Proposals for climate engineering — intentional large-scale interventions in climate systems — are increasingly under consideration as potential additional responses to climate change, yet they pose risks of their own. Existing international regulation of large-scale field testing and deployment is considered inadequate. This article looks to the closest existing analogy — nuclear power — for lessons, and concludes that climate engineering research will most likely be promoted and will not be the subject of a binding multilateral agreement in the near future. Instead, climate engineering and its research will probably be internationally regulated gradually, with an initially low degree of legalisation, and through a plurality of means and institutions. This regulation is expected to proceed from norms, to non-binding and non-legal policies, and then to relatively soft multilateral agreements which emphasise procedural duties. Any eventual agreements will have trade-offs between their strength and breadth of participation. Intergovernmental institutions could play important facilitative roles. Treaties regarding liability and non-proliferation of global deployment capability should be considered.
{"title":"The International Regulation of Climate Engineering: Lessons from Nuclear Power","authors":"Jesse L. Reynolds","doi":"10.1093/JEL/EQU006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JEL/EQU006","url":null,"abstract":"Proposals for climate engineering — intentional large-scale interventions in climate systems — are increasingly under consideration as potential additional responses to climate change, yet they pose risks of their own. Existing international regulation of large-scale field testing and deployment is considered inadequate. This article looks to the closest existing analogy — nuclear power — for lessons, and concludes that climate engineering research will most likely be promoted and will not be the subject of a binding multilateral agreement in the near future. Instead, climate engineering and its research will probably be internationally regulated gradually, with an initially low degree of legalisation, and through a plurality of means and institutions. This regulation is expected to proceed from norms, to non-binding and non-legal policies, and then to relatively soft multilateral agreements which emphasise procedural duties. Any eventual agreements will have trade-offs between their strength and breadth of participation. Intergovernmental institutions could play important facilitative roles. Treaties regarding liability and non-proliferation of global deployment capability should be considered.","PeriodicalId":277238,"journal":{"name":"Nuclear Energy (Sustainability) eJournal","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128190968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We test whether the relationship between subjective well-being (SWB) of European citizens and the structure of electricity supply has changed after the Fukushima nuclear accident of March 11, 2011. Survey data for about 124,000 individuals in 23 European countries reveal that while European citizens’ SWB was statistically unrelated to the share of nuclear power before the Fukushima disaster, it was negatively related to the nuclear share after the disaster. Taking the relationship between SWB and the electricity supply structure as an indicator of preference, this suggests the existence of an induced transnational preference change.
{"title":"Induced Transnational Preference Change: Fukushima and Nuclear Power in Europe","authors":"H. Welsch, P. Biermann","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2375819","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2375819","url":null,"abstract":"We test whether the relationship between subjective well-being (SWB) of European citizens and the structure of electricity supply has changed after the Fukushima nuclear accident of March 11, 2011. Survey data for about 124,000 individuals in 23 European countries reveal that while European citizens’ SWB was statistically unrelated to the share of nuclear power before the Fukushima disaster, it was negatively related to the nuclear share after the disaster. Taking the relationship between SWB and the electricity supply structure as an indicator of preference, this suggests the existence of an induced transnational preference change.","PeriodicalId":277238,"journal":{"name":"Nuclear Energy (Sustainability) eJournal","volume":"459 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127527241","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Fukushima disaster has lead the French government to release novel cost information relative to its nuclear electricity program allowing us to compute a levelized cost. We identify a modest escalation of capital cost and a larger than expected operational cost. Under the best scenario, the cost of French nuclear power over the last four decades is 59 d/MWh (at 2010 prices) while in the worst case it is 83 d/MWh. On the basis of these findings, we estimate the future cost of nuclear power in France to be at least 76 d/MWh and possibly 117 d/MWh. A comparison with the US confirms that French nuclear electricity nevertheless remains cheaper. Comparisons with coal, natural gas and wind power are carried out to the advantage of these. Our data and code is attached as and .
