It is currently 22 Jan 2018, 12:29

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 05 Aug 2015
Posts: 55
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2016, 21:41
People who are confused by why A isn't right, HERE IS YOUR ANSWER:

Read carefully again: "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"

Note, this is saying "price to which oil would have to rise" -- this means oil would have to rise TO $35 for Solar to be cheaper than Oil-fired plants. This does not mean oil would have to rise BY$35.

Example:
Solar Power Cost: $50 Oil Power Cost:$50 (Oil per barrel costs $35 + Oil processing cost$15)

Solar Power Cost (post technological improvement): $40 Oil Power Cost:$40 (Oil per barrel costs $35 + oil processing cost$X) -- note $X MUST BE LOWER for total Oil Power cost to be$40 AND oil per barrel to remain unchanged at $35. So,$X is $5 -- oil processing cost is lower --> answer is C. Kudos if this helps you! _________________ Working towards 25 Kudos for the Gmatclub Exams - help meee I'm poooor Intern Joined: 20 May 2016 Posts: 1 Concentration: General Management, Leadership GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V29 GPA: 3.76 Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] ### Show Tags 21 May 2016, 05:49 I had a difficult time with this one, especially understanding why A is incorrect. After spending (probably too much) time thinking about this, I think this is why: - A threshold determines at which point (expressed in gas price) the technology is economically viable - The actual gas price allows you to compare it with the threshold (also defined as gas price) and to make decision on whether the technology is economically viable Therefore, the choice A) does not allow us to evaluate the threshold itself, but may allow us to evaluate the current economical viability of the technology. "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?" is not asking whether the technology is viable but why the threshold remained unchanged despite the increased cost-efficiency of solar power. Intern Joined: 09 Oct 2015 Posts: 49 Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] ### Show Tags 23 Jun 2016, 02:11 egmat Can you please take a stab at this ? I have searched multiple forums and everybody is quoting different mathematical numbers to prove A wrong but logically if the prices of oil do fall while we have more efficient solar plants I would like to be believe that can be a plausible explanation to unchanged economic viability. However my only explanation to choice 'A' being incorrect is that it is against the premise that the oil prices are unchanged ( which means no increase or decrease). I have only found one answer stating this and nobody else has ever even hinted towards this so I wanted to know if this is indeed a possible answer. Looking forward to your help. Manager Joined: 01 Sep 2016 Posts: 118 Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] ### Show Tags 14 Sep 2016, 07:21 I had chosen C.But was not sure.Thanks for the explanation tuanquang269 wrote: I chose (C). The approach to solve this question is the same with the question about recycle and new paper. The solar energy industry have its own advance in technology that make the price of solar energy reduce. But the oil industry also have its own advance in technology. Together, both two price of each kind fall equally. the gap is unchange. Manager Joined: 21 Apr 2016 Posts: 197 Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] ### Show Tags 24 Sep 2016, 17:37 (C) says technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants. Should this be read as in terms of cost? Shouldn't the option suggest cost-efficiency just as the question stem does in the context of solar energy? Intern Joined: 13 Jul 2016 Posts: 48 GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V44 Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] ### Show Tags 10 Oct 2016, 03:50 shikhar wrote: 153. 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 y answer was A I think the main confusion is between A and C. Given: threshold of economic viability for solar power = 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 =$35

To reach economic viability
Price of x unit of solar energy = Price of x unit of "oil energy" at the hypothetical rate that oil will have to rise to
Price of x unit of solar energy = Price of 1 barrel of oil that oil will have to rise to * amount of oil required to produce X units of energy

Now the first term in the above equation has decreased and the second term is constant at $35, so the third term has to decrease the keep the equation balanced. => efficiency of oil fired power plants has to increase. which is C The second term is a hypothetical figure that is calculated based on the first and third term. It is not dependent on the current price of the oil. Hence A is wrong. Intern Joined: 04 Jun 2016 Posts: 30 Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] ### Show Tags 29 Nov 2016, 11:24 VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: rohansherry wrote: 153. 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. [Reveal] Spoiler: OA:C...pls explain the meaning of the sentence, It is a good tricky CR question. People with a quantitative bent of mind would love it, I am sure. Let me put some numbers here to make it clearer. You need the numbers to understand that a paradox exists. Once you do understand that, resolving it is very simple. Sunlight is free. Infra needed to convert it to electricity is expensive. Say for every one unit of electricity, you need to spend$50 in a solar power plant.

