← Back to context Comment by chermi 14 hours ago Why not not both? 3 comments chermi Reply theptip 14 hours ago Sure, but one comes first. jayd16 13 hours ago And it's going to end up being price. theptip 13 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 14 hours ago Sure, but one comes first. jayd16 13 hours ago And it's going to end up being price. theptip 13 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 13 hours ago And it's going to end up being price. theptip 13 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 13 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.