{"title":"The Cost of Nuclear Electricity: France after Fukushima","authors":"Nicolas Boccard","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2353305","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2353305","url":null,"abstract":"The Fukushima disaster has lead the French government to release novel cost information\u0000relative to its nuclear electricity program allowing us to compute a levelized cost. We\u0000identify a modest escalation of capital cost and a larger than expected operational cost.\u0000Under the best scenario, the cost of French nuclear power over the last four decades is 59\u0000d/MWh (at 2010 prices) while in the worst case it is 83 d/MWh. On the basis of these findings,\u0000we estimate the future cost of nuclear power in France to be at least 76 d/MWh and\u0000possibly 117 d/MWh. A comparison with the US confirms that French nuclear electricity\u0000nevertheless remains cheaper. Comparisons with coal, natural gas and wind power are carried\u0000out to the advantage of these. Our data and code is attached as and .","PeriodicalId":277238,"journal":{"name":"Nuclear Energy (Sustainability) eJournal","volume":"92 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116165462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There are few publications on various impacts of Fukushima nuclear disaster on agri-food sector in Japan in English. Moreover, due to the scale of contamination and affected agents, impact’s multiplicities and evolution, spillovers, and long time horizon, and the lack of “full” information and models of analysis, the overall impacts of Fukushima disaster on agrarian and food sector is far from being completely evaluated. This paper tries to fill the gap and assesses diverse impacts of Fukushima nuclear disaster on Japanese agriculture and food chains. First, a framework of analysis is presented. Second, immediate and short-term radiation effects, and effects on nearby population, safety regulation and inspection system, markets and consumer’s behavior, agrarian and food products, and health, as well as economic impacts on farming and agri-businesses, are all assessed. Third, overall shorter and longer-term impacts on agriculture, food industries, and consumers in Fukushima region, neighboring regions, and other parts of Japan are estimated.
{"title":"Fukushima Nuclear Disaster – Implications for Japanese Agriculture and Food Chains","authors":"Hrabrin Bachev Храбрин Башев, Fusao Ito","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2319767","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2319767","url":null,"abstract":"There are few publications on various impacts of Fukushima nuclear disaster on agri-food sector in Japan in English. Moreover, due to the scale of contamination and affected agents, impact’s multiplicities and evolution, spillovers, and long time horizon, and the lack of “full” information and models of analysis, the overall impacts of Fukushima disaster on agrarian and food sector is far from being completely evaluated. This paper tries to fill the gap and assesses diverse impacts of Fukushima nuclear disaster on Japanese agriculture and food chains. First, a framework of analysis is presented. Second, immediate and short-term radiation effects, and effects on nearby population, safety regulation and inspection system, markets and consumer’s behavior, agrarian and food products, and health, as well as economic impacts on farming and agri-businesses, are all assessed. Third, overall shorter and longer-term impacts on agriculture, food industries, and consumers in Fukushima region, neighboring regions, and other parts of Japan are estimated.","PeriodicalId":277238,"journal":{"name":"Nuclear Energy (Sustainability) eJournal","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134304460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper presents an in-depth analysis of the impact of an unexpected shock to the energy system on affective and cognitive perception of nuclear, coal, natural gas, oil, biomass, solar, and wind energy sources. Surveys conducted with young adults shortly before and after the Fukushima nuclear accident allowed for the identification of key image associations, affects and cognitive beliefs toward multiple energy sources and the examination of the extent of a potential Fukushima effect on energy perception. No support for an affective Fukushima effect is found as image associations and affects toward each energy source remain stable in the aftermath of the nuclear disaster. However, a significant and complex cognitive Fukushima effect on participants’ beliefs is observed. Study findings provide empirical evidence of the relative stability of affective energy perception in the aftermath of an unexpected shock. Furthermore, it highlights the complexity and interdependencies of affective and cognitive energy perception and emphasizes the value of comparative examination of multiple energy sources. Implications for future research and policy makers are discussed.
