if you look at gil metcalfe's work on effective marginal tax rates under current law for different forms of power generation, that's how many economists think about marginal subsidies, coal and natural gas pay, you know, 35% or 40% marginal tax rates, nuclear gets the subsidy of almost minus 100%, hydro was not something he estimated. wind is an effective marginal tax rate of minus 164% and solar minus 245%, almost. so, again, i think the subsidy argument really the level playing field argument rather really doesn't work. then there's the argument. the argument is that coal and gas generation generate these negative environmental effects, externalties and their prices are low. and we need to subsidize renewable power so there's a level playing field in that dimension. well, if there's a large and i do mean large peer-reviewed literature, between 1980s and 1990s on the environmental costs of different forms of power generation. and if you sort of look at that literature and summarize the findings, this is what you find. that the estimates for coal generation are between 1/10 of a sent a c