OG 153

[agk99]

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.

很訝異這題沒有人問過
答案給C
括號中這段文字，我理解不了，請教大家

[Pufa]

PO錯了 待會來補。

[agk99]

我想會不會是說，油價上升就會導致新的太陽能較有效益，反觀太陽能門檻不降，就是因為油價大跌

[Pufa]

我的理解是...
題幹說：
科技進步使得太陽能發電更具效率。
但是太陽能與油氣發電的效益比率還是維持不變（就是那一大段很難翻的句子）。

題目問為什麼為這樣
那就是C囉，因為油氣發電的效率也提升了。

[tky]

括號中的意思是補充說明threshold的意思
指的是說：兩種能源價格的差距

也就是說當太陽能的價格因科技的進步而降低了
但是
相對的
石油的價格亦因科技的進步而降低

因此兩者之間的差距仍維持一樣(大)

[agk99]

關鍵就是對theshold這個字的理解吧
我錯誤理解成門檻，事實上，是兩項科技的"差距"會比較好

[agk99]

(摘自CD)
原文的意思是:
1.科技進步和成本的降低使太陽能比過去在經濟上更可行了.
2.THRESHHOLD沒有變.注意threshhold在原文的意思:假設一單位太陽能要耗費的資源相當於10$,而現在火電產生一單位的能量要耗費的資源相當於5$,10-5=5$就是這個Threshhold.這題其實可以理解為削弱題,就是削弱太陽能可行性.

C說電站的效率高了,那麼有可能單位能量要耗費的資源只有3$了,(假設).那麼這個threshhold就變成10-3=7 了.所以這題其實是從反面來論證太陽能經濟上的不可行性.

[davidlee0222]

這是前面的同位語
應該是"進入門檻"
(threshold 就是中文的"閥")

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

句子有三層
但主軸只有四個字
"每單位價錢"

to which開始進入第二層結構
in order 跟to 中間插了一層廢話
應該要放在最前面
修辭裡要算修飾語誤置
後面的第三層比較也先不用看

"進入門檻"=XXX的"每單位價錢"

對新太陽能電廠而言，為了要比新燃油電廠更划算
所"需要漲價"的每單位價錢

根本是廢話
就是講"進入門檻"
但ETS就是貝戈戈在這兒
搞一個超級難句來亂
要看董了才知道其實是一大坨廢話
但不看董又不行
真是@#$%&...

Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade.

技術進步及降低的設備成本
已使"將太陽能直接轉圜為電"這件事
在這十年間成本大幅降低

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.

然而，太陽能的"經濟跨越能力的閥"(進入門檻)並無改變，都是35美元(廢話)。

問如何解釋
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?
為何太陽能的"提升的成本效度"
並未減低它的"經濟跨越閥"?

就是太陽能變便宜了
但未蛇麼拿來取代燃油發電還是粉貴

很簡單
因為火力發電也變便宜了

(A) The cost of oil has fallen dramatically.
油價狂跌
(沒講完，相當賤，有可能技術變貴所以整體持平，無法解釋)

(B) The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costs for that equipment.
即使器材原料(生鐵)成本上升
太陽能發電器材成本依然下降

ㄚ不素廢話嗎?
題目就說太陽能成本下降了
誰管他原料有沒有漲價?

(C) Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants.
技術改變使燃油發電廠效能提升

可解釋因此太陽能進入門檻依舊未降低

(D) Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants.
大多數電力是由燃煤或核能電廠發電
而不是燃油電廠

文不對題
要問如何解釋太陽能進入門檻仍高

(E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically viable.
當油價上漲時
先前不值得開採的存油
變成有經濟價值

無關


這個算難句說
把它複製到難句諮詢好了

[bakekab]

這題看的我頭昏眼花

題目裡面說 Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade. 照理說生產成本應該下降的 可是題目卻說threshold 不改變

一般 在報章雜誌 看到的 都是每千瓦所需成本 譬如太陽能是 20塊 燃油發電是8塊 但是電價是10塊 所以不可能用 太陽能來發電 題目說 科技進步和設備費用降低 使得太陽能發電成本下降 那為什麼題目還說是35呢??

[agk99]

這是前面的同位語
應該是"進入門檻"
(threshold 就是中文的"閥")

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

句子有三層
但主軸只有四個字
"每單位價錢"

to which開始進入第二層結構
in order 跟to 中間插了一層廢話
應該要放在最前面
修辭裡要算修飾語誤置
後面的第三層比較也先不用看

"進入門檻"=XXX的"每單位價錢"

對新太陽能電廠而言，為了要比新燃油電廠更划算
所"需要漲價"的每單位價錢

有機會請大家再分析一下，為何要讓太陽能電廠更便宜，原油價格得漲價哩

[agk99]

這題看的我頭昏眼花

題目裡面說 Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade. 照理說生產成本應該下降的 可是題目卻說threshold 不改變

一般 在報章雜誌 看到的 都是每千瓦所需成本 譬如太陽能是 20塊 燃油發電是8塊 但是電價是10塊 所以不可能用 太陽能來發電 題目說 科技進步和設備費用降低 使得太陽能發電成本下降 那為什麼題目還說是35呢??

我不知道我解的有沒有問題，試著說就是
（因為火力發電本來就低於太陽能，現在又進一步降低）(也就是C選項)，當然導致太陽能的門檻不必降，因為降了也沒用

[Calvin]

試著舉個小例子

假設目前核能發電與油氣發電要產生一萬瓦電力的成本分別是1000元及600元（需要十桶油，每桶60元）， 現在核能 發電成本下降了，假設降到800元，但還是比油氣發電還貴，為了要使核能發電比油氣發氣更經濟實惠，那就必 須要 讓油氣發電成本上漲超過800元

10（桶油）* x > 800----> x> 80，也就是說油價必須上漲到每桶80元以上的價位，核能就比油氣發電便宜！這(X-60)元就是thershold.

原本的thershold是 40元( 100-60) 元 （油價超過100元，核能才比較便宜），現在核能成本降低了，thershold還是不變，那就是說 X必須下降或者是需要用的油少了才能維持相同的差距

FYI

[agk99]

服了你了
這是我看各家解153最清楚的一題
這樣我放心了

[liwuu]

CD的解釋我看不太懂..我說說我的解讀好了!!
這一題第二句說明threshold of economic viability for solar power為$35
括號補充解釋什麼是threshold of economic viability for solar power
意思為當油價上漲為35以上時,solar power發電才會比oil-fired發電來得有經濟效益,反之,油價在35以下時,oil-fired發電比較有經濟效益...

題目第一句說明solar power發電因為科技等因素使得成本降低更有效率(cost-efficient)
正常來說,threshold of economic viability for solar power應該會下降(舉例試想以前油價要高於35以上,solar power才會比oil-fired發電有經濟效益,既然solar power成本降低後,那麼油價可能只要高於30以上,solar power就會比oil-fired發電有經濟效益了)
題目問解釋為什麼卻仍然是35元呢?

答案C說明因為oil-fired本身也增加經濟效率了(舉例試想即以前可能要花2桶油發電1千瓦, 現在只要花1桶油就可以發電1千瓦了,所以自然就彌補了油價上漲的成本空間)

單純總成本的觀念來思考...
ps.post完整篇後,才看到calvin大已經解了

[joyce0519]

[quote="agk99"]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.
不好意思,請問為什麼a不對哩?我的想法是如果這個threshold還是不變的話,也有可能是因為油價下降而導致oil-fired還是比較economical,有人能告訴我這樣思考是錯在哪裡嗎?謝謝!!
sorry,剛剛看到上面已經有好心版友解釋為何a不對了,sorry !!