The phrase "a cost in efficiency" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing the trade-offs or drawbacks associated with a particular decision or action that affects efficiency.
Example: "Implementing the new software may lead to a cost in efficiency during the initial training period."
Alternatives: "a reduction in efficiency" or "an efficiency trade-off".
This suggests that Streptomyces with stronger inhibitory capacities are less growth efficient, consistent with the idea that producing greater quantities of antibiotic imposes a cost in growth efficiency.
We find that, relative to common competitors, the robust allocation schemes can result in significant decreases in the mean squared error when the fitted models are biased, at a minimal cost in efficiency when in fact the fitted models are correct.
However, these techniques often come with a cost in terms of energy efficiency, when network links face low traffic situations or even active/passive configurations, because they still consume almost the same amount of energy as if they were operating at their full rate.
"Over time," said Mr. Rogers, "the price of electricity per unit will go up, because there would be an incremental cost in adding efficiency equipment — although that cost would be less than the incremental cost of adding a new power plant.
The increase of metabolic cost (decrease in efficiency) can therefore not be linked to the decrease in FE, at least not in a direct causal manner.
In order to compensate for the loss of output caused by seasonal changes in ambient temperature, supplementary firing in the heat recovery steam generator can be used to generate additional power and return the power output to 640 MW at 45 °C, at the expense of an increase in fuel costs and a drop in efficiency from 50.95% to 43.46%, without and with supplementary firing respectively.
The cost of an investment in efficiency is on average five times less than an investment in new supply.
Increasing the intensity of the intervention from basic to simplified pulls down the average cost effectiveness as a result of the low incremental cost effectiveness suggesting an improvement in efficiency.
Our two-year trial's findings reinforced the evidence to support SLV-I as a potentially favorable system to increase childhood influenza vaccination rates in a cost-efficient way, but increased efficiencies in SLV-I are needed for a sustainable and scalable SLV-I program.
Throughout the project a great attention was given to whole life cycle costs, and gains in efficiency and cost control.
