Identify three fossil fuels.

Suggest two reasons for the changing importance of nuclear energy.

Explain the relationship between energy usage and ecological footprint for one or more countries.

Fossil fuels include: oil, natural gas, coal, and oil shale. Peat and tar sands are also acceptable. Award 2 marks if three are correctly identified, or 1 mark if two are correct. No credit may be given if only one of the three is correct.

Award up to 2 marks for two distinct valid reasons, provided that they are developed by means of examples, explanation or detail.

Possible reasons include: issues associated with the disposal of nuclear waste; issues associated with safety/radiation leaks; relative cost of constructing nuclear power stations compared with other sources of power; increased need to generate electricity without relying on fossil fuels; acceptance that nuclear power is less polluting; anti-nuclear protests; decline in availability of non-renewables; costs of fossil fuels – peak oil scenario; meeting international targets for CO₂.

Note that answers may explain either an increase or a decrease in the importance of nuclear power, and do not need to consider both for the award of full marks.

Countries with a higher energy usage generally have a higher ecological footprint [1 mark]. This stated relationship must be relevant to the named country or countries chosen.

Explanations for the relationship must explicitly link the country’s energy usage to its ecological footprint: a possible explanation for the usual relationship could be the fact that most energy is derived from fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas, the use of which inevitably raises a country’s ecological footprint since an ecological footprint includes the area (land) required for absorbing waste – in this case carbon dioxide emissions. Answers could also look at how increased use of renewable energy decreases the footprint.

Four basic statements of explanation [4×1 marks].

Two developed statements of explanation [2×2 marks].

One explanation with very good detail [4 marks].

If no country/countries are utilized in the response a maximum 3 marks may be awarded.

This was a straightforward question, which was remarked upon in a number of the G2 comments. Interestingly enough a large number of candidates did not score both marks here. Some interesting incorrect answers such as wood, carbon, diamonds.

Generally answered very well. Developed, and with examples, especially when discussing the hazardous nature of nuclear energy. Candidates perhaps do need to explain what they mean when referring to nuclear energy as "renewable" as technically this is not correct. Many responses used recent events in Japan to highlight contemporary changes taking place in some countries' nuclear programmes. Perfect.

Most candidates attempted to describe the ecological footprint calculation and then stated that there is a positive relationship between energy use and ecological footprint. It was best explained when two countries with differing footprint sizes and energy usage were given as examples. Few candidates mentioned the waste aspect of the footprint, that is, dealing with carbon dioxide emissions, which is very much linked to the type of energy used and hence relevant to the question.