Economy Models
These models and simulations have been tagged “Economy”.
Clone of Assignment 3
Overview:
The model shows the industry competition and relationship between Forrestry and Mountain Bike Trip in Derby, Tasmania. The aim of the simulation is to find a balance between the co-existence of these two industry.
How Does the Model Work?
Both industries will generate incomes. Firstly, income is generated from the sale of timber through logging. In addition, income is also generated from the consumption of mountain bike riders. Regarding to the Forrestry industry, people cut down trees because there is a market demand for timber. The timber is sold for profits. However, the experience of mountain biking tourism is largely affected by the low regeneration rate of trees and the degradation of the environment and landscape due to tree felling. People have better riding experiences when trees are abundant and the scenery is beautiful. People's satisfaction and expectations depend on the scenery and experience. Recommendations of past riders will also impact the tourists amount.
Interesting Insights
The income generated by logging can provide a significant economic contribution to Tasmania, but excessive logging can lead to environmental problems and a reduction in visitors. Excessive logging can lead to a decline in tourism in the mountains, which will affect tourism. Despite the importance of forestry, tourism can also provide a significant economic contribution to Tasmania. The government should find a balance between the two industries while maintaining the number of tourists.
Simulation of Derby Mountain bikes versus logging
Scratch build of a stock-flow consistent model of a closed economy, based on a current transactions matrix
Clone of Closed Economy
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
This model simulates the competition between logging versus adventure tourism(mountain bike riding) in Derby Tasmania. The purpose of this model is that focus on the relationship between the timber industry and mountain bike tourism in adventure. It also reflects how well these two industries co-exist.
How this model works
This model shows tree grow development. In order to maximize the profits from selling the logging, the demand for timbers will increase.
The mountain bike visits depend on past experience and recommendations. In addition, past experience and recommendations depend on Scenery, which is determined by the number of trees and visitors and adventure number. However, park capacity limits the number of use mountain bikes, because the convince of parking is a consideration for the visitors.
It seems like the high logging sale does not deter mountain bike activities. By reducing the parking capacity, visitor experience and number are increased. Because of the strong relationship between the mountain bike park and the explosion in visitor numbers. With the improvement in the number of visitors, the number of food and restaurants will go up as well. Because of the daily needs of the visitors.
Simulation of Derby Mountain bikes versus logging
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
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
Could repeat expositions of the truth about
money creation undermine the wide-spread erroneous belief that governments
cannot spend more money than they collect in taxes unless they borrow?
Governments, via their central banks, can create as much of their currency as
they wish. They can never be forced into default on debt obligations issued in
their own currency. In fact, they do not even need to issue debt, as the false
dogma tries to make us believe - why should a government have to borrow its own
currency when it can create it? Could the dynamic indicated by the CLD be used
to spread the long-overdue acceptance of monetary reality?
REINFORCING DYNAMIC THAT CAN STRENGHTEN MONETARY REALISM
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
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 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)
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.
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 (v3.1)
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
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)
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
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.
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)
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
Overview
This model is a working simulation of the competition between the mountain biking tourism industry versus the forestry logging within Derby Tasmania.
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.
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.
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
11 months ago
Overview
This model not only reveals the conflict between proposed logging of adjacent coups and Mountain bike in Derby but also simulates competition between them. The simulation model aims to investigate the potential coexistence opportunities between the mountain biking and forestry and find out the optimal point for coexistence to help improve Tasmania’s economy.
How the model works
It is recognized that the mountain biking and forestry industries can help support the Tasmanian community and strengthen the Tasmanian economy. The logging and forest sector in Derby can help the local community generate wealth and create more employment opportunities. The sector main source of income come from selling timber such as domestic and export sales. Nevertheless, the sector’s profit has decreased over the past few years on account of the weaker demand and reduced output. Accordingly, the profitability and output of the sector have fluctuated in response to the availability of timber, the timber price movements as well as the impact of changing demand conditions in downstream timber processing sectors. The slow growth rate for a timber has a negative impact on the profitability of the forestry industry and the economic contribution of this industry is set to grow slower, as there is a positive correlation between these variables. In addition, the mountain biking industry in Derby can bring a huge significant economic contribution to the local community. The revenue streams of the industry come from bike rental, accommodation, retail purchase and meals and beverages. These variables also influence the past experience which is positive correlation between reviews and satisfaction that can impact the demand for the mountain biking trails. More importantly, the low regeneration rate for a timber can have a negative impact on the landscape of the mountain biking and the tourist’s past experience that led to a decrease in the demand of tourists for the mountain biking, as the reviews and satisfaction are dependent on the landscape and past experience. It is evident that the industry not only helps the local community generate wealth through industry value addition but also creates a lot of employment opportunities. Therefore, the Mountain Bike Trails can be regarded as sustainable tourism that can help increase employment opportunities and economic contribution that can be of main economic significance to the Tasmania’s economy. Therefore, both industries can co-exist that can maximise the economic contribution to the local community and the Tasmanian economy.
Interesting Insights
It is interesting to note that the activity of cutting down trees does not influence the development of Mountain Biking industry. By lowering the prices of accommodation, food, bike rental and souvenirs, it can help increase the reviews and recommendations of Mountain Biking that will enhance the number of tourists. In this case, the Mountain Biking industry can achieve sustainable economic growth in the long-term while the economic growth rate of forestry industry will continue to decrease.
Simulation of Derby Mountain bikes versus logging
This is a model that simulates the competition between logging versus adventure tourism (mountain bike riding) in Derby Tasmania. The simulation is borrowed from the Easter island simulation
Simulation of Derby Mountain bikes versus logging
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
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.
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)
