4 ms·

> 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 b

> 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

long_time_gone 5y ago
==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?== Yes, you are wrong. I came with facts and an actual real-world example. Not sure where you sensed anger or why an internet comment hits you so personally. I think it's important to focus on the actual topic. ==the plants will lose money without charging more for their electricity.== Again, you are ignoring how the relationship actually works. Excelon (ComEd) comes to an agreement with the state on what the rates will be, in advance. Now, Excelon is coming back to the state (again) and claiming they cannot operate based on the rates they have already agreed to (again). ==Yeah, totally serious. You didn't think it was serious? Are you really saying you didn't get angry at my initial comment?== No, I didn't you were serious, that is why I asked. Thanks for clarifying as it helps me understand where you are coming from. I questioned your initial comment because it included so many assumptions that aren't attached to reality. ==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?== This is not an accurate picture of what is happening and a weird assumption thrown in to try and insult. ComEd, the division of Excelon that operates in Illinois, paid a $200 million fine last year for bribery [0]. Both the initial bribe and the penalty come out of the fees I pay them to operate as a utility. On top of that, the rates they charge are pre-negotiated with the state. If they can't make enough based on those rates, they are making bad business decisions. This is the bottom line, and you have not addressed this fact yet in all of your comments. ==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== To recap, you cannot explain why a large nuclear expansion in the US would work out differently than in Illinois. That was the simple question. I read 500+ words and still can't find the answer. [0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/commonwealth-edison-agrees-pay-200-million-resolve-federal-criminal-investigation https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/commonwealth-edison-agr...
- graderjs 5y ago
  > Yes, you are wrong. I came with facts and an actual real-world example. Not sure where you sensed anger or why an internet comment hits you so personally. I think it's important to focus on the actual topic I didn't say it hit me personally. I was saying that hit you personally. you keep thinking it's the other way around. You say you came with facts in the real world example but I guess I saw anger in how you needed to (and continue to seem to need to) frame what i said as, "out of thin air", not "taking a step back", and ”only view the issue from the “point of view” you created from thin air," and not having "removed underlying assumptions," nor "learned how things are playing out in the real world.” That's a framing which is like very dismissive and not respectful of the position or perspective I bring. so it seems likely that you're not going to listen to what I'm going to say because you think it is stupid, has no basis in reality and not well thought through. So I guess I saw yer anger there because why would you need to so disrespectfully dismiss someone else's position unless you are afraid of it or angry at them for having raised it. but there's plenty of generous ways you could find value in the perspective that I brought. But instead of acknowledging the value that was there you thought you needed to start your argument by looking down on it. Thereby trying to frame yourself as someone with an authoritative knowledge and perspective about this compared to as you framed what I was bringing, as lacking on this qualities that you can bring. I think when someone displays that kind of extreme one-sided bias it's often driven by anger and fear. And it doesn't have anything to do with the reality but rather is a reflection of their own reaction. So hopefully that clears things up, there. That's good I didn't know that these prices were arranged beforehand. But I could have assumed that were the case without Really changing what I said. Because I'm pretty sure that these prices were agreed to or part of a contracted also included provisions that the prices could change to some extent it could be revised I'll put the full stop so I'm thinking that excellent is not in breach of contract here they're just doing what was as you say actually in the contract but it seems like you're the one who's probably pretending that excellent hasn't been living up to the contract but in fact it seems more like the narrative comes from the state, and maybe the state is saying this to cover how it's now bucking its obligations under that contract to meet the revised prices. And instead of copying to that it's creating a politicized issue out of it and arousing up some public anger and perhaps you've been included in this political delusion. No I don't know I'm not saying that's for sure but can you really say that's unequivocally false? There's no possibility of that? Exelon is 100% in breach of the contractual obligations? so that was your bottom line. We've just redefined how that actually works. Now there's questions hanging over your bottom line assumption that Exelon is wrong and I wonder how you were going to resolve those. you going to say that it's an insult to suggest that the political narrative about this maybe somehow deceptive and that you may have believed that. But that you want to just end yourself from this truth of politics my framing it as an insult suggest that you will not be able to accept some of the realities of the situation if you choose to view them as insults. Because you'll see them only a statements designed to insult rather than statements of fact are you really defending the notion that a politician would never ever even dream of creating a fake narrative that incorrectly mislaid responsibility away from themselves in order to cover their own asses and encourage the population to believe that fake narrative? > To recap, you cannot explain why a large nuclear expansion in the US would work out differently than in Illinois. That was the simple question. I read 500+ words and still can't find the answer. hold on will you ever ask me to explain that? That was never what we were talking about, was it? seems like you're moving the goal posts. But anyway it's irrelevant related point just you hadn't specifically asked me to explain that but from the way you reacted to a discussion so far it seems like you're not really open to hearing me explain about anything. So not that I'm really interested in the answer because it's not about me but I wonder why that is. And in any case that makes it seem less likely it's not that iconic explain so you cannot hear. Because I guess for you the conclusion is already forgone. basically I feel sorry for you here at this point because it seems to me the following situation will unfold. as you led with this arrogant misframing of your position as being right and my position being without value and "wrong". It says that that's where you're invested that's what you need to believe and when someone needs to believe that it's very unlikely for them to be able to hear let alone admit that the way that they're thinking about this was somehow incorrect or could somehow be improved. So I think it's very unlikely that you're going to concede any ground or any points here and I think it's very unlikely that you're going to admit that the main arguments that I make that contradict your positions are right or have merit. So I wonder what is your desire to participate in what for you is just simply one-sided discussion if it is not simply to play out this theatricality of your own rightness that you need to believe? in short you're trying to prove your point and not learn something and I feel sad for you about that because it seems you got stuck there and what if your point is wrong--you're just going to persist in believing that delusion because you need to feel right? Well I feel sad for you about that because you won't see this whole picture and you'll stay stuck there. But look if you're asking about how the situation for nuclear could play out in a successful way in any scenario nationally or in a state level and I think it all depends on how it is set up. The interaction between all the players the utility companies the politicians the state and the population and how they think about it. so all of the stakeholders have a responsibility to create a situation that works and I definitely believe it's possible to do that I don't believe there's any structural obstacles to creating working nuclear power utility that's cost-effective if people have the will to do that. And so far everything you've said that you see is either the company's fault or unsolvable I see as having a different bearing of responsibility for the cause but also very much solvable. so I guess the question is how do you convince someone with a defeatist attitude that change can actually happen? well I am guess and I'm pretty sure that words aren't going to do it. So you have to show them the change. so I suppose you're going to have to wait until you see that nuclear utilities are working in Chicago to believe that it's going to be possible. So I guess you going to have to wait until then to be able to have a proper and balanced discussion about it. Y For you. It's kind of sad, but Oh well. I get where you're coming from. It hasn't succeeded, as you see it, so why should you think it should? Anyway... Hope you have a good one

