Issue: choosing a site for a wind farm - AQA GCSE Geography (Paper 3) Exam Questions

Practise 23 exam-style questions on Issue: choosing a site for a wind farm for AQA GCSE Geography (Paper 3). Write your answer as you would in the exam and get it marked in seconds against the mark scheme, point by point, with an AI tutor on hand if you get stuck.

23 questions
1–12 marks each
Instant marking
No sign-up needed

20 questions, marked as you go

Sample questions with model answers

Here are 4 of the questions in this topic, each with a model answer, an explanation of why it earns the marks and the mark scheme an examiner would use.

Question 1

1 mark

Northmoor, a district in northern England, is choosing how to generate more renewable electricity. Figure 1 shows the expected monthly electricity output of two of the options: an onshore wind farm (Option 1) and a solar farm (Option 3).

Using Figure 1, identify the month in which the solar farm's output is highest.

Expected monthly electricity output. Line graph of electricity output in GWh (y-axis, 0 to 16) against month (1 = January) (x-axis, 1 to 12). "Option 1: Harrow Moor wind farm" joins the points (1, 15), (2, 14), (3, 13), (4, 10), (5, 9), (6, 7), (7, 7), (8, 8), (9, 10), (10, 12), (11, 13), (12, 14). "Option 3: Lowfield solar farm" (dashed) joins the points (1, 1.2), (2, 2.2), (3, 4), (4, 5.6), (5, 6.8), (6, 7), (7, 6.8), (8, 5.8), (9, 4.2), (10, 2.6), (11, 1.2), (12, 0.6).

Model answer

June

Explanation

Solar output peaks in June, when days are longest and the Sun is highest in the sky. Notice that this is exactly when the wind farm's output is lowest, which is why the two types of energy can complement each other.

Mark scheme

1 mark
June (month 6)
Accept 6 or June. Do not accept May or July.

Question 2

2 marks

Option 1 for Northmoor, a district in northern England, is a wind farm of 14 turbines, each 150 m tall, on Harrow Moor, about 2 km outside the boundary of Hartmoor National Park. Many local businesses, such as holiday cottages and cafés, depend on visitors to the National Park.

Explain one reason why tourism businesses might oppose Option 1.

Model answer

The 150 m turbines would be visible from parts of the National Park and would spoil the wild, natural landscape that visitors come to see. If people felt the area was less attractive, fewer might visit or stay, reducing the income of cafés and holiday cottages and possibly leading to job losses.

Explanation

For 'explain one reason' give the reason and then its consequence for the businesses. Research on whether wind farms actually reduce tourism is mixed, but the fear of losing visitors is a common reason for local opposition near protected landscapes.

Mark scheme

1 mark
The 150 m turbines would be visible from parts of the National Park / spoil the wild, natural view (visual pollution)
max 2; 1 mark for a reason and 1 for its development. Only one reason is credited.
1 mark
so fewer visitors might come or stay, reducing the income of cafés and holiday cottages / possible job losses
development of the previous point
1 mark
Construction traffic (lorries carrying turbine parts) would disrupt roads for many months
Alternative reason.
1 mark
putting visitors off and damaging trade during construction
development of the previous point
1 mark
Noise from the turbines could spoil the quiet of the countryside that visitors come for
Alternative reason.
1 mark
so the area becomes less attractive for walking holidays, reducing bookings
development of the previous point

Question 3

4 marks

Option 1 for Northmoor, a district in northern England, is a wind farm of 14 turbines on Harrow Moor. The site is upland moorland with deep peat soils, and is used by breeding birds such as curlews and golden plovers. Building the wind farm would need new access tracks, a concrete foundation for each turbine and drainage ditches.

Suggest how building the wind farm could harm the environment of Harrow Moor.

Model answer

Harrow Moor's deep peat soils store large amounts of carbon. Digging out peat for turbine foundations and tracks, and draining it with ditches, would let it dry out and decompose, releasing carbon dioxide and reducing the climate benefit of the wind farm. Dried peat is also easily eroded, so sediment could be washed into streams and pollute them. The construction work would disturb breeding curlews and golden plovers, which might abandon nesting sites near the turbines, and once the wind farm is running, some birds could be killed by the turning blades. Tracks and turbines would also break up the open moorland habitat.

Explanation

The strongest answers explain the peat-carbon link, which is often overlooked: a renewable project can release stored carbon if it damages peat. Each harm should be linked to a specific part of the construction or operation of the wind farm.

