MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407474172 · doi:10.1088/2753-3751/adb588

Marginal abatement costs for greenhouse gas emissions in the United States using an energy systems approach

2025· article· en· W4407474172 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Blackhurst, Aranya Venkatesh, Aditya Sinha, Katherine Jordan, Nicholas Z. Muller, Cameron Wade, Jeremiah X. Johnson, Paulina Jaramillo

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Energy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsTechnical University of Nova Scotia
FundersAlfred P. Sloan Foundation
KeywordsGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceNatural resource economicsEnergy (signal processing)Marginal abatement costEconomicsEnvironmental economicsMathematicsStatisticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Deep decarbonization requires fundamental changes in meeting energy service demands, with some efforts increasing overall costs. Examining abatement measures in isolation, however, fails to capture their interactive effects within the energy system. Here we show the abatement costs of decarbonization in the United States using an energy system optimization model to capture technological interactions, multi-decadal path dependence, and endogenous end-use technology selection. Energy-system-wide net-zero CO 2 -eq emissions are achieved in 2050 at a cost under $400 per tonne CO 2 -eq, led by emissions reductions in power generation, end-use electrification of ground transportation, space heating, and some industrial applications. Differences in mitigation costs and CO 2 geological storage potential lead to regional heterogeneities in mitigation rates and residual emissions. The marginal abatement cost curves show that additional decarbonization comes at higher incremental costs, this cost penalty decreases over time, and substantially greater abatement occurs in future time periods at the same abatement cost.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.214
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.131 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research EnergySame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207