{"title":"Assessing the Extent of the Fukushima Effect on Perception of Multiple Energy Sources and its Implications for Energy Policy","authors":"M. Nippa, Roh Pin Lee","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2390093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2390093","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents an in-depth analysis of the impact of an unexpected shock to the energy system on affective and cognitive perception of nuclear, coal, natural gas, oil, biomass, solar, and wind energy sources. Surveys conducted with young adults shortly before and after the Fukushima nuclear accident allowed for the identification of key image associations, affects and cognitive beliefs toward multiple energy sources and the examination of the extent of a potential Fukushima effect on energy perception. No support for an affective Fukushima effect is found as image associations and affects toward each energy source remain stable in the aftermath of the nuclear disaster. However, a significant and complex cognitive Fukushima effect on participants’ beliefs is observed. Study findings provide empirical evidence of the relative stability of affective energy perception in the aftermath of an unexpected shock. Furthermore, it highlights the complexity and interdependencies of affective and cognitive energy perception and emphasizes the value of comparative examination of multiple energy sources. Implications for future research and policy makers are discussed.","PeriodicalId":277238,"journal":{"name":"Nuclear Energy (Sustainability) eJournal","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116863218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan has renewed debates on the safety of nuclear power, possibly hurting the role of nuclear power in efforts to limit CO2 emissions. I develop a dynamic economy-wide model of Taiwan with a detailed set of technology options in the power sector to examine the implications of adopting different carbon and nuclear power policies on CO2 emissions and the economy. Without a carbon mitigation policy, limiting nuclear power has a small economic cost for Taiwan, but CO2 emissions may increase by around 4.5% by 2050 when nuclear is replaced by fossil-based generation. With a low-carbon target of a 50% reduction from year 2000 levels by 2050, the costs of cutting CO2 emissions are greatly reduced if both carbon sequestration and nuclear expansion were viable. This study finds that converting Taiwan's industrial structure into a less energy-intensive one is crucial to carry out the non-nuclear and low-carbon environment.
{"title":"Non-Nuclear, Low-Carbon, or Both? The Case of Taiwan","authors":"Y.-H. Henry Chen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2110221","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2110221","url":null,"abstract":"The Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan has renewed debates on the safety of nuclear power, possibly hurting the role of nuclear power in efforts to limit CO2 emissions. I develop a dynamic economy-wide model of Taiwan with a detailed set of technology options in the power sector to examine the implications of adopting different carbon and nuclear power policies on CO2 emissions and the economy. Without a carbon mitigation policy, limiting nuclear power has a small economic cost for Taiwan, but CO2 emissions may increase by around 4.5% by 2050 when nuclear is replaced by fossil-based generation. With a low-carbon target of a 50% reduction from year 2000 levels by 2050, the costs of cutting CO2 emissions are greatly reduced if both carbon sequestration and nuclear expansion were viable. This study finds that converting Taiwan's industrial structure into a less energy-intensive one is crucial to carry out the non-nuclear and low-carbon environment.","PeriodicalId":277238,"journal":{"name":"Nuclear Energy (Sustainability) eJournal","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122842277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The tsunami which took place on 2011.3.11 before the coast of Japan and the subsequent nuclear incident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant have shocked the world and raised many questions. One of the questions is to what extent victims of the tsunami and of the nuclear incident can receive adequate compensation. We focus on the compensation system for earthquakes in Japan and show that Japan relies on an interesting private-public partnership whereby earthquake insurance is added to fire insurance and supplemented with a government guarantee in the re-insurance scheme. Since the earthquake coverage is, however, limited substantial government aid is still provided as well which raises questions on the influence of this government compensation on incentives of victims to take preventive measures and to purchase insurance coverage. Interestingly Japan has a detailed system of risk differentiation, e.g., rewarding victims for choosing earthquake proof constructions. After a critical analysis of the earthquake system we move to the compensation for nuclear damage in Japan, showing that, strikingly, Japan has a system of unlimited liability. However, given limited liability of the nuclear operator liability may de facto still be limited and should therefore be supplemented with financial guarantees. These are provided by the Japan Atomic Energy Insurance Pool. In case the damage is caused by an uninsurable risk like a natural disaster insurance coverage does not intervene, but the liability of the operator is covered via an indemnity agreement with the government. The indemnity is not a subsidy (like in