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.
Clone of Simulation of Derby Mountain biking versus logging
Insight diagram
Clone of Elements of Human Security
Insight diagram
Update 24 Feburary 2016 (v3.1): This version has biomass, hydro and nuclear continuing at pre-transition maxima, rather than increasing. The combined emplacement rate cap for wind and PV is set at a default value of 5000 GW/year.

Major update 12 December 2015 (v3.0): This new version of the model overhauls the way that incumbent energy source (fossil sources plus biomass, hydro electricity and nuclear electricity) supply capacity is implemented. This is now based on direct (exogenous) input of historical data, with the future supply curve also set directly (but using a separate input array to the historical data). For coal and natural gas fired electricity, this also requires that the simple, direct-input EROI method be used (i.e. same as for coal and NG heating, and petroleum transport fuels).

Note that this new version of the model no longer provides a historical view of the emplacement rates for energy supply sources other than wind and PV, and therefore no longer allows comparison of required emplacement rates for wind and PV with incumbent energy sources. Output data relating to this is available in model version v2.5 (see link below), for the specific transition duration built into that version of the model.

The previous version of the model (version 2.5) is available here.

The original "standard run" version of the model (v1.0) is available here.
Clone of Energy transition to lower EROI sources (v3.1)
Insight diagram
Simple epidemiological model for Burnie, Tasmania
SIR: Susceptible to infection - Infected - Recovery, Government responses and Economic impacts  

Government policy is activated when there are 10 or fewer reported cases of COVID-19. The more people tested, the fewer people became infected. So the government's policy is to reduce infections by increasing the number of people tested and starting early. At the same time, it has slowed the economic growth (which, according to the model,  will stop for next 52 weeks).
Clone of Model of Covid-19 Outbreak in Burnie, Tasmania (Yue Xiang 512994)
Insight diagram
PA_if_6_Carvajal_Osorio_Tamayo
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 Burnie COVID-19 outbreak demo model version 2
Insight diagram
Clone of Clone of Clone of Elements of Human Security
Insight diagram
[The Model of COVID-19 Pandemic Outbreak in Burnie, TAS]

A model of COVID-19 outbreaks and responses from the government with the impact on the local economy and medical supply. 

It is assumed that the government policy is triggered and rely on reported COVID-19 cases when the confirmed cases are 10 or less. 

Interesting insights
The infection rate will decline if the government increase the testing ranges, meanwhile,  the more confirmed cases will increase the pressure on hospital capacity and generate more demand for medical resources, which will promote government policy intervention to narrow the demand gap and  affect economic performance by increasing hospital construction with financial investment.

The Model of COVID-19 Pandemic Outbreak in Burnie, TAS
Insight diagram

Introduction:

This model demonstrates the COVID-19 outbreak in Bernie, Tasmania, and shows the relationship between coVID-19 outbreaks, government policy and the local economy. The spread of pandemics is influenced by many factors, such as infection rates, mortality rates, recovery rates and government policies. Although government policy has brought the Covid-19 outbreak under control, it has had a negative impact on the financial system, and the increase in COVID-19 cases has had a negative impact on economic growth.

 

Assumptions:

The model is based on different infection rates, including infection rate, mortality rate, detection rate and recovery rate. There is a difference between a real case and a model. Since the model setup will only be initiated when 10 cases are reported, the impact on infection rates and economic growth will be reduced.

 

Interesting insights:

Even as infection rates fall, mortality rates continue to rise. However, the rise in testing rates and government health policies contribute to the stability of mortality. The model thinks that COVID-19 has a negative impact on offline industry and has a positive impact on online industry.

Model of COVID-19 outbreak in Burnie, Tasmania
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
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
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
Clone of Clone of PA_if_6_Carvajal_Osorio_Tamayo
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
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).
Clone of Energy transition to lower EROI sources (v1.0)
Insight diagram
Clone of How many jobless graduates in the UK future scenarios
Insight diagram
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
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
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).
Clone of Energy transition to lower EROI sources (v1.0)
Insight diagram
A toy model to see what happens to employment when people must move through various states to get to certain jobs
Clone of Basic Employment Model
Insight diagram
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.
Bank Deposit Money Multiplier
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. 

Clone of Burnie Tasmania Covid - 19 outbreak simulation Model by Yankang Huang 541 277
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 Burnie COVID-19 outbreak demo model version 2
Insight diagram
Major update 12 December 2015 (v3.0): This new version of the model overhauls the way that incumbent energy source (fossil sources plus biomass, hydro electricity and nuclear electricity) supply capacity is implemented. This is now based on direct (exogenous) input of historical data, with the future supply curve also set directly (but using a separate input array to the historical data). For coal and natural gas fired electricity, this also requires that the simple, direct-input EROI method be used (i.e. same as for coal and NG heating, and petroleum transport fuels).

Note that this new version of the model no longer provides a historical view of the emplacement rates for energy supply sources other than wind and PV, and therefore no longer allows comparison of required emplacement rates for wind and PV with incumbent energy sources. Output data relating to this is available in model version v2.5 (see link below), for the specific transition duration built into that version of the model.

The previous version of the model (version 2.5) is available here.

The original "standard run" version of the model (v1.0) is available here.
Energy transition to lower EROI sources (v3.0)