystemsWiki Focus Page  and  Modern Money & Public Purpose Video .

Model supporting research of investment vs. austerity implications. Please refer to additional information on the SystemsWiki Focus Page and Modern Money & Public Purpose Video.

Initial qualitative causal loop diagram Fig 5.21 from Dianati, K. (2022) London’s Housing Crisis – A System Dynamics Analysis of Long-term Developments: 40 Years into the Past and 40 Years into the Future  UCL PhD Thesis  and see also  Video presentation  and  CLD 2 Insight  after Simulation experim
Initial qualitative causal loop diagram Fig 5.21 from Dianati, K. (2022) London’s Housing Crisis – A System Dynamics Analysis of Long-term Developments: 40 Years into the Past and 40 Years into the Future UCL PhD Thesis and see also Video presentation and CLD 2 Insight after Simulation experiments
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 is a first attempt to illustrate the impact of EROI in large-scale e
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 is a first attempt to illustrate 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 use 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 dealt with via Li-ion battery storage. Note, however, that seasonal variation of PV is not 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).
Neoliberalism
uses a deceptive narrative to declare that money the government spends into the economy in excesses of the taxes it collects creates a ‘government debt’.
In fact, the money the government spends into the economy in excess of the
taxes is an income, a benefit for the private sector. Whe
Neoliberalism uses a deceptive narrative to declare that money the government spends into the economy in excesses of the taxes it collects creates a ‘government debt’. In fact, the money the government spends into the economy in excess of the taxes is an income, a benefit for the private sector. When the government issues bonds, the money the private sector uses to buy them via banks comes from a residual cushion of dollars that the government already spent into the economy but has not yet taxed back.  If this were not the case, if the government had taxed back all the money it spent into the economy, then the economy could not function. There would be no dollars in the economy, since the government is the sole supplier of U.S. dollars! In the doted rectangle in the graph you can see that the dollars paid to the government for bonds sits in a dollar asset account. When the government issues bonds it simply provides the public and institutions with a desirable money substitute that pays interest i.e. Treasury bonds. It is a swap of one kind of financial asset for another. To register this swap the government debits the dollar asset account and credits the bond account.  When the time comes to redeem (take back) the bonds, all the government does is revers the swap, and that’s all!  When you look at the total amount of finacial assets in the private sector,  these remain constant at $ 25 BN  after the payment of $ 5 BN taxes. This implies that  no lending of financial assets of the private sector to the government has taken place during the swap operation. The money was always there. The debt mountain is an illusion!
  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.  Wit
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