Pros - reduce carbon emissions [2max]
a. the reduction in coal labelled “high emissions” may reduce carbon emissions if its replacement has lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of energy; low sulfur content alone does not establish this;
b. decrease in overall use of coal (both low sulfur content and high emissions coal) will decrease carbon emissions / there is a slight decrease in carbon-producing sources;
c. a larger contribution from low-carbon nuclear, wind and solar energy reduces the carbon intensity of the energy supply and can displace fossil-fuel emissions;
Cons - increase carbon emissions [2max]
d. overall increase in energy supply will tend to increase carbon emissions due to construction/maintenance/extraction / production of batteries for renewable energies requires extraction of materials which produces carbon emissions;
e. use of coal with low sulfur content will still produce carbon emissions;
f. coal still supplies the majority of the planned energy in 2050 and therefore remains a substantial source of carbon emissions, although its proportion of total supply decreases;
Conclusion [1 max] needs to be balanced considering both sides of the argument for credit and makes a clear value judgement e.g.: Although there is a planned increase in the use of renewable energies (associated with low carbon emissions) the majority of energy will still be generated using coal that releases carbon dioxide;
Marking guidance:
Note: For credit for either pros or cons, link must be made to carbon/carbon dioxide emissions.
For pros, do not accept only 'use of low sulfur coal will reduce emissions'.
Conclusion is not mandatory, and 3 marks can be achieved through consideration of both pros and cons