Renewable vs non-renewable energy

For ages 12–14, learners distinguish renewable from non-renewable energy resources and, crucially, evaluate trade-offs between cost, reliability/intermittency and environmental impact. The cognitive heart is multi-criteria comparison and evidence-based argument, not memorising a list. Two independent axes must be kept apart: renewable↔non-renewable (will it run out?) and low-carbon↔high-carbon (climate impact), so nuclear (non-renewable, low-carbon) and biomass (renewable, emits CO2) occupy surprising quadrants. Reliability/intermittency is a further, separate consideration. Two core activities carry the objective: an energy-mix decision task where learners build a supply to meet demand and experience the consequences, and a written evidence-to-claim justification — because the NGSS practice is to construct an explanation/argument from evidence, this written task should not be reduced to recognition. Supporting activities cover classification/two-axis sorting, resource life-stories and a stakeholder debate.

• 'Renewable = clean / no environmental impact' — biomass emits CO2, hydro floods habitats, wind/solar have manufacturing and land footprints; renewable refers to replenishment, not zero impact.
• 'Nuclear is renewable' (or 'renewable because low-carbon') — nuclear fuel is finite, so non-renewable, though low-carbon; the two axes are independent.
• 'Renewables never run out and are always available' — ignores intermittency/reliability (no wind on a calm day, no solar at night).
• Confusing renewable with recyclable, or treating electricity itself as an energy 'source' rather than a carrier generated from a resource.
• Mis-timing depletion ('fossil fuels will run out next year' or 'never') and conflating an energy RESOURCE with an energy STORE.

• A two-axis sort: renewable↔non-renewable on one axis, low-carbon↔high-carbon on the other, so nuclear and biomass land in the 'surprising' quadrants.
• A multi-criteria comparison table: resource × (cost, reliability, CO2, other environmental impact).
• An energy-mix / supply-and-demand picture showing how resources combine to meet demand across a day (intermittency vs baseload).
• Resource life-stories: where each comes from and its impact (coal → CO2; hydro → flooded valleys; wind → manufacturing footprint + intermittency; nuclear → low-carbon but waste/finite fuel).

• Define the criterion precisely: a resource is renewable if it is replenished on a human timescale (sunlight, wind, flowing water, tides, geothermal heat, regrown biomass) and non-renewable if it is finite/used faster than replaced (coal, oil, gas, and nuclear fuel) — sort by THIS test, not by 'clean vs dirty'.
• Separate the two independent axes students conflate: renewable/non-renewable (will it run out?) vs low-carbon/high-carbon (climate impact). Nuclear is non-renewable but low-carbon; biomass is renewable but emits CO2 — these break the 'renewable = clean' equation.
• Teach evaluation with real, multi-criteria evidence: compare two resources (e.g. wind vs coal) across cost, reliability/intermittency, CO2 and other environmental impacts, and reach a reasoned, evidenced judgement rather than a slogan.
• Use the systems/decision framing: meeting a country's demand needs a MIX because each resource trades off differently (intermittency of wind/solar, baseload of gas/nuclear) — there is no single 'best' resource, only trade-offs for a context.
• Distinguish the science from the values: science describes the consequences (CO2, depletion, land use) but society makes the choices (NGSS MS-ESS3-4 note) — model evidence-based argument while being explicit about where values enter.