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

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

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. 

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

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

The statement that there can be no economic activity without  energy and that fossil fuels are finite contrasts with the fact that money is not finite and can be created by governments via their central banks at zero marginal cost whenever needed.

An important fact about COAL, GAS and OIL (especially when produced via fracking) is that their net energy ratios are falling rapidly. In other words the energy needed to extract a given quantity of fossil fuels is constantly increasing. The falling ratio 'EROI' (Energy Return on Energy Invested ) provides yet another warning that we can no longer rely on fossil fuels to power our economies. In 1940 it took the energy of only one barrel of oil to extract 100. Today the energy of 1 barrel of oil will yield only 15. We cannot wait until the ratio falls to 1/1 before we invest seriously in alternative sources of energy, because by then industrial society as we know it doday will have ceased to exist. An EROI of 1:1 means that it takes the energy of one barrel of oil to extract one barrel of oil - oil production would simply stop! 

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.

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

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

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!

Scratch build of a stock-flow consistent model of a closed economy, based on a current transactions matrix

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

The statement that there can be no economic activity without  energy and that fossil fuels are finite contrasts with the fact that money is not finite and can be created by governments via their central banks at zero marginal cost whenever needed.

An important fact about COAL, GAS and OIL (especially when produced via fracking) is that their net energy ratios are falling rapidly. In other words the energy needed to extract a given quantity of fossil fuels is constantly increasing. The falling ratio 'EROI' (Energy Return on Energy Invested ) provides yet another warning that we can no longer rely on fossil fuels to power our economies. In 1940 it took the energy of only one barrel of oil to extract 100. Today the energy of 1 barrel of oil will yield only 15. We cannot wait until the ratio falls to 1/1 before we invest seriously in alternative sources of energy, because by then industrial society as we know it doday will have ceased to exist. An EROI of 1:1 means that it takes the energy of one barrel of oil to extract one barrel of oil - oil production would simply stop! 

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

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.

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 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

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.

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

Overview: 

QPM model

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.