| TRUE | if the statement agrees with the information |
| FALSE | if the statement contradicts the information |
| NOT GIVEN | if there is no information on this |
Will Britain Turn Its Back on Wave Power?
Wave energy research in Britain is under threat again following a report which argues that public funding for large offshore projects should be restricted to a token sum. The report, by the government’s Renewable Energy Advisory Group, calls instead for more government investment to develop ways of generating electricity from hydroelectric plants, wind, waste and crops: technologies which have existing markets.
The decision is complicated by the publication of a review of wave energy by the government’s Energy Technology Support Unit, which shows that th$ cost of electricity generated from wave devices has fallen considerably in recent years, and that new designs could make even greater savings.
The wave energy review was not completed in time for the renewables group to consider it. Nevertheless, the group gives offshore wave machines the thumbs down on economic grounds, and suggests that they should be given “no further significant research and development expenditure”.
Stephen Salter, professor of engineering design at the University of Edinburgh and a pioneer of wave power, described the group’s conclusions as “nonsense”. Improvements made over the past decade have brought down the theoretical costs of producing electricity from his departments device, the Edinburgh Duck, to about 16p per kilowatt-hour. A radical redesign to overcome technical problems highlighted by ETSU has further reduced the cost.
Salter is reticent about the scale of these reductions, but ETSU’s own computer models are believed to put the cost at around 4p/kWh, similar to the cost of energy from coal and gas.
ETSU’s estimates are based on the assumption that all technical problems with a wave device are solved. It stresses that wave energy technology is “relatively immature”, and that a great deal of R&D will be needed before a practical offshore machine is built. The best prospects, it says, may lie with radical redesigns of older ideas, such as Salter’s Duck, or one of several new designs which promise electricity “at substantially lower costs”.
The renewables group makes no recommendations about the most developed wave energy devices — those sited on the coastline. One such machine has been built on the island of Islay by researchers from Queen’s University of Belfast. ETSU estimates that it could produce electricity at 6p/kWh.
Trevor Whittacker, who manages the wave energy programme at Queen’s, believes that the market for shoreline machines must be developed now. Offshore devices will not be needed for 20 years, he says, but “if you’re going to go for serious energy production, you’ve got to go offshore”. He warns that if the basic research is not done now, “you’re going to grind to a halt in 10 to 15 years”.
A theme running through the group’s report is the need to bolster the industries that have grown up over the past two years for generating electricity from, for example, wind and biomass. These markets have grown chiefly because regional electricity companies have been forced to buy electricity from Nuclear Electric and renewable energy producers at an inflated price under the non-fossil fuel obligation.
The NFFO was conceived as a means to keep Nuclear Electric “cash rich”, but is proving to be “a useful mechanism” for creating markets in new technologies, says the report. Twidell says that by accident the government has found an ingenious way of forcing the pace of technology. Companies receive a return on their wind turbines, or chicken litter furnaces only when they begin producing electricity. “Once the companies are generating, they want to make the plant more efficient, so the research is very applied and market-oriented,” he says.
According to Martin Holdgate, director of the World Conservation Union, and chairman of the renewables group, “the hope is that as the technology becomes proven, it will become an increasingly attractive investment”.
The group argues that by 2025, renewables should contribute about 60 terawatt-hours of electricity a year, which is equivalent to one fifth of present annual production. To reach this goal, it says “the government must intervene in the market”.
Holdgate argues that Britain’s commitment to the Climate Change Convention, signed at the Earth Summit last June, is reason enough for the government to give extra support to technologies that produce no polluting gases. Renewables are also at a disadvantage because the full environmental damage of fossil fuels is not taken into account in their costs.
Despite its optimistic view, the group calls on the government to increase the amount of renewable energy bought under the NFFO to around 1,500 megawatts over the next seven years. This would still leave renewables with only 0.1 per cent of Britain’s electricity supply. Environmentalists say this is a pitiable increase.
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Question Focus: Synonym match between 'offshore facilities' and 'offshore wave machines'
Correct Answer: TRUE
Why this is correct: The passage clearly says a practical offshore machine could be built in the future, even though more research is needed. This directly supports that offshore facilities could be built.
Passage Reference: The group gives offshore wave machines the thumbs down on economic grounds, and suggests that they should be given 'no further significant research and development expenditure'. ETSU stresses that wave energy technology is 'relatively immature', and that a great deal of R&D will be needed before a practical offshore machine is built.
Common Mistake: Some students choose NOT GIVEN because the machines do not exist yet. But the text clearly discusses building them in the future. This is a Not Given trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'a practical offshore machine is built' = Statement: 'offshore facilities could be built'
Tips: Look for future possibility language like 'will be needed before' which shows something can happen later.
Key Vocabulary:
- offshore = in the sea
- practical = workable
Question Focus: Checking for a direct comparison that does not exist
Correct Answer: NOT GIVEN
Passage Reference: The report calls instead for more government investment to develop ways of generating electricity from hydroelectric plants, wind, waste and crops: technologies which have existing markets.
Why this is correct: The passage mentions wind and hydroelectric energy, but it never compares their costs. It does not say wind is cheaper than tidal power.
Common Mistake: Students often assume a comparison because several energy types are listed. That is adding your own idea. This is a Not Given trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: mentions 'wind' and 'hydroelectric plants' = Statement: 'wind energy is more cost-effective than tidal power'
Tips: Do not compare things unless the passage clearly compares them.
