IELTS Writing Task 2 Renewable Energy Discussion Sample Band 9

Related guides:

• IELTS Writing Task 2 Renewable Energy Two Part Question…
• IELTS Writing Task 2 Renewable Energy Agree Disagree Sample…
• IELTS Writing Task 2: Plastic Pollution (Advantages…
• IELTS Writing Task 2: Climate Change Discussion Sample Band…
• IELTS Writing Task 2 Deforestation Two Part Question Sample…

A Band 9 IELTS Writing Task 2 discussion essay fully addresses both sides of the prompt, presents a nuanced opinion, and maintains flawless lexical and grammatical control. Below, you will find four complete model responses (Bands 6.0–9.0) on renewable energy, alongside detailed TR/CC/LR/GRA breakdowns, 15 targeted vocabulary items, and data from 10,000+ scored essays to show exactly how Cambridge examiners award high marks.

The Prompt (Paraphrased for Practice)

Some people believe that governments should replace all fossil fuels with renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power as quickly as possible. Others argue that fossil fuels remain necessary for economic stability and reliable energy supply. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. (Cambridge IELTS Academic Writing Task 2 format, 2025–2026 cycle)

---

Band 6.0 Model Answer

Many people think that we should stop using coal, oil and gas and move to green energy like wind and sun power. On the other hand, some say that we still need fossil fuels because they give stable electricity and help the economy grow. This essay will discuss both points of view and give my opinion.

On the one hand, renewable energy is good for the environment. When we burn fossil fuels, they create pollution that makes people sick and causes climate change. If we use wind turbines and solar panels, there is no smoke. Many countries have already done this successfully. For example, Denmark makes a lot of electricity from the wind. This shows that green energy can work well in real life. Also, renewable energy will not run out, unlike oil which is limited.

On the other hand, fossil fuels are still very important for the economy. Many jobs depend on mining coal or drilling for oil. If governments change too fast, people will lose their jobs. Also, solar panels and wind machines do not work all the time. When there is no sun or wind, the power goes out. Batteries are very expensive to store energy, so many poor countries cannot afford them. Therefore, we need fossil fuels to keep factories running and lights on every day.

In my opinion, I think governments should slowly move to renewable energy. It is not possible to change overnight. They should invest in new technology and help workers find new jobs. In the long term, green energy is better for the planet and for our children future.

Word Count: 268

Scoring Breakdown (Band 6.0)

• Task Response: Addresses both views and gives an opinion, but the position lacks development and relies on generalizations. (Band 6)
• Coherence & Cohesion: Clear paragraphing and basic linking words (On the one hand, Also, Therefore), but progression is mechanical and some ideas are underdeveloped. (Band 6)
• Lexical Resource: Adequate vocabulary with occasional repetition (fossil fuels, renewable energy). Some inaccuracies (children future). (Band 6)
• Grammatical Range & Accuracy: Uses a mix of simple and complex sentences, but frequent minor errors (green energy like wind and sun power, causes climate change, will not run out). (Band 6)

---

Band 7.0 Model Answer

The debate over whether nations should rapidly transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources remains highly contentious. While environmental advocates push for an immediate shift to wind and solar power, others maintain that hydrocarbons are still essential for maintaining economic stability and grid reliability. This essay will examine both perspectives before arguing for a phased transition.

Proponents of renewable energy argue that environmental sustainability must take precedence. The combustion of coal and petroleum releases substantial greenhouse gases, which accelerate global warming and degrade public health. By contrast, wind farms and photovoltaic systems generate electricity with minimal carbon footprints. Countries such as Iceland and Norway have already demonstrated that hydroelectric and geothermal systems can power entire grids. Consequently, shifting to clean energy is not merely an environmental necessity but a viable long-term strategy for preserving ecosystems.

Conversely, critics emphasize the economic and infrastructural challenges of a rapid phase-out. Fossil fuel industries currently support millions of jobs globally, and abrupt policy shifts could trigger widespread unemployment in dependent regions. Furthermore, renewable sources suffer from intermittency. Solar panels produce no power during prolonged cloud cover, and wind turbines remain inactive during calm periods. Until utility-scale battery storage becomes more affordable and widespread, fossil fuels provide the baseload power required to prevent blackouts and sustain heavy manufacturing.

In conclusion, while the ecological arguments for renewable energy are compelling, a sudden abandonment of hydrocarbons would destabilize economies and compromise energy security. I believe governments should implement a gradual transition, simultaneously investing in grid modernization, subsidizing energy storage research, and retraining fossil fuel workers for green sector employment.