long_time_gone 5y ago

==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?== Yes, you are wrong. I came with facts and an actual real-world example. Not sure where you sensed anger or why an internet comment hits you so personally. I think it's important to focus on the actual topic. ==the plants will lose money without charging more for their electricity.== Again, you are ignoring how the relationship actually works. Excelon (ComEd) comes to an agreement with the state on what the rates will be, in advance. Now, Excelon is coming back to the state (again) and claiming they cannot operate based on the rates they have already agreed to (again). ==Yeah, totally serious. You didn't think it was serious? Are you really saying you didn't get angry at my initial comment?== No, I didn't you were serious, that is why I asked. Thanks for clarifying as it helps me understand where you are coming from. I questioned your initial comment because it included so many assumptions that aren't attached to reality. ==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?== This is not an accurate picture of what is happening and a weird assumption thrown in to try and insult. ComEd, the division of Excelon that operates in Illinois, paid a $200 million fine last year for bribery [0]. Both the initial bribe and the penalty come out of the fees I pay them to operate as a utility. On top of that, the rates they charge are pre-negotiated with the state. If they can't make enough based on those rates, they are making bad business decisions. This is the bottom line, and you have not addressed this fact yet in all of your comments. ==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== To recap, you cannot explain why a large nuclear expansion in the US would work out differently than in Illinois. That was the simple question. I read 500+ words and still can't find the answer. [0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/commonwealth-edison-agrees-pay-200-million-resolve-federal-criminal-investigation https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/commonwealth-edison-agr...