Oil is expensive. Infra needed to convert it to electricity, not so much. Say for every one unit of electricity, you need to spend $40 in an oil fired power plant. Say, the split here is$25 + $15 ($25 is the cost of oil used and $15 is cost of infra for a unit of electricity). Oil based electricity is cheaper. If the cost of oil rises by$10 to $35, solar power will become viable. This$35 = the threshold of economic viability for solar power = the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise (mind you, this isn't the actual price of oil)

What happens if you need to spend only $45 in a solar power plant for a unit of electricity? Would you expect 'the threshold of economic viability for solar power' to go to 30? Yes! Now, for solar viability, 'cost of oil + cost of infra in oil power plant' should be only$45. 'Cost of infra in oil power plant' = 15 so we need the oil to go up to $30 only. That will make solar power plants viable. So the threshold of economic viability should decrease. But the threshold of economic viability for solar power is still$35! It doesn't decrease. That is the paradox! How do you resolve it? By saying that 'Cost of infra in oil power plant' has also gone down by $5 and is only$10 now.

This is what the scene is like now:

Sunlight is free. Infra needed to convert it to electricity is expensive. For every one unit of electricity, you need to spend $45 in a solar power plant. Oil is expensive. Infra needed to convert it to electricity, not so much. For every one unit of electricity, you need to spend$35 in an oil fired power plant. The split now is $25 +$10 ($25 is the cost of oil used and$10 is cost of infra for a unit of electricity).

You still need the oil price to go up to $35 so that cost of electricity generation in oil power plant is also$45. So you explained the paradox by saying that "Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants." So, option (C) is correct.

If you think about it now, the actual price of the oil has nothing to do with 'the threshold of economic viability for solar power'. This threshold is $35 so you need the oil to go up to$35. Whether the actual price of oil is $10 or$15 or $20, it doesn't matter. It still needs to go up to$35 for solar viability. So option (A) is incorrect.

Hello.

Can you please explain what is wrong with (E)? If, every time price of oil goes up, and previous reserves that were not available for use end up becoming available, it suggests that the oil manufacturers have been successful in manipulating the supply, and therefore the price of oil to keep it low enough to make solar energy not economically feasible.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7875
Location: Pune, India
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2016, 00:10
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
gatreya14 wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
rohansherry wrote:
153. 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.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
OA:C...pls explain the meaning of the sentence,

It is a good tricky CR question. People with a quantitative bent of mind would love it, I am sure.
Let me put some numbers here to make it clearer. You need the numbers to understand that a paradox exists. Once you do understand that, resolving it is very simple.

Sunlight is free. Infra needed to convert it to electricity is expensive. Say for every one unit of electricity, you need to spend $50 in a solar power plant. Oil is expensive. Infra needed to convert it to electricity, not so much. Say for every one unit of electricity, you need to spend$40 in an oil fired power plant. Say, the split here is $25 +$15 ($25 is the cost of oil used and$15 is cost of infra for a unit of electricity).

Oil based electricity is cheaper. If the cost of oil rises by $10 to$35, solar power will become viable.
This $35 = the threshold of economic viability for solar power = the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise (mind you, this isn't the actual price of oil) What happens if you need to spend only$45 in a solar power plant for a unit of electricity? Would you expect 'the threshold of economic viability for solar power' to go to 30? Yes! Now, for solar viability, 'cost of oil + cost of infra in oil power plant' should be only $45. 'Cost of infra in oil power plant' = 15 so we need the oil to go up to$30 only. That will make solar power plants viable. So the threshold of economic viability should decrease.

But the threshold of economic viability for solar power is still $35! It doesn't decrease. That is the paradox! How do you resolve it? By saying that 'Cost of infra in oil power plant' has also gone down by$5 and is only $10 now. This is what the scene is like now: Sunlight is free. Infra needed to convert it to electricity is expensive. For every one unit of electricity, you need to spend$45 in a solar power plant.