many other legal systems) but the operator has to pay a fee for the indemnity provided by government. Only when the nuclear incident would be caused by a natural disaster of an exceptional character would liability of the operator be excluded. We show that the government is reluctant to admit the 3.11 tsunami as such a “natural disaster of an exceptional character” and the liable operator (TEPCO) takes up his financial responsibility. However, even though the operator in Japan pays a fee for the indemnity agreement also the compensation regime for nuclear disasters in Japan has substantial subsidies. This is also made clear by the recent act which is supposed to deal with the damage caused by the Fukushima incident via a Nuclear Damage Compensation Facilitation Corporation. The damage to be paid via this corporation will be financed not only by the liable operator TEPCO, but also via financial interventions from other nuclear operators and via the government. We examine the way in which the nuclear liability regime in Japan has been applied to two well-known incidents, being the Tokai-mura incident of 1999 and of course the recent Fukushima incident of March 2011. Moreover, we examine how the compensation regime for earthquakes and nuclear incidents in Japan compares to international tendencies and developments in the US. We argue that there are impor
{"title":"The Tsunami of March 2011 and the Subsequent Nuclear Incident at Fukushima: Who Compensates the Victims?","authors":"M. Faure, Liu Jing","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2213713","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2213713","url":null,"abstract":"The tsunami which took place on 2011.3.11 before the coast of Japan and the subsequent nuclear incident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant have shocked the world and raised many questions. One of the questions is to what extent victims of the tsunami and of the nuclear incident can receive adequate compensation. We focus on the compensation system for earthquakes in Japan and show that Japan relies on an interesting private-public partnership whereby earthquake insurance is added to fire insurance and supplemented with a government guarantee in the re-insurance scheme. Since the earthquake coverage is, however, limited substantial government aid is still provided as well which raises questions on the influence of this government compensation on incentives of victims to take preventive measures and to purchase insurance coverage. Interestingly Japan has a detailed system of risk differentiation, e.g., rewarding victims for choosing earthquake proof constructions. After a critical analysis of the earthquake system we move to the compensation for nuclear damage in Japan, showing that, strikingly, Japan has a system of unlimited liability. However, given limited liability of the nuclear operator liability may de facto still be limited and should therefore be supplemented with financial guarantees. These are provided by the Japan Atomic Energy Insurance Pool. In case the damage is caused by an uninsurable risk like a natural disaster insurance coverage does not intervene, but the liability of the operator is covered via an indemnity agreement with the government. The indemnity is not a subsidy (like in many other legal systems) but the operator has to pay a fee for the indemnity provided by government. Only when the nuclear incident would be caused by a natural disaster of an exceptional character would liability of the operator be excluded. We show that the government is reluctant to admit the 3.11 tsunami as such a “natural disaster of an exceptional character” and the liable operator (TEPCO) takes up his financial responsibility. However, even though the operator in Japan pays a fee for the indemnity agreement also the compensation regime for nuclear disasters in Japan has substantial subsidies. This is also made clear by the recent act which is supposed to deal with the damage caused by the Fukushima incident via a Nuclear Damage Compensation Facilitation Corporation. The damage to be paid via this corporation will be financed not only by the liable operator TEPCO, but also via financial interventions from other nuclear operators and via the government. We examine the way in which the nuclear liability regime in Japan has been applied to two well-known incidents, being the Tokai-mura incident of 1999 and of course the recent Fukushima incident of March 2011. Moreover, we examine how the compensation regime for earthquakes and nuclear incidents in Japan compares to international tendencies and developments in the US. We argue that there are impor","PeriodicalId":277238,"journal":{"name":"Nuclear Energy (Sustainability) eJournal","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121597012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Indian Government has announced that it plans to purchase six European Pressurized Reactors (EPRs) for Jaitapur from the French company, Areva. No EPR is in commercial operation anywhere else in the world. Estimates of costs from plants under construction in Finland and France suggest that each unit may cost as much as Rs. 60,000 crores; at this price, six units will cost Rs. 3.6 lakh crores. We show that the expected starting tariff from these reactors, without including transmission and distribution costs, is likely to be around Rs. 14 per unit (kWh) of electricity. We point out that existing revenue model used by the Government already involves a large loss for the taxpayer. The Government may seek to make the tariff from Jaitapur competitive by increasing the scope and nature of these handouts.
