> Instead of looking it up, you have decided to create a new strawman argument. Excelon had net income of $1.9 billion in 2020, $2.9 billion in 2019, and $2.0 billion in 2018.

That's not what I said. I asked where was the profit? The strawman is your pretending that overall profit, just erases the need to have profitable individual plants. Which is precisely the point you are wailing about: the shut down of Byron and Dresden, because they will become unprofitable.

You frame it as, "Excelon takes advantage of this political realty by threatening to shutdown the plants every few years without a state bailout." but the reality is the plants will lose money without charging more for their electricity. I mean, the state is buying the electricity, the plants have been audited, they're not rorting you guys--who do you think should foot the bill? It's theft to just expect Exelon to subsidize you. But, like I said, you don't have to pay them.

> Is this a serious response? I "got angry at you" by responding to your comment and adding real-world examples? Sorry for hurting your feelings.

Yeah, totally serious. You didn't think it was serious? Are you really saying you didn't get angry at my initial comment? And then set out to attack me in what you were saying? You should never apologize for what you're not responsible for. You're not responsible for my feelings. If you think you should apologize, just apologize for whatever you did: your choices and actions. That's a general point. But specifically...You didn't hurt me feelings. You couldn't hurt me feelings, but I'm saying, that's how you came here, with anger. Am I wrong?

"Illinois gets the highest percentage of energy from nuclear (54%) of all US states. At the same time, the nuclear operator has to continually come back to the state for bailouts."

When their plants make money, it's not a bailout. It's a price rise, right? Why so averse to paying it? Or just letting them die. If anyone is to blame for becoming dependent on the operator, it's the state. I think your anger about this is misplaced toward Exelon, probably because that's the story your politicians tell and they'd rather you hate Exelon than them?

" I am simply asking for an explanation of why that wouldn't happen on a larger level if we invest more heavily in nuclear as a country."

Well the real question is, are you ready to hear an explanation? Anyway, I don't owe you an explanation, and there's no point saying one that won't be well received--you guys have to figure this out for yourselves--but, since you're asking so nicely--;p ;) xx--I think there need to be brutal choices. If you got in deep with a shark that you feel is playing you or price-gouging, or even just (another way of saying), you didn't diversify your suppliers and now feel their cost is too high, I mean, what can you do? You just have diversify away to other suppliers? It will be brutal, but it has to be done, to avoid this. Or you have to accept--and somehow find the money for--the higher price. Or if you think you can run the plant at a lower cost, then somehow do that--maybe convince the government to nationalize the plants, and then run them as a state-owned utility...but, sadly, I have doubts that would result in price cuts.

Unless you walk away from the table, Exelon has little incentive to find ways to cut costs. I suppose they know they've got you over a barrel if you can't shop around. So I suppose you guys need to figure out how to get off that barrel? :p ;) xx