← Back to context Comment by chermi 9 hours ago Why not not both? 3 comments chermi Reply theptip 9 hours ago Sure, but one comes first. jayd16 8 hours ago And it's going to end up being price. theptip 8 hours 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 9 hours ago Sure, but one comes first. jayd16 8 hours ago And it's going to end up being price. theptip 8 hours 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 8 hours ago And it's going to end up being price. theptip 8 hours 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 8 hours 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.