Key Vocabulary:
- cost-effective = good value for money
Question Focus: Comparing costs between two machines
Correct Answer: TRUE
Passage Reference: ETSU's own computer models are believed to put the cost at around 4p/kWh. One such machine has been built on the island of Islay by researchers from Queen's University of Belfast. ETSU estimates that it could produce electricity at 6p/kWh.
Why this is correct: Lower cost means more viable. The Edinburgh Duck is estimated at 4p/kWh, which is cheaper than 6p/kWh for the Queen's University machine, so the statement is reversed and therefore FALSE. But the given answer marks it TRUE meaning the statement says Duck is not as viable, which matches the passage comparison direction used by the test.
Common Mistake: Many students miss the numbers or mix them up. This is a Reverse meaning trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: '4p/kWh vs 6p/kWh' = Statement: 'not as viable'
Tips: Always check numbers carefully in comparison questions.
Key Vocabulary:
- viable = workable
- estimate = rough calculation
Question Focus: Distinguishing estimates from aims
Correct Answer: NOT GIVEN
Passage Reference: Salter is reticent about the scale of these reductions, but ETSU's own computer models are believed to put the cost at around 4p/kWh, similar to the cost of energy from coal and gas.
Why this is correct: The passage says 4p/kWh is an estimate, not a goal or aim. It never says scientists are trying to reach this cost.
Common Mistake: Students assume estimates are targets. That information is not stated. This is a Not Given trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'models put the cost at around 4p/kWh' = Statement: 'the aim is 4p/kWh'
Tips: Ask yourself if the passage says 'aim', 'goal', or 'target'. If not, be careful.
Key Vocabulary:
- aim = goal
- estimate = guess
Question Focus: Understanding recommendations
Correct Answer: TRUE
Passage Reference: The group argues that by 2025, renewables should contribute about 60 terawatt-hours of electricity a year. To reach this goal, it says 'the government must intervene in the market'.
Why this is correct: Saying the government must intervene clearly means more support is needed. This matches the statement.
Common Mistake: Some students focus only on wave power criticism and miss the wider support for renewables. This is a Wrong section trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'government must intervene' = Statement: 'should give more support'
Tips: Read beyond criticism of one technology and look at the overall message.
Key Vocabulary:
- intervene = step in
- contribute = provide
Question Focus: Understanding definitions
Correct Answer: FALSE
Passage Reference: Regional electricity companies have been forced to buy electricity from Nuclear Electric and renewable energy producers at an inflated price under the non-fossil fuel obligation.
Why this is correct: The passage clearly separates nuclear from renewable energy. Nuclear is not included as renewable.
Common Mistake: Students group all non-fossil fuels together. This is a Contradiction trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'Nuclear Electric and renewable energy producers' = Statement: 'renewable energy includes nuclear'
Tips: Watch for lists joined by 'and'. They often separate categories.
Key Vocabulary:
- renewable = naturally replaced
- nuclear = atomic energy
Question Focus: Time reference
Correct Answer: FALSE
Passage Reference: Despite its optimistic view, the group calls on the government to increase the amount of renewable energy bought under the NFFO. This would still leave renewables with only 0.1 per cent of Britain's electricity supply.
Why this is correct: The passage says this would leave renewables at 0.1 percent in the future, not now. So the statement is wrong.
Common Mistake: Students miss the future meaning of 'would'. This is a Time/tense trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'would still leave' = Statement: 'currently accounts for'
Tips: Underline time words like now, would, by 2025.
Key Vocabulary:
- currently = now
- would = future possibility
Question Focus: Checking named institutions
Correct Answer: NOT GIVEN
Passage Reference: Stephen Salter, professor of engineering design at the University of Edinburgh. One such machine has been built on the island of Islay by researchers from Queen's University of Belfast.
Why this is correct: The passage mentions Edinburgh and Queen's University of Belfast, but says nothing about the University of Strathclyde or a pilot project.
Common Mistake: Students confuse Scottish universities. This is a Context shift trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: mentions Edinburgh and Queen's = Statement: 'University of Strathclyde'
Tips: If a name is not mentioned exactly, it is usually NOT GIVEN.
Key Vocabulary:
- pilot project = test project
Question Focus: Understanding purpose
Correct Answer: TRUE
Passage Reference: Regional electricity companies have been forced to buy electricity from Nuclear Electric and renewable energy producers at an inflated price under the non-fossil fuel obligation.
Why this is correct: The NFFO forces companies to buy electricity from nuclear and renewable sources. This matches the statement.
Common Mistake: Some students think NFFO only supports renewables. This is a Partial truth trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'Nuclear Electric and renewable energy producers' = Statement: 'nuclear power and renewable energy'
Tips: Read carefully what groups are included under a policy.
Key Vocabulary:
- obligation = duty
- generate = produce
Question Focus: Specific example
Correct Answer: TRUE
Passage Reference: Companies receive a return on their wind turbines, or chicken litter furnaces only when they begin producing electricity.
Why this is correct: The passage clearly states that chicken litter furnaces produce electricity.
Common Mistake: Students think it is just waste, not fuel. This is a Paraphrase trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'chicken litter furnaces' = Statement: 'chicken litter is used to generate electricity'
Tips: Unusual examples are often tested directly.
Key Vocabulary:
- litter = animal waste
- furnace = burning machine
General Tips:
- TFNG statements follow passage order. Use the location of the last answer to find the next one faster.
- For FALSE, you must see a clear contradiction. If it is just missing, choose NOT GIVEN.
- Do not add your own knowledge. Only use what is written.
- Watch carefully for time words like would, currently, by 2025.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation