An Assessment Of Micro-wind Turbines - IELTS Reading Answers & Explanations
From IELTS Practice Test Plus 3 Academic Reading Test 2 · Part 2 · Questions 14–26
Reading Passage
You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 14-26, which are based on Reading Passage 2 below.
An assessment of micro-wind turbines
A In terms of micro-renewable energy sources suitable for private use, a 15-kilowatt (kW) turbine* is at the biggest end of the spectrum. With a nine metre diameter and a pole as high as a four-storey house, this is the most efficient form of wind micro-turbine, and the sort of thing you could install only if you had plenty of space and money. According to one estimate, a 15-kW micro-turbine (that's one with the maximum output), costing £41,000 to purchase and a further £9,000 to install, is capable of delivering 25,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh)** of electricity each year if placed on a suitably windy site.
B I don't know of any credible studies of the greenhouse gas emissions involved in producing and installing turbines, so my estimates here are going to be even more broad than usual. However, it is worth trying. If turbine manufacture is about as carbon intensive per pound sterling of product as other generators and electrical motors, which seems a reasonable assumption, the carbon intensity of manufacture will be around 640 kilograms (kg) per £1,000 of value. Installation is probably about as carbon intensive as typical construction, at around 380 kg per £1,000. That makes the carbon footprint (the total amount of greenhouse gases that installing a turbine creates) 30 tonnes.
C The carbon savings from wind-powered electricity generation depend on the carbon intensity of the electricity that you're replacing. Let's assume that your generation replaces the coal-fuelled part of the country's energy mix. In other words, if you live in the UK, let's say that rather than replacing typical grid electricity, which comes from a mix of coal, gas, oil and renewable energy sources, the effect of your turbine is to reduce the use of coal-fired power stations. That's reasonable, because coal is the least preferable source in the electricity mix. In this case the carbon saving is roughly one kilogram per kWh, so you save 25 tonnes per year and pay back the embodied carbon in just 14 months – a great start.
D The UK government has recently introduced a subsidy for renewable energy that pays individual producers 24p per energy unit on top of all the money they save on their own fuel bill, and on selling surplus electricity back to the grid at approximately 5p per unit. With all this taken into account, individuals would get back £7,250 per year on their investment. That pays back the costs in about six years. It makes good financial sense and, for people who care about the carbon savings for their own sake, it looks like a fantastic move. The carbon investment pays back in just over a year, and every year after that is a 25-tonne carbon saving. (It's important to remember that all these sums rely on a wind turbine having a favourable location.)
E So, at face value, the turbine looks like a great idea environmentally, and a fairly good long-term investment economically for the person installing it. However, there is a crucial perspective missing from the analysis so far. Has the government spent its money wisely? It has invested 24p per unit into each micro-turbine. That works out at a massive £250 per tonne of carbon saved. My calculations tell me that had the government invested its money in offshore wind farms, instead of subsidising smaller domestic turbines, they would have broken even after eight years. In other words, the micro-turbine works out as a good investment for individuals, but only because the government spends, and arguably wastes, so much money subsidising it. Carbon savings are far lower too.
F Nevertheless, although the micro-wind turbine subsidy doesn't look like the very best way of spending government resources on climate change mitigation, we are talking about investing only about 0.075 percent per year of the nation's GDP to get a one percent reduction in carbon emissions, which is a worthwhile benefit. In other words, it could be much better, but it could be worse. In addition, such investment helps to promote and sustain developing technology.
G There is one extra favourable way of looking at the micro-wind turbine, even if it is not the single best way of investing money in cutting carbon. Input-output modelling has told us that it is actually quite difficult to spend money without having a negative carbon impact. So if the subsidy encourages people to spend their money on a carbon-reducing technology such as a wind turbine, rather than on carbon-producing goods like cars, and services such as overseas holidays, then the reductions in emissions will be greater than my simple sums above have suggested.
* a type of engine
** a unit for measuring electrical power
Questions
Questions 14–20 Matching Headings
Reading Passage 2 has SEVEN paragraphs, A-G.
Choose the correct heading for each paragraph from the list of headings below.
Write the correct number, i-ix.
i. A better use for large sums of money.
ii. The environmental costs of manufacture and installation.
iii. Estimates of the number of micro-turbines in use.
iv. The environmental benefits of running a micro-turbine.
v. The size and output of the largest type of micro-turbine.
vi. A limited case for subsidising micro-turbines.
vii. Recent improvements in the design of micro-turbines.
viii. An indirect method of reducing carbon emissions.
ix. The financial benefits of running a micro-turbine.
Questions 21–22 Multiple Choice (Two Answers)
Choose TWO letters, A-E.
The list below contains some possible statements about micro wind-turbines.
Which TWO of these statements are made by the writer of the passage?
Questions 23–26 Sentence Completion
Complete the sentences below.
Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.
- 23 would be a more effective target for government investment than micro-turbines.
- An indirect benefit of subsidising micro-turbines is the support it provides for 24.
- Most spending has a 25 effect on the environment.
- If people buy a micro-turbine, they have less money to spend on things like foreign holidays and 26.
Answers & Explanations Summary
| # | Answer | Evidence | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q14 | v | In terms of micro-renewable energy sources suitable for private use, a 15-kilowatt (kW) turbine* is at the biggest end of the spectrum. With a nine metre diameter and a pole as high as a four-storey house, this is the most efficient form of wind micro-turbine, and the sort of thing you could install only if you had plenty of space and money. According to one estimate, a 15-kW micro-turbine (that's one with the maximum output), costing £41,000 to purchase and a further £9,000 to install, is capable of delivering 25,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh)** of electricity each year if placed on a suitably windy site | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage describes the largest kind of micro-wind turbine. It explains that it is very big (as tall as a four-floor house) and states that it can produce up to 25,000 units of electricity every year. Answer Explanation: The answer is heading v, which says "The size and output of the largest type of micro-turbine." Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is correct because Paragraph A focuses exclusively on the physical dimensions and the energy production of a 15-kilowatt turbine, which it identifies as being at the "biggest end" of the range. The paragraph explains how large the structure is (its size) and how many kilowatt-hours of electricity it can produce (its output). Important keywords for a learner to notice include "biggest end" (synonym for largest type), "nine metre diameter" (size), and "delivering 25,000 kilowatt-hours" (output). |
| Q15 | ii | That makes the carbon footprint (the total amount of greenhouse gases that installing a turbine creates) 30 tonnes | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage states that the total amount of pollution, or 'carbon footprint,' created just by making and setting up a turbine is 30 tonnes of greenhouse gases. Answer Explanation: The answer 'ii' means the main idea of Paragraph B is the environmental cost (pollution) caused by making and setting up the wind turbine. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is 'ii' because Paragraph B focuses on the greenhouse gas emissions (pollution) created during the 'manufacture' (making) and 'installation' (setting up) of the turbine. The author calculates a 'carbon footprint' of 30 tonnes for these processes. Keywords include 'emissions,' 'manufacture,' 'installation,' and 'carbon footprint,' all of which relate to the environmental impact of producing the turbine before it even starts working. |
| Q16 | iv | In this case the carbon saving is roughly one kilogram per kWh, so you save 25 tonnes per year and pay back the embodied carbon in just 14 months – a great start | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that using a wind turbine stops a lot of pollution from being made, which helps the environment very quickly. Answer Explanation: The answer 'iv' means that Paragraph C focuses on the good effects that using a micro-wind turbine has on the natural environment. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is iv because the paragraph details the reduction of harmful gases (called 'carbon savings') when we use wind power. It notes that a turbine can save about 25 tonnes of carbon a year by replacing the use of coal, which is a major 'environmental benefit.' |
| Q17 | ix | The UK government has recently introduced a subsidy for renewable energy that pays individual producers 24p per energy unit on top of all the money they save on their own fuel bill, and on selling surplus electricity back to the grid at approximately 5p per unit. With all this taken into account, individuals would get back £7,250 per year on their investment. That pays back the costs in about six years. It makes good financial sense and, for people who care about the carbon savings for their own sake, it looks like a fantastic move | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains the different ways a person makes money from a turbine, including getting 24p per unit from the government and 5p for selling extra power. It calculates that a person can get back over £7,000 every year, meaning the machine pays for itself in six years. Answer Explanation: The answer 'ix' means that the main point of this section is the money-related advantages of using a micro-wind turbine. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is 'ix' because Paragraph D focuses entirely on the money an individual can earn or save by using a micro-turbine. It mentions government payments (subsidies), savings on fuel bills, and the profit from selling extra energy back to the power grid. It sums this up by saying the investment makes 'good financial sense,' highlighting the money-related (financial) gains (benefits). |
| Q18 | i | My calculations tell me that had the government invested its money in offshore wind farms, instead of subsidising smaller domestic turbines, they would have broken even after eight years | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that if the government chose to spend its money on large wind farms built in the ocean instead of helping people buy small ones for their houses, it would be a more successful financial decision and would take only eight years to make back the money spent. Answer Explanation: The answer 'i' means that Paragraph E discusses a more efficient or smarter way to spend large amounts of government money. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is 'i' because Paragraph E compares the government's current spending on small home wind turbines (micro-turbines) to a better alternative: offshore wind farms. The author argues that subsidizing micro-turbines is expensive and yields lower carbon savings compared to putting that same money into big projects like offshore wind farms, which would eventually pay for themselves (break even) and be a more efficient use of resources. |
| Q19 | vi | Nevertheless, although the micro-wind turbine subsidy doesn't look like the very best way of spending government resources on climate change mitigation, we are talking about investing only about 0.075 percent per year of the nation's GDP to get a one percent reduction in carbon emissions, which is a worthwhile benefit | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that even though the government help (subsidy) for small turbines isn't the best plan, it is still worth it because it costs a very tiny amount of the country's money to make a 1% difference in pollution. Answer Explanation: The answer vi means that paragraph F explains a specific, small set of reasons why giving government money (subsidies) to support small wind engines is still a good idea. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is vi because paragraph F admits that while this spending might not be the absolute smartest way to use money to help the environment, there is still a "case" (a reason) to do it. The writer says the cost is small compared to the reward and that it helps technology get better over time. Keywords include "worthwhile benefit" and "promote and sustain," which show the reasons for supporting the subsidy despite its flaws. |
| Q20 | viii | So if the subsidy encourages people to spend their money on a carbon-reducing technology such as a wind turbine, rather than on carbon-producing goods like cars, and services such as overseas holidays, then the reductions in emissions will be greater than my simple sums above have suggested | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that if the government's financial help leads people to buy a wind turbine instead of buying a car or taking a holiday, the total amount of pollution saved will be higher. This is because the money is being kept away from things that hurt the environment. Answer Explanation: The answer, which is heading 'viii', identifies Paragraph G as being about 'An indirect method of reducing carbon emissions'. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is heading 'viii' because Paragraph G explains a side benefit of micro-wind turbines that isn't about the energy they produce. The author argues that when people spend their money on a turbine, they are naturally not spending that money on other things like cars or international vacations, which create a lot of pollution. Therefore, the turbine helps reduce carbon emissions 'indirectly' by shifting money away from high-pollution activities toward a cleaner option. Keywords like 'rather than' and 'reductions in emissions will be greater' signal this secondary, indirect benefit. |
| Q21 | — | — | |
| Q22 | B / E | selling surplus electricity back to the grid all these sums rely on a wind turbine having a favourable location |
Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that people can sell extra energy they do not use back to the electricity company. It also explains that all the calculated benefits depend on the machine being in a good position with enough wind. Answer Explanation: The answer means that where a wind turbine is placed changes how much electricity it produces (B), and that these machines can make more electricity than a family needs for their own home (E). Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is B because the passage explains that the amount of electricity produced depends on the turbine being in a good place. It uses words like 'favourable location' and 'suitably windy site' to show that the position is very important for energy output. The correct answer is E because the author mentions that owners can sell 'surplus electricity' to the power network. The word 'surplus' means an extra amount, which proves the machine can produce more power than the household actually uses. |
| Q23 | offshore wind farms | My calculations tell me that had the government invested its money in offshore wind farms, instead of subsidising smaller domestic turbines, they would have broken even after eight years | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that if the government chose to spend its money on wind machines in the sea rather than giving money to people for small home turbines, it would have been a better use of that money. Answer Explanation: The answer 'offshore wind farms' refers to large groups of wind turbines that are built in the sea to produce electricity. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is found in paragraph E, where the author discusses whether the government has used its money well. The author compares the current spending on small home turbines to an alternative: 'offshore wind farms'. The passage suggests that instead of 'subsidising' (giving money for) small turbines, the government would have made a better choice by putting that money into large wind farms in the ocean. |
| Q24 | developing technology | In addition, such investment helps to promote and sustain developing technology | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that putting money into these projects has an extra benefit because it helps newer inventions stay active and continue to improve. Answer Explanation: The answer "developing technology" refers to new types of machines or systems that are currently being built and made better over time. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "developing technology" because the author looks for positive sides to the government's spending (subsidies). While the spending might not be the most efficient way to save carbon, the author notes in paragraph F that it helps to "promote and sustain" (which means to support and keep something going) the growth of new technical ideas. |
| Q25 | negative | Input-output modelling has told us that it is actually quite difficult to spend money without having a negative carbon impact | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage states that computer models show it is very hard to buy things without causing a bad effect on the environment through carbon pollution. Answer Explanation: The answer "negative" means something that is bad, harmful, or not helpful for the world around us. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "negative" because the passage explains that almost all ways of spending money result in a "negative carbon impact." This means that buying most goods or services creates pollution that hurts the environment. Therefore, spending money usually has a bad or harmful effect on nature. |
| Q26 | cars | So if the subsidy encourages people to spend their money on a carbon-reducing technology such as a wind turbine, rather than on carbon-producing goods like cars, and services such as overseas holidays, then the reductions in emissions will be greater than my simple sums above have suggested | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that if government financial help encourages people to buy wind turbines, they will spend their money on clean energy instead of buying things that pollute the air, such as cars or expensive trips to other countries. Answer Explanation: The answer "cars" refers to a type of product that people might buy if they don't spend their money on a wind turbine instead. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "cars" because the text lists them as an example of "carbon-producing goods" that people might avoid buying if they choose to invest in a micro-turbine. The passage mentions that buying a turbine prevents people from spending money on things that damage the environment, specifically naming "cars" and "overseas holidays." This means that when money is used for green technology, it is not available for "carbon-producing" purchases. |