Editable original practice. Use the browser’s print command to save a PDF.
Guided practice
7037/2 human geography: resource-security practice · Resource security
Original practice assessment with editable questions and worked guidance.
Use maps, data and stakeholder evidence to develop a geographical argument. The resources describe one fictional teaching scenario.
Wind: £18 million
Estimated annual output 70.08 GWh
Lifecycle intensity 12 g CO₂e/kWh
Variable generation and landscape effects
Operating costs and grid connection need separate assessment
Solar roofs: £12 million
Estimated annual output 18.4 GWh
Lifecycle intensity 35 g CO₂e/kWh
Seasonal generation and roof agreements
Operating costs and grid connection need separate assessment
Small hydro: £19 million
Estimated annual output 37.67 GWh
Lifecycle intensity 24 g CO₂e/kWh
River ecology and low-flow constraints
Operating costs and grid connection need separate assessment
Grid operator: We need output when demand occurs, not only a yearly total.
Resident: Local environmental effects and affordability need consideration.
Climate adviser: Compare lifecycle boundaries consistently.
| Project | Capacity (MW) | Capacity factor (%) | Annual output (GWh) | Capital cost (£ million) | New land footprint (ha) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wind | 20 | 40 | 70.08 | 18 | 24 |
| Solar roofs | 15 | 14 | 18.4 | 12 | 0 |
| Small hydro | 10 | 43 | 37.67 | 19 | 8 |
Annual output = capacity × capacity factor/100 × 8,760 hours ÷ 1,000. Capacity is a power rate; output is an energy quantity.
| Measure | Value | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Annual local demand | 100 | GWh |
| Wind: lifecycle emissions intensity | 12 | g CO₂e/kWh |
| Solar roofs: lifecycle emissions intensity | 35 | g CO₂e/kWh |
| Small hydro: lifecycle emissions intensity | 24 | g CO₂e/kWh |
Fictional lifecycle intensity estimates use the same boundary. They are not operational emissions only; output timing, storage and grid losses are omitted.
| Option | Capital cost (£ million) | Benefit | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wind | 18 | Estimated annual output 70.08 GWh; Lifecycle intensity 12 g CO₂e/kWh | Variable generation and landscape effects; Operating costs and grid connection need separate assessment |
| Solar roofs | 12 | Estimated annual output 18.4 GWh; Lifecycle intensity 35 g CO₂e/kWh | Seasonal generation and roof agreements; Operating costs and grid connection need separate assessment |
| Small hydro | 19 | Estimated annual output 37.67 GWh; Lifecycle intensity 24 g CO₂e/kWh | River ecology and low-flow constraints; Operating costs and grid connection need separate assessment |
Available capital budget: £20 million. Options are alternatives; their benefits cannot simply be added. Operating costs are separate.
| Option | Capital cost (£ million) | Capital with 20% overrun (£ million) | Operating assumption (£ million/year) | Capital plus 10 years operating (£ million) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wind | 18 | 21.6 | 0.99 | 27.9 |
| Solar roofs | 12 | 14.4 | 0.48 | 16.8 |
| Small hydro | 19 | 22.8 | 0.48 | 23.8 |
The budget limits capital spending. Operating costs require a separate funding stream. Ten-year totals are undiscounted, hold annual costs constant and omit benefits, inflation and residual value. A 20% overrun is a stress scenario, not its probability.
Capacity factors are fictional assumptions.; Annual balances do not represent hourly security or whole-system cost.
2 marks1. Calculate the wind annual output in GWh to two decimal places.
2 marks2. What percentage of annual local demand could wind output equal, ignoring timing and losses?
6 marks3. Analyse the contribution of wind to annual energy demand. Assess how well the figures establish energy security.
1 mark4. Which ratio gives the share of annual demand represented by wind?
6 marks5. Assess whether the cost-overrun scenario changes the affordability of one option. Explain why ten-year spending cannot establish its overall value.
20 marks6. Evaluate the view: “Capital affordability should determine the management choice.” Use the supplied resources. State your priority, explain the geographical mechanism, compare alternatives and identify evidence that could change your judgement.
