Plan N, the NIMBY plan, which relies on 72% imported electricity, with the 32% imported clean coal energy being sustained. The energy gap would then be met through nuclear energy (10kWh/d). Plan L, the Liberal Democrats plan, relies on power importation of 64% and wind energy (8kWh/d). Plan G, the Green plan, recommends importation of 14% energy and the remaining demand to be met through wind energy (32kWh/d). Finally, Plan E, or the economist plan delivers the unmet energy imports, relying heavily on nuclear power (44kWh/d). In all the plans, pumped heat would supply (12kWh/d) of energy (MacKay 2008). The combination of the energy sourcing mechanisms in each of these plans is such that they would meet a daily energy demand of 50 kWh, which is the average energy demand per person per day as per MacKay’s calculations.As a means towards achieving Zero-carbon emission, MacKay’s plans are feasible. Each of the plans relies on sustainable energy sourcing either from the sustainable use of fossil fuels or on the use of renewable energy sources. Additionally, each of the plans relies majorly on renewable sources of energy. This significantly reduces carbon emissions; the reduction is further exacerbated by the capture of carbon through the “clean-coal” plants proposed in three out of the five plans. Energy importation is already an on-going activity for the U.K, whereby it currently imports 23% of electricity that it requires for local use. However, these plans should be used in line with other methods of emission reduction. For instance, Allen et al. (2013) indicated that forests, grasslands and timber products capture carbon. However, a challenge for this approach is that there is a declining capacity for the U.K’s forest to capture carbon due to low progress of reforestation efforts and maturity of existing forests.Despite their feasibility, another challenge for the proposal is their acceptance by the U. The evidence of acceptability as a challenge is inherent in the drafting of the different plans. In each of his plans, MacKay indicates that it suits a particular category of individuals who subscribe to a certain school of thought. There is evidence, however, that the U.K population is likely to embrace the proposals by MacKay, for instance, there has been stable support for both wind and nuclear energy, at 2/3 versus 1/3 for each of these alternatives. Some of the factors
Allen, P., Blake, L., Haper, P., Hooker-Stroud, A., James, P., & Dellner, T. (2013). Zero Carbon Britain: Rethinking the Future. Machynlleth: Center for Alternative Technologies.
Broderick, J., & Anderson, K. (2012). Has US shale gas reduced CO2 emissions? Manchester: University of Manchester.
Devine-Wright, P. (2007). Reconsidering public attitudes and public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: a critical review. Manchester: School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester.
MacKay, D. (2008). Sustainable Energy-without the hot air. Cambridge: UIT.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples