Nuke money lies

Be the 1st to vote.
Churchill-fallspowerhouse

Churchill-fallspowerhouse (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

Never mind the occultist numerology signatures everywhere.

What reasonable person who understands basic budgeting would put up with a scenario that swings $2 billion dollars depending on which way the wind blows? Does this seem like a reasonable scenario for any business or private citizen? No, of course not. However, all Ontarians will be paying for it monthly. We should be paying virtually nothing for electricity, as we all have access to two of the biggest hydro projects in the world, Niagara and Churchill Falls in Quebec. This is our right as we are supposed to be co-owners of this land’s natural resources – or are we just serfs?

Pickering nuclear project a $2-billion question Squeezing another five years of life out of the Pickering nuclear station could turn into a $1.3-billion benefit — or a $760-million loss

via Pickering nuclear project a $2-billion question.

More proof that fakeology is directly related to your financial health. Why shouldn’t you study it? How can people accept such silly financial lies without questioning them? Is everyone so dense or just not able to comprehend the gall of those who lie directly into your face?

Enhanced by Zemanta
No tags for this post.

5 thoughts on “Nuke money lies

  1. rickpotvin

    Nuclear plants are dumploads. Dumploads are indeed required to keep real power plants going by providing an overnight load. Instead of thinking of 2 billion into nuclear plants like Darlington as wasted, think about why we have to spend 2 billion on upgrading that dumpload. It might be that they want to install coolers of a different sort instead of dumping hot water into the lake. Or maybe they’ll try to install flywheels to store the overnight dumpload to use it later in the day. A good way to spend dumpload power would be to pump the Niagara water back uphill into Lake Erie again. Another way to spend dumpload would be to pump fresh St. Lawrence water bound for the salty Atlantic down into New York or the American Southwest. This might be what the 2 billion is going toward– research and development on how to spend dumpload other than dumping hot water into the lake which wrecks the ecology.

    1. ab Post author

      While I don’t think dumping hot water into a huge lake is a big problem, I can see how it can adversely affect the immediate area. So whatever biological results from dumping hot water into a cold lake should be identical to whatever “nuclearradiation” or “heavy water” is supposedly doing to the water.

      Can we safely state now that “heavy water” is really just hot water? Can any real scientist even get near the area to check? I doubt it.

        1. rickpotvin

          Interestingly, I found out that “nuclear power” is 15% worldwide! What a strange coincidence, eh? Turns out that the dumpload management system requires a bleedoff off excess power, created by maintaining loads on gas, coal and hydro generators… of 15% on average. This explains why nuclear power has never been more than 15%– because its not power– it’s disappation to keep loads on other generators. The tragedy and stupidity of this idiotic secret plan- besides the big lie– is that we could be storing power in flywheels and returning it to the grid in peak hours. But that would mean letting the world know that the earth does not revolve. Why? Because an energy storing flywheel would act as a gyroscope and maintain its orientation despite a rotating earth. That would mean it would rip out of its moorings unless it was mounted on gyroscope frames called gimbals. But the earth does not rotate– maybe its a myth. So the flywheel gyroscope would not need gimballs. And people might wonder why not. And they’d have to say because the earth doesn’t revolve after all. It’s a big tangled web.

      1. rickpotvin

        That’s a bit backward. The heavy water is required, they say, for the reaction. They suck in millions of gallons of regular water to get a few gallons of heavy water, they claim. Only CANDU reactors require heavy water, they say. If nuke plants are mere dumploads, it’s quite possible that these things are designed to suck in millions of gallons so that that water can be heated and discharged more effectively– and then distributed back out into the lake in a more dispersed manner– as opposed to simply dumping scalding hot water out to one location along the shore. Maybe heavy water doesn’t exist. For every zillion molecules of regular water, they say, there is ONE heavy water molecule. Pretty clever narrative since that makes it really impossible for you or me to find any heavy water. And it provides them with a cover story for requiring millions of gallons of water. The heavy water is, thus, not hot water in this scenario. Getting heavy water is excuse for drawing in lake water, and then redispersing it. Raising lake temps by a few degrees over large areas over decades apparently does affect fauna and flora. I haven’t decided if radioactivity is harmful yet but hot water is real– and goes into lakes. Radioactivity is a different kettle of fish.. Kettle…of fish. Get it?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.