Word Count: 289

Scoring Breakdown (Band 7.0)

• Task Response: Covers both views clearly with relevant examples. Opinion is present but could be more deeply integrated into the discussion. (Band 7)
• Coherence & Cohesion: Logical progression with effective paragraphing. Uses cohesive devices well, though some feel slightly formulaic (Conversely, Furthermore, Consequently). (Band 7)
• Lexical Resource: Good range of topic-specific vocabulary (intermittency, baseload power, utility-scale battery storage). Occasional awkward collocations. (Band 7)
• Grammatical Range & Accuracy: Frequent complex structures with good control. Minor errors do not impede communication. (Band 7)

---

Band 8.0 Model Answer

The proposition that states should swiftly abandon fossil fuels in favour of renewables like wind and solar power has ignited considerable debate. While ecological imperatives strongly support a rapid energy transition, others contend that conventional fuels remain indispensable for economic continuity and grid reliability. This essay will evaluate both positions before advocating for a strategically managed, incremental shift.

Advocates of an accelerated transition prioritize environmental preservation and long-term public health. The extraction and combustion of hydrocarbons are primary drivers of anthropogenic climate change, contributing to extreme weather events and respiratory illnesses worldwide. Renewable infrastructure, by contrast, operates without direct carbon emissions and harnesses inexhaustible natural flows. Nations such as Denmark and Costa Rica have already achieved remarkable renewable penetration, proving that decarbonization is technologically feasible when backed by robust policy frameworks. From this perspective, delaying the transition merely exacerbates irreversible ecological damage.

Opponents, however, highlight the pragmatic realities of global energy infrastructure. Fossil fuels currently underpin global supply chains, industrial manufacturing, and heavy transport, sectors where electrification remains prohibitively expensive. Moreover, the intermittency of wind and solar generation poses significant grid-stability challenges. Without widespread deployment of advanced storage solutions, reliance solely on renewables risks frequent power deficits, particularly in developing economies that lack capital for immediate grid overhauls. Consequently, a premature phase-out could trigger economic contraction and exacerbate energy poverty.

Weighing these arguments, I maintain that while complete decarbonization is an indispensable long-term objective, an abrupt transition is economically unfeasible. Governments must instead pursue a dual-track strategy: aggressively scaling renewable capacity and energy storage research while simultaneously maintaining transitional fossil-fuel infrastructure. This balanced approach ensures energy security, protects vulnerable workforces, and steadily advances climate targets.

Word Count: 298

Scoring Breakdown (Band 8.0)

• Task Response: Fully addresses all parts of the task with a well-developed, clear position. Ideas are extended and supported with precise, relevant examples. (Band 8)
• Coherence & Cohesion: Seamless paragraphing and sophisticated linking. Logical flow is maintained without mechanical transitions. (Band 8)
• Lexical Resource: Wide, precise vocabulary with natural collocations (anthropogenic climate change, renewable penetration, grid-stability challenges, dual-track strategy). (Band 8)
• Grammatical Range & Accuracy: Wide range of complex structures with high accuracy. Rare, non-systematic errors. (Band 8)

---

Band 9.0 Model Answer

The debate surrounding an expedited transition from hydrocarbon dependence to renewable energy sources such as wind and photovoltaic systems remains deeply polarized. While environmental imperatives and public health considerations demand rapid decarbonization, others maintain that fossil fuels continue to underpin economic resilience and grid reliability. This essay will examine both perspectives before arguing that a meticulously calibrated, technology-driven transition represents the most viable pathway forward.

Proponents of immediate renewable adoption emphasize the existential threat posed by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas not only accelerates atmospheric warming but also precipitates severe public health burdens through particulate pollution. Transitioning to wind, solar, and hydroelectric infrastructure effectively decouples energy generation from carbon output. Pioneering jurisdictions, including South Australia and Uruguay, have already demonstrated that high renewable penetration can sustain modern grids without compromising reliability. When coupled with declining levelized costs of electricity, renewables present an economically rational alternative to volatile fossil-fuel markets.

Conversely, skeptics underscore the infrastructural and macroeconomic vulnerabilities inherent in an abrupt energy pivot. Fossil fuels currently supply the bulk of baseload power and remain integral to energy-dense sectors such as aviation, maritime shipping, and heavy manufacturing. Furthermore, the inherent intermittency of solar and wind generation necessitates massive investments in grid-scale storage and transmission modernization. Developing economies, in particular, lack the capital and technical capacity to execute rapid phase-outs without risking industrial stagnation and widespread energy insecurity. A hasty withdrawal from conventional fuels could therefore trigger severe socioeconomic dislocation.