Mark scheme

4 marks
Levels of response (4 marks).
Level 2 (3-4 marks): clear, developed suggestions of how construction and operation of the wind farm could damage the peat, wildlife or landscape, with clear links between causes and effects, using the information given.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): basic suggestions, e.g. 'birds could be killed', with little development.
0 marks: nothing worthy of credit.
Indicative content (not a checklist; credit other valid points): peat is a huge store of carbon; digging foundations and tracks removes peat, and drainage ditches dry it out, so it decomposes and releases carbon dioxide, reducing the climate benefit of the wind farm; drained peat is more easily eroded, and sediment can pollute streams; disturbed peat slopes may become unstable (peat slides); curlews and golden plovers may be disturbed during construction and may abandon nesting sites near turbines; birds can be killed by collision with turbine blades; tracks and turbines break up (fragment) the habitat; noise and traffic during construction disturb wildlife; concrete and tracks change the natural drainage and the wild character of the landscape.

Question 4

9 marks

Option 3 for Northmoor, a district in northern England, is a 50 MW solar farm on 100 hectares of farmland at Lowfield, where sheep would still graze between the panels, together with energy-efficiency grants for 12 000 homes. It would generate about 48 GWh a year and save about 30 GWh a year, cost £65 million and be ready by 2027. The council's target is at least 120 GWh a year of extra renewable electricity by 2030.

To what extent is Option 3 the most sustainable of the three options?

Model answer

A sustainable option meets people's needs today without harming the environment or the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, balancing social, economic and environmental factors.

In many ways Option 3 is very sustainable. The energy-efficiency grants reduce the amount of electricity needed at all, which is the most sustainable approach because energy that is not used needs no power station. Insulation and efficient appliances would cut bills for 12 000 households, reducing fuel poverty and improving health in warmer homes. The solar farm would be on lowland farmland, away from the National Park, so it would not damage peat or disturb moorland birds, and sheep could still graze between the panels, keeping some food production. Hedges and wildflowers around the panels could even increase biodiversity. It is also the cheapest option overall at £65 million, the quickest to deliver (2027) and popular, with 60% of residents supporting it.

However, it has a major weakness: it would provide only about 78 GWh a year (48 GWh generated and 30 GWh saved), well short of the 120 GWh target, so on its own it does not meet the region's needs. Solar output is also very low in winter, only about 0.6 GWh in December, exactly when demand for electricity is highest. The solar farm would take 100 hectares out of full food production and create only 5 permanent jobs. By comparison, the offshore wind farm would produce 420 GWh a year and create 60 permanent jobs, although it is expensive, and the onshore wind farm would meet the target cheaply but at a high cost to the landscape and wildlife.

Overall, Option 3 is the most sustainable option to a large extent socially and environmentally, because it reduces demand and causes the least harm. However, it is not sustainable on its own in practical and economic terms, because it does not meet the target or provide enough electricity in winter. It would be most sustainable if combined with the offshore wind farm.

Explanation

Level 3 answers define sustainability, assess Option 3 across all three strands, compare it with the other options using the data, and reach a clear 'to what extent' judgement. Spotting that Option 3 falls short of the 120 GWh target is essential to a balanced answer.

Mark scheme

9 marks
Levels of response (9 marks).
Level 3 (7-9 marks): thorough assessment of the sustainability of Option 3 compared with the other options, weighing social, economic and environmental effects for present and future generations; detailed understanding of solar power and energy efficiency; reaches a clear, substantiated judgement on the extent to which it is the most sustainable; makes effective use of the information given and accurate own knowledge.
Level 2 (4-6 marks): clear discussion of some aspects of the sustainability of Option 3, which may be unbalanced or make little comparison with the other options; a judgement that is only partly supported.
Level 1 (1-3 marks): basic points about Option 3 with little reference to sustainability; no clear judgement.
0 marks: nothing worthy of credit.
Indicative content (not a checklist; credit other valid points): sustainability means meeting present needs without harming future generations, balancing social, economic and environmental aims; energy efficiency reduces demand, so less electricity needs to be generated at all - the most sustainable unit of energy is the one not used; grants cut bills, reduce fuel poverty and improve health (social and economic sustainability); solar farm on farmland with sheep grazing keeps some food production; wildflowers and hedges can increase biodiversity; low visual impact, away from the National Park, no peat or birds of the moor affected; cheapest total cost (£65 million) and quickest (2027); popular - 60% support; but only 78 GWh a year (48 generated + 30 saved), well short of the 120 GWh target, so it does not meet the region's needs on its own; solar output is very low in winter (0.6 GWh in December) when demand is highest; takes 100 hectares out of full food production; few permanent jobs (5); compared with Option 2 (420 GWh, 60 permanent jobs, but expensive) and Option 1 (cheapest per unit, meets target, but damaging); judgement, e.g. the most sustainable socially and environmentally, but not economically or practically because it does not meet the target, so best combined with another option.

Ready to try the rest? Every answer you write is marked against the mark scheme, so you can see exactly where the marks are.

AI Tutor Hints first, answers after you try

Hi! Stuck? Ask me for a hint and I’ll help you work it out. Once you’ve checked your answer I can explain exactly where the marks are.