{"title":"Cost of Electricity from the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant","authors":"S. Raju, M. Ramana","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2214293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2214293","url":null,"abstract":"The Indian Government has announced that it plans to purchase six European Pressurized Reactors (EPRs) for Jaitapur from the French company, Areva. No EPR is in commercial operation anywhere else in the world. Estimates of costs from plants under construction in Finland and France suggest that each unit may cost as much as Rs. 60,000 crores; at this price, six units will cost Rs. 3.6 lakh crores. We show that the expected starting tariff from these reactors, without including transmission and distribution costs, is likely to be around Rs. 14 per unit (kWh) of electricity. We point out that existing revenue model used by the Government already involves a large loss for the taxpayer. The Government may seek to make the tariff from Jaitapur competitive by increasing the scope and nature of these handouts.","PeriodicalId":277238,"journal":{"name":"Nuclear Energy (Sustainability) eJournal","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131820203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study researches the concept of underground pumped-storage hydro power plants in closed-down underground hard coal mines in Germany. After a review on how this could be realized technically, an economic feasibility analysis is presented, with a particular focus on the costs for the underground storage reservoir. The analysis is performed for different lower (i.e., underground) reservoir sizes and temporal arbitrage potentials (peak/off-peak electricity price spreads), and cost uncertainty is dealt with by means of a Monte Carlo simulation for two distinct head heights. The findings regarding costs and acceptability are compared with those of a classic (on-surface) pumped-storage hydro power plant in a mountainous area. Based on a techno-economic evaluation we conclude that under favorable conditions the realization of underground pumped-storage hydro power (UPSHP) plants seems both technically feasible and economically reasonable. More specifically, an extension of a tubular system seems the most promising option. A UPSHP plant in a mineshaft is probably slightly more expensive than a conventional one, an outcome that depends strongly on the feasible head height. However, the significant reduction of the adverse impacts on the landscape and on local residents, as well as a potentially large number of feasible sites in flat terrain, could make UPSHPs an interesting option for the future energy transition, not just in Germany but worldwide at sites where underground mining is being abandoned.
