Costs of Stabalisation

Different people in the world get the loans in different creditors, just because that's simple and comfortable.

A kind of hot topic just about this topic ! I could opt for writing service to buy custom essay papers, as well students want to order custom essay.

This is my first-ever visit and I love what I am seeing. Your chapter is indeed hot to get over, highly beautiful as well as fair. Iâll beyond any doubt recommend it to some friends of mine. They have luck of support as well as buy research papers requirement.

Hey you stole my post!

Serves me right for not writing it I suppose :-)

[Sorry - yes, though I didn't know you were going to make a post of it. I did credit you with the idea, mind you. And if you do a post I'll link ot it... -W]

The impression I am getting now is that carbon emissions for the purpose of transport and some power generation are substitutable, but there may be other things that are not.
Then there's peak oil, which maybe be only a few years ahead of us, and would encourage us to use more coal or nuclear.

[Power is only really substitutable if you're prepared to use lots of nuclear. Whose costs depend very heavily on how sensitive you are to radiation/risks. Transport isn't very substitutable, unless you pretend you can generate free hydrogen. Or assume implausible amounts of biofuels -W]

Please expand on your comments about nuclear cost being sensitive to radiation risk. While current boiling water designs require containment structures, I do not believe this is true for pebble bed and other advancing designs. As with pollution, the answer to many of the risks associated with nuclear is dilution.

[Its sensitive to how sensitive society is to radiation risks. If you have to pay to handle and store large quantities of low-level waste no more radiaoactive than rocks, then its costly. Not that I know much about this -W]

If I go to Quiggin (link above), I see

"The Stern review report a wide range of estimates of the cost of stabilization. The range is summarized as 1 per cent of GDP, plus or minus 3 percentage points. In my submission to the review I gave a back-of-the-envelope estimate based on two parameters, the fossil fuel share of GDP (which I took as 6 per cent), and the elasticity of demand for fossil fuels, which I took as between 1 and 2. This gave a range of costs for a 60 per cent reduction in emissions of between 1.8 and 4.2 per cent, with a midpoint of 3 per cent, which is in the upper part of the Stern range."

Of course, the range in which you want to achieve stabilization strongly affects the cost. For example the cost to stabilize at below 400 ppm would probably be astronomical, but 500-600 may be in the Stern/Quiggin range.

William- making decent electric cars is actually pretty much possible these days. The battery technology has been improving, and we can make lightweight cars without too much trouble, especially if you make them properly so they last years and people keep them running, instead of junking them when they can.
ITs the oil products for making the roads that will be tricky.
Plus we can savea shedload of electricity with careful conservation measures.
I try not to be one of those people who thinks technology will solve everything, but it does seem to me that careful use of upcoming technology will enable us to cut our carbon emissions and still maintain a reasonable standard of living, even if we cant all have swimming pools or 4 cars.
I am however talking about a period of 20 to 30 yers here. If you take a more Monbiotian point of view, thats too long.

Well, the IPCC tried scenario analysis last time around, but no one has bothered to tell folks how it works.

Naturally, the best analyses would use a range of options, as we can't predict the future or surprises. Things change and our responses change too.

Best,

D

While Stern and his many gnomes were toiling away, so was I and a colleague, so our scope was much more modest. We used as a reference a base case emissions case estimated by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), which was a high economic growth scenarios with emissions ~A2 (lots of India and China to 2050) and tested a couple of policy scenarios that stabilised CO2 at roughly A1T (550-575) by 2100. One departed early and the other was a late case in 2030. The costs for the late case was 1.7% global GDP in 2050 and 2.6 to 3.4% in 2050 for the earlier, deeper cuts.

We used a probabilistic method to calculate the benefits of the cuts for some economic and non-economic benefits (e.g. reefs, species & Greenland). Wigley and Raper (2001) and Murphy et al. (2004) were the sensitivity pdfs used, tho we did test others. James A's is roughly in the middle of these (I was going to ask him for his numbers, but haven't got round to it).

We didn't use probabilistic costs but did investigate some different impact cost curves in a sensitivity analysis. The other thing we did is to work backwards and assess the minimum economic damages curves required to pay for the mitigation (in monetary terms only - non-monetary and post 2100 benefits were taken as icing on cake).

The bottom line is, using much more modest efforts than those by Stern, including the UK Greenbook discount rates, we found a strong case for a positive economic outcome, let alone a triple bottom line outcome. Many of the points made by Stern that people are arguing over can be substantially relaxed (i.e. remove his likely double-counted risk, use modest discounting) and the benefits argument still holds within a risk framework. It not a fully economic approach, it's a multicriteria approach

Further work will look at timing, different scenarios, deeper cuts, different economies etc. Follow the link to see the work if any-one is interested. It was released in Australia 1 month after Stern and promptly disappeared from view.

http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pb9u.pdf

ABARE's emissions and assumptions are here
http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/climate/climate_06/cc_po…

Note that this was part of a larger piece of work carried out by CSIRO with key Australian companies. They came out in favour of acting and want a carbon price set to reduce their short term uncertainties about carbon, accepting that externalities linked to climate damages are better set sooner rather than later.

