Abatement cost (E per tCO,e) Reduced slash-and-burn agriculture conversion- Reduced pastureland conversion spent than nuclear power. Grassland management- Geothermal Organic soil restoration Building efficiency new build Second generation biofuels- Degraded land restoration the abatement of greenhouse gas emissions. Pastureland afforestation- b. Nuclear energy has a higher potential to abate emissions than reforestation of degraded forests. potential and therefore should never be adopted. Nuclear- a. Solar energy produces more abatement per euro c. Geothermal technology has a very low abatement d. Solar energy should be preferred to nuclear power in Degraded forest reforestation. Cars plug-in hybrid Abatement potential (GtCO.e per year) Low-penetration wind Solar CSP Solar PV High-penetration wind- Reduced intensive agriculture conversion Power plant biomass co-firing Coal CCS new build Iron and steel CCS new build- Coal CCS retrofit Gas plant CCS retrofitAbatement cost (( per tCO,e) 60 Reduced slash-and-burn agriculture conversion- Reduced pastureland conversion- 15 Grassland management- Geothermal- Organic soil restoration Building efficiency new build- following statements is correct? Second generation biofuels- Degraded land restoration 20 Pastureland afforestation- 4.4. The following figure shows a global usual', produced by Mckinsey in 2015. The height indicates the cost of abatement per measured in gigatonnes of CO_2, while the Nuclear- tonne. Based on this information, which of the abatement in 2030 compared with 'business as greenhouse gas abatement curve, defined as the width of each bar indicates potential abatement Degraded forest reforestation- 25 Cars plug in hybrid Abatement potential (GtCO,e per year) Low penetration wind Solar CSP Solar PV 30 High-penetration wind Reduced intensive agriculture conversion Power plant biomass co-firing Cool CCS new build iron and steel CCS new build 35 Coal CCS retrofit Gas plant CCS retrofit