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.
低质量的煤每吨价格低于高质量煤的每吨价格;生产相同的电量,需要的低质量煤的质量要高宇高质量的煤。
单位体积的低质量煤所产生的灰比等体积的高质量的煤产生的灰尘更多,而且现在灰尘处理越来越贵。问must be true
choice a, 通过保证采购最低价格煤矿的策略,并不能保证这种方法在经济上最优的。correct
choice b, 在灰尘处理成本可以忽略不计的地方,使用优质煤比使用低质煤更加昂贵。incorrect, 无法得到生产相同的电量,低质量煤的价格和高质量煤的价格比较关系
choice d, 处理高质量煤产生的一吨灰的成本,并不比处理低质量煤产生的一吨灰的成本更便宜。incorrect,原本没有提及同等体积的灰尘处理成本关系
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论