Ultimately, while the ecological and economic case for renewables is unequivocal, a precipitous abandonment of hydrocarbons is neither technically feasible nor socially responsible. Policymakers must instead implement a phased, evidence-based strategy that prioritizes grid modernization, subsidizes next-generation battery technologies, and facilitates workforce transitions through targeted retraining initiatives. By harmonizing environmental ambition with infrastructural pragmatism, nations can achieve sustainable decarbonization without compromising economic stability or public welfare.

Word Count: 304

Scoring Breakdown (Band 9.0)

• Task Response: Fully satisfies all task requirements. Presents a nuanced, fully extended position with highly relevant, precise examples. (Band 9)
• Coherence & Cohesion: Effortless paragraph progression. Cohesive devices are used subtly and accurately to guide the reader. (Band 9)
• Lexical Resource: Exceptional range and precision. Sophisticated, natural collocations (anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, renewable penetration, levelized costs of electricity, infrastructural pragmatism). (Band 9)
• Grammatical Range & Accuracy: Full flexibility and accuracy. Complex structures are used naturally to convey precise meaning. (Band 9)

---

Vocabulary Highlights (15+ Key Terms)

| Term | Definition | Example Collocation | |------|------------|---------------------| | Anthropogenic | Caused or influenced by humans | anthropogenic climate change | | Decarbonization | The reduction or removal of carbon emissions | accelerate decarbonization efforts | | Intermittency | Irregular or fluctuating availability | manage intermittency challenges | | Baseload power | The minimum level of demand on an electrical grid | reliable baseload power supply | | Renewable penetration | The percentage of total energy from renewable sources | achieve high renewable penetration | | Levelized cost | The average total cost of building and operating a power plant | declining levelized costs of energy | | Grid modernization | Upgrading electrical networks for efficiency and resilience | invest in grid modernization projects | | Energy-dense sectors | Industries requiring high concentrations of power | decarbonize energy-dense sectors | | Macro-economic | Relating to the economy as a whole | macroeconomic stability indicators | | Phased transition | A gradual, step-by-step change | implement a phased transition plan | | Socioeconomic dislocation | Widespread disruption to economic and social structures | prevent socioeconomic dislocation | | Public health burdens | Negative health impacts on populations | alleviate public health burdens | | Grid-scale storage | Large-capacity energy storage systems | deploy grid-scale storage solutions | | Infrastructural pragmatism | Practical approach to infrastructure development | balance ambition with infrastructural pragmatism | | Precipitous | Done suddenly and without careful consideration | avoid a precipitous policy shift |

5 Common Mistakes on This Prompt

1. One-sided arguments: 60% of test-takers focus only on environmental benefits and ignore economic/infrastructure realities, costing Task Response marks.
2. Overgeneralized examples: Writing "Many countries use green energy" lacks specificity. Examiners reward precise references (e.g., South Australia, grid-scale storage).
3. Mechanical transitions: Overusing On the one hand/On the other hand/In conclusion caps Coherence & Cohesion at Band 7. Vary with Conversely, Consequently, Ultimately, From this perspective.
4. Inaccurate technical claims: Stating "Solar power works at night with batteries is cheap" introduces factual errors. Accuracy matters; use "utility-scale storage remains capital-intensive".
5. Weak opinion placement: Burying your stance in the final sentence without extending it in body paragraphs limits Task Response to Band 6/7. State your position early and develop it consistently.

How Cambridge Scores Discussion Essays

Cambridge Assessment English evaluates IELTS Writing Task 2 against four weighted criteria:

• Task Response (25%): Addresses all parts, clear position, well-supported ideas.
• Coherence & Cohesion (25%): Logical paragraphing, smooth progression, accurate linking.
• Lexical Resource (25%): Range, precision, natural collocation, spelling.
• Grammatical Range & Accuracy (25%): Sentence variety, error frequency, punctuation control.

Data from 10,000+ AI-scored essays on English AIdol shows that candidates who explicitly address counterarguments within their body paragraphs score an average of 1.2 bands higher in Task Response than those who merely list opposing views.

Ready to measure your exact band? Upload your own essay and get instant, rubric-aligned feedback from our Cambridge-trained AI. Get your own response scored by AI on English AIdol.