Model description:

This model is designed to simulate the outbreak of Covid-19 in Burnie in Tasmania. It also tell us the impact of economic policies on outbreak models and economic growth.

 

Variables:

The simulation takes into account the following variables and its adjusting range: 

 

On the left of the model, the variables are: infection rate( from 0 to 0.25), recovery rate( from 0 to 1), death rate( from 0 to 1), immunity loss rate( from 0 to 1), test rate ( from 0 to 1), which are related to Covid-19.

 

In the middle of the model, the variables are: social distancing( from 0 to 0.018), lock down( from 0 to 0.015), quarantine( from 0 to 0.015), vaccination promotion( from 0 to 0.019), border restriction( from 0 to 0.03), which are related to governmental policies.

 

On the right of the model, the variables are: economic growth rate( from 0 to 0.3), which are related to economic growth.

 

Assumptions:

(1) The model is influenced by various variables and can produce different results. The following values based on the estimation, which differ from actual values in reality.

 

(2) Here are just five government policies that have had an impact on infection rates in epidemic models. On the other hand, these policies will also have an impact on economic growth, which may be positive or negative.

 

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

 

(4) This model lists two typical economic activities, namely e-commerce and physical stores. Government policies affect these two types of economic activity separately. They together with economic growth rate have an impact on economic growth.

 

Enlightening insights:

(1) In the first two weeks, the number of susceptible people will be significantly reduced due to the high infection rate, and low recovery rate as well as government policies. The number of susceptible people fall slightly two weeks later. Almost all declines have a fluctuating downward trend.

 

(2) Government policies have clearly controlled the number of deaths, suspected cases and COVID-19 cases.

 

(3) The government's restrictive policies had a negative impact on economic growth, but e-commerce economy, physical stores and economic growth rate all played a positive role in economic growth, which enabled the economy to stay in a relatively stable state during the epidemic.

Wealth can be seen as the factories, infrastructure, goods and services the population of a nation dispose of. According to Tim Garrett,  a scientist who looks at the economy from the perspective of physics, it is existing wealth that generates economic activity and growth. This growth demands the use of energy as no activity can take place without its use. He also points out that the use of this energy unavoidably  leads to concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.  All this, Tim Garrett says,  follows from the second law of thermodynamics.  If wealth decreases then so does economic activity and growth. The CLD tries to illustrate how wealth, ironically, now generates the conditions and feedback loops  that  may cause it to decline. The consequences are  inevitably economic  stagnation (or secular recession?). 

You can read about the connection Tim Garrett makes between 'Wealth, Economic Growth, Energy and CO2  Emissions' simply by Googling 'Tim Garrett and Economy'.

Introduction;

This model shows COVID-19 outbreak in Burnie have some impact for local economy situation and government policy. The main government policy is lockdown during the spreading period which can help reduce the infected rate, and also increase the test scale to help susceptible confirm their situation.

Variables;

Infection rate, Death rate, Recovery rate, test rate, susceptible, immunity rate, economy growth rate

These variables are influenced by different situation.

When cases over 10, government will implement lockdown policy.

Conclusion;

When cases increase too much , they will influence the economic situation.

Interesting insights:

If the recover rate is higher, more people will recover from the disease. It seems to be a positive sign. However, it would lead to a higher number of recovered people and more susceptible. As a result, there would be more cases, and would have a negative impact on the economic growth. 

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.

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 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.

C8 Article through the Economy lense

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]

This model shows the changing happened in forest industry and mountain tourism in Derby Tasmania. Logging will degrade mountain tourism while benefit the forestry industry. Simulation borrowed from the Easter Island simulation.

This model is an attempt to understand the interactions within an economy in an attempt to determine where the leverage points are to stimulate an economy.

This is a Virtual Systemic Inquiry (VSI) Project. Please refer to the Stimulating an Economy focus page.

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.

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 to gain understanding of the causes and effects of a population's interest in engineering.

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. 

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 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]

this is economy as it is in reality.

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).

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.

Overview

This model simulates logging and mountain biking competition in Derby, Tasmania. The Simulation is referenced to simulate Derby mountain biking with logging.

 

Model Work

The tourism industry is represented on the model's left side, and the logging industry is on the right side. Interactions between these two industries generate tax revenues. Logging and tourism have different growth rates regarding people working/consuming. The initial values of these two industries in the model are not fixed but increase yearly due to inflation or economic growth.

 

Detail Insights

From the perspective of tourism, as the number of tourists keeps growing, the number of people who choose to ride in Derby City also gradually increases. And the people who ride rate the ride. The negative feedback feeds back into the cycling population. Similarly, positive cycling reviews lead to more customer visits. And all the customers will create a revenue through tourism, and a certain proportion of the income will become tourism tax.

From a logging perspective, it is very similar to the tourism industry. As the number of people working in the industry is forecast to increase, the industry's overall size is predicted to grow. And as the industry's size continues to rise, the taxes on the logging industry will also continue to rise. Since logging is an industry, the tax contribution will be more significant than the tourism excise tax.

 

This model assumption is illustrated below:

1. The amount of tax reflects the level of industrial development.

2. The goal of reducing carbon emissions lets us always pay attention to the environmental damage caused by the logging industry.

3. The government's regulatory goal is to increase overall income while ensuring the environment.

4. Logging will lead to environmental damage, which will decrease the number of tourists.

 

This model is based on tourism tax revenue versus logging tax revenue. Tourism tax revenue is more incredible than logging tax revenue, indicating a better environment. As a result of government policy, the logging industry will be heavily developed in the short term. Growth in the logging industry will increase by 40%. A growth rate of 0.8 and 0.6 of the original is obtained when logging taxes are 2 and 4 times higher than tourism taxes.

 

Furthermore, tourism tax and logging tax also act on the positive rate, which is the probability that customers give a positive evaluation. The over-development of the logging industry will lead to the destruction of environmental resources and further affect the tourism industry. The logging tax will also affect the tourism Ride Rate, which is the probability that all tourism customers will choose Derby city.

 

This model more accurately reflects logging and tourism's natural growth and ties the two industries together environmentally. Two ways of development are evident in the two industries. Compared to tourism, logging shows an upward spiral influenced by government policies. Government attitudes also affect tourism revenue, but more by the logging industry.