← Back to context Comment by chermi 2 days ago Why not not both? 3 comments chermi Reply theptip 2 days ago Sure, but one comes first. jayd16 2 days ago And it's going to end up being price. theptip 2 days 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 2 days ago Sure, but one comes first. jayd16 2 days ago And it's going to end up being price. theptip 2 days 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 2 days ago And it's going to end up being price. theptip 2 days 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 2 days 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.