Oil is expensive. Infra needed to convert it to electricity, not so much. For every one unit of electricity, you need to spend $35 in an oil fired power plant. The split now is$25 + $10 ($25 is the cost of oil used and $10 is cost of infra for a unit of electricity). You still need the oil price to go up to$35 so that cost of electricity generation in oil power plant is also $45. So you explained the paradox by saying that "Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants." So, option (C) is correct. If you think about it now, the actual price of the oil has nothing to do with 'the threshold of economic viability for solar power'. This threshold is$35 so you need the oil to go up to $35. Whether the actual price of oil is$10 or $15 or$20, it doesn't matter. It still needs to go up to $35 for solar viability. So option (A) is incorrect. Hello. Can you please explain what is wrong with (E)? If, every time price of oil goes up, and previous reserves that were not available for use end up becoming available, it suggests that the oil manufacturers have been successful in manipulating the supply, and therefore the price of oil to keep it low enough to make solar energy not economically feasible. (E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically viable. What could be the implication of (E)? That the extra oil availability would keep actual oil prices low. The point is that actual price of oil has NOTHING to do with 'the threshold of economic viability for solar power'. For solar viability, the OIL PRICE needs to GO UP TO$35. This $35 is the threshold of economic viability. It doesn't matter what the actual cost of oil is right now. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 201
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Dec 2016, 04:32
dear experts and mikemcgarry

this question does confused me a lot.

at first, I want to make sure whether my interpretation is correct.
from the prompt,
1/ technology improved, and reduced cost, then the efficiency of solar energy is improved.
2/ the threshold of solar energy = 35, unchanged, doesn't matter others change or not
3/ 35 = the target price of oil , no matter what the original price is, it will raised to 35 eventually.
4/ the increase of oil is to make solar energy more economical

honestly, I am not clear about the logic of the prompt.

next, the stem is want us to find one that can explain why cost-efficiency of solar power, but the threshold of solar power is the same as before.

I read the whole topic, but I am still mess what the clue of this CR.
I haven't gotten why increase in efficiency of oil will explain.

genuinely want your correct my interpretation and relationship between increased efficiency of oil and the unchanged threshold.

have a nice holiday.
>_~
Intern
Status: preparing
Joined: 30 Dec 2013
Posts: 41
Location: United Arab Emirates
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q45 V35
GMAT 2: 640 Q49 V28
GMAT 3: 640 Q49 V28
GMAT 4: 640 Q49 V28
GMAT 5: 640 Q49 V28
GPA: 2.84
WE: General Management (Consumer Products)
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jan 2017, 00:01
rohansherry wrote:
153. 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.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
OA:C...pls explain the meaning of the sentence,

But A is a close option.

My reason to kill A:

There are two things that make A less effective
1) The technology improvements and reduced equipment costs : as much lower for oil plants as they lower for solar plants. however, the solar energy has only one cost i.e. equipment/plant (sunlight is free)
2) Economic viability ( the words in bracket clearly say that oil prices will change ) : we need to know the constant costs which are the equipment or oil plant costs. The oil power generation has 2 costs a) oil b) equipment. Oil prices may go up or down, therefore the other factor must play the role.
Intern
Joined: 17 May 2016
Posts: 31
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jan 2017, 06:29
Hi All,

I have read all the explanations and still not convinced that A is wrong, or maybe I do not understand the underlying approach.

Could you please explain what is wrong with this approach ?

Firstly, I assume the following :

Price of Solar Electricity = Price of Sun + Costs of Transformation Sun

Price of Oil-Fired Electricity = Price of Oil + Costs of Transformation Oil

From the Stem :

$$Price of Oil + 35 + Transformation Oil = Price of Sun + Transformation Sun$$

$$Price of Oil + Transformation Oil - Transformation Sun = Price of Sun + 35$$

$$Price of Oil + Transformation Oil - Transformation Sun = 35$$ — Since the Sun is free, Price of Sun = 0

$$(Price of Oil + Transformation Oil) - Transformation Sun[/color] = 35$$

However, after the reductions in Costs of the Transformation of sunlight to electricity, the equality has not changed — PARADOXE

$$(Price of Oil + Transformation Oil) - Transformation Sun = 35$$

So now we have two possibilities :

Price of Oil has decreased (Answer A) or Costs of Transformation have decreased (Answer C)

At this exact moment, you're stuck in an endless trap
Joined: 06 May 2013
Posts: 97
Location: Malawi
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 3
WE: Consulting (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Apr 2017, 11:50
1
KUDOS
nickimonckom wrote:
Hi All,

I have read all the explanations and still not convinced that A is wrong, or maybe I do not understand the underlying approach.