The shading represents a percentage of households, not a total. Each class includes its lower boundary and excludes its upper boundary: a value of 20 belongs in 20–30, not 10–20.
Scroll the diagram sideways to see the full resource.
| District | Reported damage (%) | Households |
|---|---|---|
| A | 2 | 1000 |
| B | 14 | 500 |
| C | 24 | 500 |
| D | 35 | 100 |
A–D use these non-overlapping classes: 0 to less than 10%; 10 to less than 20%; 20 to less than 30%; 30 to less than 40%. A has 1,000 households and D has 100 households.
1 mark1. Which class contains district C?
1 mark2. How many households in A reported damage?
1 mark3. What extra information is needed to compare affected-household counts?
Original fictional model and resources: GeographyHelp. · Written practice context: https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/geography/AQA-70372-SMS.PDF
Compare the examples by their geographical reasoning, use of evidence and response to this question. Written guidance supports formative review; official levels and calibrated scores are not assigned.
Source mapping: 3.2.5 Resource security. Select this option if it is part of your course.
Use your own taught place knowledge when the task or course requires it.
The linked template fixes its coherent core resources. Resource type and skill selections control the explicitly labelled supplementary geographical skills.
Assessment context: 7037/2 human geography: resource-security practice. Use the resources and geographical understanding to build a reasoned answer. Source used to check the context · checked 2026-10-08
1. Calculate the wind annual output in GWh to two decimal places. (2 marks)
Check the value, unit and method.
Method: 20 × 40/100 × 8,760 ÷ 1,000
20 × 40/100 × 8,760 ÷ 1,000. Result: 70.08 GWh.
A response showing 20 × 40/100 × 8,760 ÷ 1,000 has a valid method even if its final arithmetic is incorrect. Retain method credit and check the final value separately.
Uses an incompatible denominator or mixes the units before calculating.
Accept 70.08 GWh within the stated precision. A correct final calculation earns full credit without separate working; working can show a valid method when the final result is wrong.
2. What percentage of annual local demand could wind output equal, ignoring timing and losses? (2 marks)
Check the value, unit and method.
Method: 70.08 ÷ 100 × 100
70.08 ÷ 100 × 100. Result: 70.08 %.
A response showing 70.08 ÷ 100 × 100 has a valid method even if its final arithmetic is incorrect. Retain method credit and check the final value separately.
Uses an incompatible denominator or mixes the units before calculating.
Accept 70.08 % within the stated precision. A correct final calculation earns full credit without separate working; working can show a valid method when the final result is wrong.
3. Analyse the contribution of wind to annual energy demand. Assess how well the figures establish energy security. (6 marks)
Use this guidance to compare the evidence and reasoning in your answer.
Wind produces an estimated 70.08 GWh annually, 70.08% of the 100 GWh annual demand. Its 20 MW capacity is a power rate, not annual energy. The 40% capacity factor accounts for average utilisation over the year, but does not establish output during peak demand. Lifecycle intensity is 12 g CO₂e/kWh; it uses a different denominator from total emissions. Hourly demand, generation, storage and network losses are needed to assess simultaneous supply. Energy security depends on the timing and flexibility of supply as well as annual production. Capacity factor is an annual utilisation measure, not a guarantee at peak demand. Lifecycle intensity permits a consistent emissions comparison here, but displacement depends on which generation is replaced and when. Local land and river effects must be weighed against a wider supply-system benefit. Demand growth, low-flow periods and changing network capacity could alter the judgement over time; an hourly supply-demand balance and lifecycle boundary sensitivity would test it.
Wind annual output is 70.08 GWh, compared with annual demand of 100 GWh.
The annual energy share is the percentage of hours when wind can meet the local demand.
A smaller annual-output project could contribute more during a particular demand peak. The annual figures cannot test that possibility without timing data.
Developing an answer: Identifies relevant details, but relationships or the answer to the exact question remain unclear.
Connected reasoning: Uses accurate evidence to explain geographical relationships and addresses the question.
Sustained reasoning: Selects and connects evidence, weighs a credible counterargument and reaches a supported judgement where the command requires it.