{"title":"An Exploratory Economic Analysis of Underground Pumped-Storage Hydro Power Plants in Abandoned Coal Mines","authors":"R. Madlener, Jan Martin Specht","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2350106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2350106","url":null,"abstract":"This study researches the concept of underground pumped-storage hydro power plants in closed-down underground hard coal mines in Germany. After a review on how this could be realized technically, an economic feasibility analysis is presented, with a particular focus on the costs for the underground storage reservoir. The analysis is performed for different lower (i.e., underground) reservoir sizes and temporal arbitrage potentials (peak/off-peak electricity price spreads), and cost uncertainty is dealt with by means of a Monte Carlo simulation for two distinct head heights. The findings regarding costs and acceptability are compared with those of a classic (on-surface) pumped-storage hydro power plant in a mountainous area. Based on a techno-economic evaluation we conclude that under favorable conditions the realization of underground pumped-storage hydro power (UPSHP) plants seems both technically feasible and economically reasonable. More specifically, an extension of a tubular system seems the most promising option. A UPSHP plant in a mineshaft is probably slightly more expensive than a conventional one, an outcome that depends strongly on the feasible head height. However, the significant reduction of the adverse impacts on the landscape and on local residents, as well as a potentially large number of feasible sites in flat terrain, could make UPSHPs an interesting option for the future energy transition, not just in Germany but worldwide at sites where underground mining is being abandoned.","PeriodicalId":277238,"journal":{"name":"Nuclear Energy (Sustainability) eJournal","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114794054","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We develop a general equilibrium model of trade with multiple countries and industries in the spirit of Eaton and Kortum (2002) and Bernard, Eaton, Jensen, and Kortum (2003). We structurally estimate the parameters of the model and calibrate it to data on 33 OECD countries and one country that covers the rest of the world. Industries differ by their relative energy intensity and the level of pollution. Accordingly, the implementation of policy instruments to reduce pollution at the country level induces heterogeneous effects across industries within and across countries. We utilize the model to compare alternative environmental tax instruments and to evaluate their consequences for the level of carbon emissions, welfare costs, industry-specific prices and demand in various policy scenarios. Among the latter, we particularly distinguish between policies that are implemented in isolation (by single countries) or en bloc (in groups of countries or even world wide). This study pays specific attention to the implementation of various energy policies, in particular, in Switzerland. Beyond implementation of the Copenhagen Accord pledges, the study quantifies an implementation of extra taxes on carbon emissions at the amount of 1,140 Swiss Francs per ton of carbon and the substitution of nuclear energy production.
我们本着Eaton and Kortum(2002)和Bernard, Eaton, Jensen, and Kortum(2003)的精神，开发了一个与多个国家和行业的贸易一般均衡模型。我们从结构上估计了模型的参数，并将其校准为33个经合组织国家和一个覆盖世界其他地区的国家的数据。不同的工业因其相对能源强度和污染程度而不同。因此，在国家一级执行减少污染的政策工具会在国家内部和国家之间的工业之间产生不同的影响。我们利用该模型来比较不同的环境税收工具，并评估它们在不同政策情景下对碳排放水平、福利成本、行业特定价格和需求的影响。在后者中，我们特别区分孤立地(由单个国家)或整体(在国家集团甚至世界范围内)执行的政策。这项研究特别关注各种能源政策的执行情况，特别是在瑞士。除了履行《哥本哈根协议》的承诺外，该研究还量化了对碳排放征收每吨1140瑞士法郎的额外税以及替代核能生产的实施情况。
{"title":"Energy Reform in Switzerland: A Quantification of Carbon Taxation and Nuclear Energy Substitution Effects","authors":"P. Egger, Sergey Nigai","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2209008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2209008","url":null,"abstract":"We develop a general equilibrium model of trade with multiple countries and industries in the spirit of Eaton and Kortum (2002) and Bernard, Eaton, Jensen, and Kortum (2003). We structurally estimate the parameters of the model and calibrate it to data on 33 OECD countries and one country that covers the rest of the world. Industries differ by their relative energy intensity and the level of pollution. Accordingly, the implementation of policy instruments to reduce pollution at the country level induces heterogeneous effects across industries within and across countries. We utilize the model to compare alternative environmental tax instruments and to evaluate their consequences for the level of carbon emissions, welfare costs, industry-specific prices and demand in various policy scenarios. Among the latter, we particularly distinguish between policies that are implemented in isolation (by single countries) or en bloc (in groups of countries or even world wide). This study pays specific attention to the implementation of various energy policies, in particular, in Switzerland. Beyond implementation of the Copenhagen Accord pledges, the study quantifies an implementation of extra taxes on carbon emissions at the amount of 1,140 Swiss Francs per ton of carbon and the substitution of nuclear energy production.","PeriodicalId":277238,"journal":{"name":"Nuclear Energy (Sustainability) eJournal","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127916542","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：