graderjs 5y ago
> Yes, you are wrong. I came with facts and an actual real-world example. Not sure where you sensed anger or why an internet comment hits you so personally. I think it's important to focus on the actual topic I didn't say it hit me personally. I was saying that hit you personally. you keep thinking it's the other way around. You say you came with facts in the real world example but I guess I saw anger in how you needed to (and continue to seem to need to) frame what i said as, "out of thin air", not "taking a step back", and ”only view the issue from the “point of view” you created from thin air," and not having "removed underlying assumptions," nor "learned how things are playing out in the real world.” That's a framing which is like very dismissive and not respectful of the position or perspective I bring. so it seems likely that you're not going to listen to what I'm going to say because you think it is stupid, has no basis in reality and not well thought through. So I guess I saw yer anger there because why would you need to so disrespectfully dismiss someone else's position unless you are afraid of it or angry at them for having raised it. but there's plenty of generous ways you could find value in the perspective that I brought. But instead of acknowledging the value that was there you thought you needed to start your argument by looking down on it. Thereby trying to frame yourself as someone with an authoritative knowledge and perspective about this compared to as you framed what I was bringing, as lacking on this qualities that you can bring. I think when someone displays that kind of extreme one-sided bias it's often driven by anger and fear. And it doesn't have anything to do with the reality but rather is a reflection of their own reaction. So hopefully that clears things up, there. That's good I didn't know that these prices were arranged beforehand. But I could have assumed that were the case without Really changing what I said. Because I'm pretty sure that these prices were agreed to or part of a contracted also included provisions that the prices could change to some extent it could be revised I'll put the full stop so I'm thinking that excellent is not in breach of contract here they're just doing what was as you say actually in the contract but it seems like you're the one who's probably pretending that excellent hasn't been living up to the contract but in fact it seems more like the narrative comes from the state, and maybe the state is saying this to cover how it's now bucking its obligations under that contract to meet the revised prices. And instead of copying to that it's creating a politicized issue out of it and arousing up some public anger and perhaps you've been included in this political delusion. No I don't know I'm not saying that's for sure but can you really say that's unequivocally false? There's no possibility of that? Exelon is 100% in breach of the contractual obligations? so that was your bottom line. We've just redefined how that actually works. Now there's questions hanging over your bottom line assumption that Exelon is wrong and I wonder how you were going to resolve those. you going to say that it's an insult to suggest that the political narrative about this maybe somehow deceptive and that you may have believed that. But that you want to just end yourself from this truth of politics my framing it as an insult suggest that you will not be able to accept some of the realities of the situation if you choose to view them as insults. Because you'll see them only a statements designed to insult rather than statements of fact are you really defending the notion that a politician would never ever even dream of creating a fake narrative that incorrectly mislaid responsibility away from themselves in order to cover their own asses and encourage the population to believe that fake narrative? > To recap, you cannot explain why a large nuclear expansion in the US would work out differently than in Illinois. That was the simple question. I read 500+ words and still can't find the answer. hold on will you ever ask me to explain that? That was never what we were talking about, was it? seems like you're moving the goal posts. But anyway it's irrelevant related point just you hadn't specifically asked me to explain that but from the way you reacted to a discussion so far it seems like you're not really open to hearing me explain about anything. So not that I'm really interested in the answer because it's not about me but I wonder why that is. And in any case that makes it seem less likely it's not that iconic explain so you cannot hear. Because I guess for you the conclusion is already forgone. basically I feel sorry for you here at this point because it seems to me the following situation will unfold. as you led with this arrogant misframing of your position as being right and my position being without value and "wrong". It says that that's where you're invested that's what you need to believe and when someone needs to believe that it's very unlikely for them to be able to hear let alone admit that the way that they're thinking about this was somehow incorrect or could somehow be improved. So I think it's very unlikely that you're going to concede any ground or any points here and I think it's very unlikely that you're going to admit that the main arguments that I make that contradict your positions are right or have merit. So I wonder what is your desire to participate in what for you is just simply one-sided discussion if it is not simply to play out this theatricality of your own rightness that you need to believe? in short you're trying to prove your point and not learn something and I feel sad for you about that because it seems you got stuck there and what if your point is wrong--you're just going to persist in believing that delusion because you need to feel right? Well I feel sad for you about that because you won't see this whole picture and you'll stay stuck there. But look if you're asking about how the situation for nuclear could play out in a successful way in any scenario nationally or in a state level and I think it all depends on how it is set up. The interaction between all the players the utility companies the politicians the state and the population and how they think about it. so all of the stakeholders have a responsibility to create a situation that works and I definitely believe it's possible to do that I don't believe there's any structural obstacles to creating working nuclear power utility that's cost-effective if people have the will to do that. And so far everything you've said that you see is either the company's fault or unsolvable I see as having a different bearing of responsibility for the cause but also very much solvable. so I guess the question is how do you convince someone with a defeatist attitude that change can actually happen? well I am guess and I'm pretty sure that words aren't going to do it. So you have to show them the change. so I suppose you're going to have to wait until you see that nuclear utilities are working in Chicago to believe that it's going to be possible. So I guess you going to have to wait until then to be able to have a proper and balanced discussion about it. Y For you. It's kind of sad, but Oh well. I get where you're coming from. It hasn't succeeded, as you see it, so why should you think it should? Anyway... Hope you have a good one