Judge the geographical argument against this question. The checklist and examples support formative review; they do not allocate official levels or calibrated written marks.
4. Which ratio gives the share of annual demand represented by wind? (1 mark)
Compare each option with the resource.
Power and energy have different units and meanings.
This selected-response item has one keyed answer.
Check the unit, denominator and scope of each interpretation.
Use the displayed resource to reject the other interpretations.
5. Assess whether the cost-overrun scenario changes the affordability of one option. Explain why ten-year spending cannot establish its overall value. (6 marks)
Use this guidance to compare the evidence and reasoning in your answer.
Wind rises from £18 million to £21.6 million under the 20% capital overrun. The £20 million capital budget falls short by £1.6 million. The ten-year total of £27.9 million includes £0.99 million annually in operating spending and requires a separate funding plan. It is undiscounted spending, not overall value: benefits, inflation and residual value are omitted. The scenario tests a funding constraint; it does not give the probability of an overrun or determine geographical effectiveness.
Wind costs £21.6 million in the overrun scenario. This identifies the figure but needs comparison with the budget and interpretation of the ten-year total.
The ten-year spending total measures net benefit and the 20% overrun is a measured probability.
Solar roofs: £14.4 million under the overrun, within the capital budget; £16.8 million of ten-year spending includes annual operating costs of £0.48 million. Small hydro: £22.8 million under the overrun, above the capital budget; £23.8 million of ten-year spending includes annual operating costs of £0.48 million.
Developing an answer: Identifies relevant details, but relationships or the answer to the exact question remain unclear.
Connected reasoning: Uses accurate evidence to explain geographical relationships and addresses the question.
Sustained reasoning: Selects and connects evidence, weighs a credible counterargument and reaches a supported judgement where the command requires it.
Judge the geographical argument against this question. The checklist and examples support formative review; they do not allocate official levels or calibrated written marks.
6. Evaluate the view: “Capital affordability should determine the management choice.” Use the supplied resources. State your priority, explain the geographical mechanism, compare alternatives and identify evidence that could change your judgement. (20 marks)
Use this guidance to compare the evidence and reasoning in your answer.
“I would choose the option called Wind because it could help.” This names an option. Add a cost, explain how it would help and compare it with an alternative.
The cheapest option must help every household equally. Capital cost alone does not establish effectiveness or the distribution of benefits.
I would choose small hydro to prioritise generation suited to local river conditions. Its £19 million capital cost fits the £20 million budget, leaving £1 million. The project supplies an estimated 37.67 GWh, 37.67% of annual demand, with 24 g CO₂e/kWh lifecycle intensity and 8 ha of new land footprint. Small hydro converts flowing water into electricity; its contribution depends on flow, usable head and operating permissions.
For £12 million, rooftop solar could generate electricity on existing roofs. For £18 million, the wind project could contribute electricity when wind conditions permit. The resource gives annual output, not low-flow reliability or ecological effects; water allocation and habitats need assessment. The annual figures need to be checked against when people need electricity and who bears the local effects.
Energy security depends on the timing and flexibility of supply as well as annual production. Capacity factor is an annual utilisation measure, not a guarantee at peak demand. Lifecycle intensity permits a consistent emissions comparison here, but displacement depends on which generation is replaced and when. Local land and river effects must be weighed against a wider supply-system benefit. Demand growth, low-flow periods and changing network capacity could alter the judgement over time; an hourly supply-demand balance and lifecycle boundary sensitivity would test it.
Under the 20% capital overrun, the cost becomes £22.8 million, requiring £2.8 million beyond the capital budget. Annual operating spending is £0.48 million and the undiscounted ten-year total is £23.8 million. That total values spending only; it does not measure net benefit. My recommendation holds at the listed base capital cost. Under the supplied overrun it is conditional on extra funding, a viable reduced scope or selecting an affordable alternative. I reject affordability as the sole determinant: it can rule out an unfunded option, but cannot establish which feasible option best meets the geographical priority. I would reconsider if low flows or ecological requirements restrict generation when it is needed.
