Table 3. Certainty Equivalent Discount Rates
|
Year/ Model |
AR(4) |
Regime Switching |
State |
|
3.50 |
3.50 |
3.50 | |
|
20 |
3.68 |
3.35 |
2.22 |
|
40 |
3.58 |
3.31 |
2.02 |
|
60 |
3.52 |
3.28 |
1.87 |
|
80 |
3.48 |
3.25 |
1.76 |
|
100 |
3.43 |
3.22 |
1.68 |
|
150 |
3.33 |
3.14 |
1.57 |
|
200 |
3.13 |
3.05 |
1.51 |
|
250 |
2.77 |
2.93 |
1.47 |
|
300 |
2.17 |
2.75 |
1.45 |
|
350 |
1.12 |
2.45 |
1.43 |
|
400_________ |
0.39 |
2.14 |
1.44 |
Table 4. Average MSFEs
|
Model Criterion |
AR(4) |
Regime Switching |
State |
|
AMSFE |
2.330 |
1.486 |
0.195 |
|
AMSFE (B) |
0.875 |
0.527 |
0.135 |
|
AMSFE (P) |
0.562 |
0.332 |
0.132 |
|
AMSFE (QS) |
0.659 |
0.407 |
0.071 |
|
AMSFE (TH) |
0.818 |
0.480 |
0.137 |
Notes: The weighting functions are as follows: Bartlett(B), Parzen(P), Quadratic-Spectral
(QS) and Tukey-Hanning (TH).
Table 5: Value of Carbon Damages
|
Model__________ |
Carbon Values |
Relative to Constant Rate |
|
Constant (3.5%) |
535 |
— |
|
AR(4) |
5.78 |
7.9% |
|
Regime Switching |
6.21 |
16.1% |
|
State Space |
16.73 |
212.6% |
Table 6: The Costs and Benefits of Nuclear Build in the UK
|
(£/KW) |
CAPEX |
OPEX |
DECOM |
Rev/es |
C C |
NPV |
Relative to 3.5% |
|
3.5% |
2173 |
2336 |
427 |
4062 |
228 |
-646 |
— |
|
AR(4) |
2167 |
2245 |
396 |
3904 |
215 |
-689 |
-6.6% |
|
RS |
2178 |
2401 |
479 |
4176 |
249 |
-633 |
8.0% |
|
SS |
2196 |
2973 |
1126 |
5170 |
547 |
-577 |
8.9% |
More intriguing information
1. National curriculum assessment: how to make it better2. The name is absent
3. The Role of State Trading Enterprises and Their Impact on Agricultural Development and Economic Growth in Developing Countries
4. Sectoral specialisation in the EU a macroeconomic perspective
5. Computational Batik Motif Generation Innovation of Traditi onal Heritage by Fracta l Computation
6. Improving behaviour classification consistency: a technique from biological taxonomy
7. The name is absent
8. Business Cycle Dynamics of a New Keynesian Overlapping Generations Model with Progressive Income Taxation
9. Evaluating the Success of the School Commodity Food Program
10. CONSUMER PERCEPTION ON ALTERNATIVE POULTRY