Comment by chermi 5 months ago Why not not both? 3 comments chermi Reply theptip 5 months ago Sure, but one comes first. jayd16 5 months ago And it's going to end up being price. theptip 5 months ago I don’t follow. If nuclear initially costs more than coal, then the first effect as it decreases is displacement when the prices cross over. Then if it falls further you will notice consumer price drops.
theptip 5 months ago Sure, but one comes first. jayd16 5 months ago And it's going to end up being price. theptip 5 months ago I don’t follow. If nuclear initially costs more than coal, then the first effect as it decreases is displacement when the prices cross over. Then if it falls further you will notice consumer price drops.
jayd16 5 months ago And it's going to end up being price. theptip 5 months ago I don’t follow. If nuclear initially costs more than coal, then the first effect as it decreases is displacement when the prices cross over. Then if it falls further you will notice consumer price drops.
theptip 5 months ago I don’t follow. If nuclear initially costs more than coal, then the first effect as it decreases is displacement when the prices cross over. Then if it falls further you will notice consumer price drops.
Sure, but one comes first.
And it's going to end up being price.
I don’t follow. If nuclear initially costs more than coal, then the first effect as it decreases is displacement when the prices cross over. Then if it falls further you will notice consumer price drops.