I would choose rooftop solar to prioritise generation on existing roofs. Its £12 million capital cost fits the £20 million budget, leaving £8 million. The project supplies an estimated 18.4 GWh, 18.4% of annual demand, with 35 g CO₂e/kWh lifecycle intensity and 0 ha of new land footprint. Roof-mounted solar can use existing buildings with the supplied zero new-land footprint.
For £19 million, small hydro could generate electricity from local river flows. For £18 million, the wind project could contribute electricity when wind conditions permit. Daylight and seasonal variation affect output; roof permissions and suitability determine deployment. The annual figures need to be checked against when people need electricity and who bears the local effects.
Energy security depends on the timing and flexibility of supply as well as annual production. Capacity factor is an annual utilisation measure, not a guarantee at peak demand. Lifecycle intensity permits a consistent emissions comparison here, but displacement depends on which generation is replaced and when. Local land and river effects must be weighed against a wider supply-system benefit. Demand growth, low-flow periods and changing network capacity could alter the judgement over time; an hourly supply-demand balance and lifecycle boundary sensitivity would test it.
Under the 20% capital overrun, the cost becomes £14.4 million, leaving £5.6 million within the budget. Annual operating spending is £0.48 million and the undiscounted ten-year total is £16.8 million. That total values spending only; it does not measure net benefit. I reject affordability as the sole determinant: it can rule out an unfunded option, but cannot establish which feasible option best meets the geographical priority. I would reconsider if peak demand falls outside useful generation periods without balancing supply.
I would choose the wind project to prioritise a substantial annual contribution with low lifecycle intensity. Its £18 million capital cost fits the £20 million budget, leaving £2 million. The project supplies an estimated 70.08 GWh, 70.08% of annual demand, with 12 g CO₂e/kWh lifecycle intensity and 24 ha of new land footprint. Wind generation contributes energy when wind conditions permit, potentially displacing higher-emission supply.
For £19 million, small hydro could generate electricity from local river flows. For £12 million, rooftop solar could generate electricity on existing roofs. Annual energy does not measure dispatchability: hourly output, peak demand, storage and network constraints determine reliable supply. The annual figures need to be checked against when people need electricity and who bears the local effects.
Energy security depends on the timing and flexibility of supply as well as annual production. Capacity factor is an annual utilisation measure, not a guarantee at peak demand. Lifecycle intensity permits a consistent emissions comparison here, but displacement depends on which generation is replaced and when. Local land and river effects must be weighed against a wider supply-system benefit. Demand growth, low-flow periods and changing network capacity could alter the judgement over time; an hourly supply-demand balance and lifecycle boundary sensitivity would test it.
Under the 20% capital overrun, the cost becomes £21.6 million, requiring £1.6 million beyond the capital budget. Annual operating spending is £0.99 million and the undiscounted ten-year total is £27.9 million. That total values spending only; it does not measure net benefit. My recommendation holds at the listed base capital cost. Under the supplied overrun it is conditional on extra funding, a viable reduced scope or selecting an affordable alternative. I reject affordability as the sole determinant: it can rule out an unfunded option, but cannot establish which feasible option best meets the geographical priority. I would reconsider if network or landscape constraints prevent delivery of the intended output.
Developing an answer: Identifies relevant details, but relationships or the answer to the exact question remain unclear.
Connected reasoning: Uses accurate evidence to explain geographical relationships and addresses the question.
Sustained reasoning: Selects and connects evidence, weighs a credible counterargument and reaches a supported judgement where the command requires it.
Judge the geographical argument against this question. The checklist and examples support formative review; they do not allocate official levels or calibrated written marks.
1. Which class contains district C? (1 mark)
20 to less than 30%
24 is at least 20 and below 30. For this 1-mark task, credit the keyed option.
2. How many households in A reported damage? (1 mark)
20
2% of 1,000 = 20. For this 1-mark task, credit the accepted numerical answer in the requested units.
3. What extra information is needed to compare affected-household counts? (1 mark)
The household total for each district.
A high rate in a small population can represent fewer households than a lower rate in a large population. For this 1-mark task, credit the keyed option.