Could you please explain what is wrong with this approach ?

Firstly, I assume the following :

Price of Solar Electricity = Price of Sun + Costs of Transformation Sun

Price of Oil-Fired Electricity = Price of Oil + Costs of Transformation Oil

From the Stem :

$$Price of Oil + 35 + Transformation Oil = Price of Sun + Transformation Sun$$

$$Price of Oil + Transformation Oil - Transformation Sun = Price of Sun + 35$$

$$Price of Oil + Transformation Oil - Transformation Sun = 35$$ — Since the Sun is free, Price of Sun = 0

$$(Price of Oil + Transformation Oil) - Transformation Sun[/color] = 35$$

However, after the reductions in Costs of the Transformation of sunlight to electricity, the equality has not changed — PARADOXE

$$(Price of Oil + Transformation Oil) - Transformation Sun = 35$$

So now we have two possibilities :

Price of Oil has decreased (Answer A) or Costs of Transformation have decreased (Answer C)

At this exact moment, you're stuck in an endless trap

Hi - Here's my 2 cents.

Point of economic viability is the point at which Cost of producing one unit of energy through Solar is equal to Cost of producing one unit of energy through Oil.
c_solar = c_OilBarrel + c_Processing.

Now, before efficiency improvements in solar energy production, our equation was -
c_solarBefore = 35 + c_ProcessingBefore
And after efficiency improvements in solar energy production, our equation has become -
c_solarAfter = 35 +c_ProcessingAfter.

The argument states that c_OilBarrel hasn't changed from 35 - The price of oil barrel at which energy via solar would be economically viable as compared to energy via oil. But, it does state that c_solarAfter is less than c_solarBefore. In such a case, the only way the equation can still hold is if c_ProcessingAfter decreases from c_ProcessingBefore.

You can see that economic viability actually DOES NOT take into account current oil prices.
Manager
Joined: 04 Aug 2015
Posts: 89
Location: India
Schools: ISB '19, IIMA , IIMB (WL)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.39
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 May 2017, 00:02
1
KUDOS

That's wrong. If Oil was 55 and not it's 20 then it's unchanged at $35 but that is because the price of oil dropped dramatically Manager Joined: 31 Dec 2016 Posts: 91 Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] ### Show Tags 06 Aug 2017, 09:13 Abhishek009 wrote: piyushksharma wrote: 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. Converting solar energy directly into electricity , cost-efficient in the last decade due to - 1. Technological improvements 2. Reduced equipment costs Contra - Rise in Price/Barrel (Oil ) { Fixed at$35 }=> More economic Viability of new solar power plants compared to New Oil Fired Plants Plants.

Thus effectiveness of new solar power plants depends on Rise in Price of Oil.

When price of oil rises people will tend to shift from Oil based power plants to Solar Power Plants. This has not happened till now despite Cost-Efficient production process , since Price of Oil has remain the same at $35. 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. - Not true. B. The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costsfor that equipment. - Absolutely not true. C. Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants. - True + Reduced Equipment Cost D. Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants. - Out of scope. E. When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically viable. - Out of scope. I think what is most hilarious is watching you guys post your awful solutions. After reading a bunch here is why A is not as good as C A) The thing we are looking at is cost for a coal fired plant, which is made up of many things including the cost of oil. A Explains one factor. And if this is the case then it does explain the answer C) Just flat out tells us that coal plants are more efficient. So we know it's price has dropped. In A) we are making an assumption that no other costs have risen and C) We are not therefore the GMAT likes C. However, I disagree with a lot of the other solutions above who say this is a fancy math question. No A) Is clearly right too. Manager Joined: 31 Dec 2016 Posts: 91 Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] ### Show Tags 06 Aug 2017, 09:15 [quote="VeritasPrepKarishma" If you think about it now, the actual price of the oil has nothing to do with 'the threshold of economic viability for solar power'. This threshold is$35 so you need the oil to go up to $35. Whether the actual price of oil is$10 or $15 or$20, it doesn't matter. It still needs to go up to $35 for solar viability. So option (A) is incorrect.[/quote] The question says the difference in price of solar minus oil is$35. It doesn't say that oil is under $35 you misread the question. Manager Joined: 31 Dec 2016 Posts: 91 Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have [#permalink] ### Show Tags 06 Aug 2017, 09:21 pedrotupy wrote: VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: rohansherry wrote: 153. 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. [Reveal] Spoiler: OA:C...pls explain the meaning of the sentence, It is a good tricky CR question. People with a quantitative bent of mind would love it, I am sure. Let me put some numbers here to make it clearer. You need the numbers to understand that a paradox exists. Once you do understand that, resolving it is very simple. Sunlight is free. Infra needed to convert it to electricity is expensive. Say for every one unit of electricity, you need to spend$50 in a solar power plant.

