Electric utilities pay less for low-quality coal per ton delivered than for high-quality coal. Yet more low-quality coal than high—quality coal must be burned to generate the same amount of electricity. Moreover, per ton of coal burned, low-quality coal generates more ash than does high-quality coal, and the disposal of ash is becoming more and more expensive.
The considerations above, if true, most strongly support which of the following claims?
A coal-burning utility might not be assured of benefiting economically by always adhering to the policy of keeping its overall coal purchasing costs as low as possible.
In those regions where the cost of disposing of coal ash is negligible, it is more expensive for coal-burning utilities to use high-quality coal than low-quality coal.
Transportation costs represent a smaller proportion of the cost per delivered ton for low-quality coal than for high-quality coal.
It is no less expensive to dispose of a ton of coal ash that results from the burning of high-quality coal than it is to dispose of a ton of coal ash that results from the burning of low-quality coal.
In regions where coal-ash disposal is the least expensive, reserves of low-quality coal are likely to decline at a faster rate than are reserves of high-quality coal.
手打 一下官方解释。。。。:
A: CORRECT. the information presented dose not clearly support a conclusion about whether it's economically beneficial for coal-burning utilities to minimize their coal-purchasing costs. Therefore, utilities relying solely on this information cannot be assured that it is. 我的理解:各类费用具体的临界值不知道,是无法得出确切的选择方案的,所以正确答案说的是might(可能)。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论