|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 518
Location: MS
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]
 16 Feb 2006, 21:28
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into
electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade. However, the threshold of economic viability for solar power
(that is, the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise in order for new solar power plants to be more
economical than new oil-fired power plants) is unchanged at thirty-five dollars.
Which of the following, if true, does most to help explain why the increased cost-efficiency of solar power has
not decreased its threshold of economic viability?
(A) The cost of oil has fallen dramatically.
(B) The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costs
for that equipment.
(C) Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants.
(D) Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants.
(E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically
viable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5289
Followers: 17
Kudos [?]:
90
[0], given: 0
|
Only (C) makes any logical sense to me. But then again, I could be misreading the question 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 259
Location: New York City, USA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
Yeah, only C seems to support the arguement.
- Vipin
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2934
Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
37
[0], given: 0
|
C seems pretty good.
B, D and E are out of scope.
A talks about cost of oil only.
_________________
SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1134
Location: India
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
22
[0], given: 1
|
Only C validates the claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 23
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR-Solar Energy [#permalink]
18 Feb 2006, 20:00
Edit: Wow, I suck. Trying again, (A) is apparently the "gotcha" answer here...
I have to go with (C) now as the passage talks about energy efficiency and economic viability, not energy cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CR-Solar Energy
[#permalink]
18 Feb 2006, 20:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