Oil is expensive. Infra needed to convert it to electricity, not so much. Say for every one unit of electricity, you need to spend $40 in an oil fired power plant. Say, the split here is$25 + $15 ($25 is the cost of oil used and $15 is cost of infra for a unit of electricity). Oil based electricity is cheaper. If the cost of oil rises by$10 to $35, solar power will become viable. This$35 = the threshold of economic viability for solar power = the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise (mind you, this isn't the actual price of oil)

What happens if you need to spend only $45 in a solar power plant for a unit of electricity? Would you expect 'the threshold of economic viability for solar power' to go to 30? Yes! Now, for solar viability, 'cost of oil + cost of infra in oil power plant' should be only$45. 'Cost of infra in oil power plant' = 15 so we need the oil to go up to $30 only. That will make solar power plants viable. So the threshold of economic viability should decrease. But the threshold of economic viability for solar power is still$35! It doesn't decrease. That is the paradox! How do you resolve it? By saying that 'Cost of infra in oil power plant' has also gone down by $5 and is only$10 now.

This is what the scene is like now:

Sunlight is free. Infra needed to convert it to electricity is expensive. For every one unit of electricity, you need to spend $45 in a solar power plant. Oil is expensive. Infra needed to convert it to electricity, not so much. For every one unit of electricity, you need to spend$35 in an oil fired power plant. The split now is $25 +$10 ($25 is the cost of oil used and$10 is cost of infra for a unit of electricity).

You still need the oil price to go up to $35 so that cost of electricity generation in oil power plant is also$45. So you explained the paradox by saying that "Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants." So, option (C) is correct.

If you think about it now, the actual price of the oil has nothing to do with 'the threshold of economic viability for solar power'. This threshold is $35 so you need the oil to go up to$35. Whether the actual price of oil is $10 or$15 or $20, it doesn't matter. It still needs to go up to$35 for solar viability. So option (A) is incorrect.

Sorry Guys, I just can´t agree with the reasons presented to eliminate A.

I Agree that C is a good choice, but A looks pretty fine to me:

Let´s imagine the cost for Solar energy is $60 Oil Production is$15 Plus the price of oil that is $10, so the oil would have to rise$35 in order for solar system be more effective tha oil´s.

If solar go down to $55, and oil price go do by$5 the difference remains the same...
the only thing that could make this choice "bad" is the word "dramatically"on it, but about that, it depends on the context since by my example the price of oil just went down by 50%!!

So, in my opinion this question just has two correct answer...

Thanks

Yes, I agree with this guy. Veritas Karishma is wrong and she made some bad assumptions that oil is under $35. Let's say the cost of solar starts the decade at$135 and the price of oil is at $100 and this is the only input cost. If the price of solar ends the decade at$100 and oil drops to $65 then it's remained unchanged!!!! However what if there are other input costs for oil? Clearly we know an oil plant can have other costs. We don't know what % oil makes up the cost. For C) We know that efficiency has increased. And we know the cost is unchanged at$35. Therefore if the price of oil went up \$700 we would know the efficiency compensated for this still. So this answer is enough to explain the answer

I believe C is better as it encompasses more of the answer than A
Re: Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have   [#permalink] 06 Aug 2017, 09:21

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   [ 80 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by