William, slight user interface problem with your headline and body copy. A case of the intrusive "a". Or is it a clever play on words, conflating cabal with stabilisation?

I think we should be told.

[Ah yes, hmm, s/a/i I guess... The limestone hills look lovely -W]

Thorium
Since the early 1990s Russia has had a program to develop a thorium-uranium fuel. Their research in more recent times has moved to having a particular emphasis on the utilization of weapons-grade plutonium in a thorium-plutonium fuel.
Accelerator-driven systems (ADS)
ADS systems use a particle beam to feed the nuclear reaction and without the beam the reaction stops.
For many years there has been interest in utilizing thorium (Th-232) as a nuclear fuel since it is three times as abundant in the earth's crust as uranium and also, all of the mined thorium is potentially useable in a reactor, compared with the 0.7% of natural uranium. Some 40 times the amount of energy per unit mass should be available compared to uranium. This means that the carbon costs as well as the environmental damage from the mine is reduced significantly. No expensive enrichment process or facilities are needed farther reducing the carbon equation.

Accelerator-driven systems (ADS)

Are safer than a normal fission reactor because they are subcritical and stop when the input current is switched off.
Thorium fuel may be mixed with long-lived wastes from conventional reactors to incinerate them.
Thorium cannot be used to produce weapons but it can be used to destroy them.
Thorium subcritical nuclear reactor will be able to convert all transuranic(long lived) elements into (generally) short-lived fission products and yield some energy in the process. Much of the current interest is in the potential of ADS to burn weapons-grade plutonium.

Ultimately the burning of the transuranic wastes including plutonium means that overall radiotoxicity is reduced greatly by 1000 of years, and is less than that of the equivalent uranium ore.
Mr Grae from Kurchatov Institute in Moscow believes mixed thorium fuels can not only dispose of weapons-grade plutonium, but also be developed into a fuel for many conventional reactors this would prevent production of any further plutonium as a by-product. The Russians are running thorium fuel in their IR-8 research reactor and are hoping to test in a full-size commercial nuclear power plant in Russia, by 2008.

CERN PARTICLE LAB Geneva.
Released a detailed report covering the financial viability of the ADS design for power generation, and found it to be at least three times cheaper than coal and 4.8 times cheaper than natural gas.

The lack of promotion of this technology is because it is currently the only threat to the American nuclear arsenal. America has been removed from research at CERN on this project for undisclosed reasons. As the worlds supplies of plutonium are burnt in mixed fuel reactors an economic need for plutonium would drive a dismantling of Americas as well as other global nuclear weapons stockpiles in the need for fuel.
The current renewable energy push will contribute to the future of power in big ways and we need to promote it as much as possible but at the same time be aware that the consequences of renewals will be a large unnecessary increase in power price and the continued lining of corporate pockets. We have a once in a lifetime chance to take back our right to public power and a better world.

The increasing need for power is undeniable.

Sources:
Boldeman, J.W., 1997, Accelerator driven nuclear energy systems, AATSE symposium "Energy for Ever".
Arkhipov, V., 1997, Future Nuclear Energy Systems: generating electricity, burning wastes, IAEA Bulletin 39/2/97
Treulle, H. 2002, The answer is No - Does transmutation of spent nuclear fuel produce more hazardous material then it destroys?, Radwaste Solutions July-August.
Nucleonics Week 7/11/96.
Euradwaste summary 3/2/00.
Bertel, E. et al 2003, P&T: A long-term option for radioactive waste disposal? NEA News 20.2.
COSMOS Magazine Issue 8 April 2006

Charles T. has pointed out the following article about the confusion of Stern or at least your environment minister about the concentration of CO2 and concentration of everything converted to CO2, something that can make targets attainable or on the contraty unattainable:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325850.100-attainable-gas-targe…

Whoops. :-)

As Eli points out, I did give a range of estimates, and there are some pretty strong reasons for ruling out catastrophic impacts, even with low probability.

"Quickly looking through JQs post that JA refs, I think that his estimates assume fossil fuels are substitutable. Suppose they aren't."

This isn't an open question. You can put in lower elasticities of substitution than my range of 1 to 2 (say 0.5, a response which we can observe in response to a price increase over five years or so) though there are strong arguments against doing so, but "supposing" an elasticity of zero would be pretty much on a par with "suppose CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas after all". And while a lower elasticity is going to give you a bigger number, there's no way it will get you to a catastrophe.

Some time before, I needed to buy a good car for my corporation but I didn't have enough cash and could not order anything. Thank goodness my brother adviced to try to take the loans from reliable bank. Thence, I acted so and used to be satisfied with my college loan.

That is known that money can make people independent. But what to do if somebody doesn't have money? The one way is to try to get the loans and just student loan.