There is no energy crisis or Nuclear Power
Thu 6:31 pm +00:00, 2 Jan 2025Source: https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2417556#p2417556
What is going on in the Nuclear Power plants?
Nuclear power was supposedly discovered by Enrico Fermi at the University of Chicago with the Chicago Pile-1 reactor. I can highly recommend reading this historical thread on Cluesforum on that subject before you continue: https://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.p … 0#p2382470
Let’s start by looking at how a power grid actually works:
In essence AC (alternating current) is produced by an alternator (an AC generator) connected to a so called prime mover – turbines running on water, steam or gas. The rotational speed of the alternators determines the frequency of the current, usually 50 or 60 hertz (the current switches between positive and negative 50/60 times per second). It is crucial that both the voltage and frequency is kept within certain limits, otherwise the grid and the equipment connected to it will be damaged. Because of this, voltage and frequency needs to be carefully monitored and regulated throughout the grid.
Turbines in Hoover Dam
Mammoth flywheel for Ireland’s grid stability
The frequency is typically regulated by having several synchronized alternators connected to either movers (gas/steam powered turbines) and/or large flywheels. The purpose of the flywheels is to provide the necessary extra inertia needed to keep the power grid stable. If there’s a rapid change in demand, the flywheels keep the frequency stable during the time it takes for the movers to be adjusted to fit the change. Historically these flywheels sometimes weighing several tons, taking weeks to reach their operational rotational speed, was the only way to provide the necessary inertia. But today other solutions exists. I can recommend these videos if you’re interested in learning more about inertia and the power grid:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9JN7kj1tso
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT3xfppte3Y
If we now move on to investigate what typically constitutes the “prime mover” in a power grid, hydropower offer several advantages compared to the alternatives. The mover (water driven turbines) can quickly be regulated so that the alternators spins at the desired speed. It is also possible to store water in dams or magazines to be used during higher demand. Furthermore hydropower, just as wind and solar power, is completely renewable and emission-free. And as opposed to wind and solar power, hydropower produces electricity 24/7 and provides a substantial part of the grids required inertia all in itself. And for these reasons, hydropower has historically (when available) been the preferred choice for power grids.
Sweden, where I live, is well suited for hydropower, and we can learn from official sources that hydropower accounted for 95 percent of the total electricity production in 1965 and all of it in the years before.
But then this changed. Despite the fact that more hydropower was built in Sweden during the 1970s and 80s, another power source – nuclear power was supplying an ever increasing demand for electricity. And as we can see from the graph below from the same source, nuclear power allegedly produced almost as much electricity as hydropower in the world in 2005. But as we see from the graph below it, it doesn’t seem that the energy consumption per capita typically changes that much.
I think the clever people reading this can see where I’m going. It doesn’t appear that Nuclear power plants are actually producing any energy. And as explained, keeping a power grid stable is complicated and requires fast reacting governance of both current and frequency, located at strategic places in the grid where there’s a high risk of sudden change in demand. So could it be that this is the actual function of nuclear plants? To govern the current and frequency in the grid?
Something that’s puzzled me and that supports this theory is that despite being so dangerous, nuclear plants are commonly placed in densely populated areas. In Sweden the hydropower resides in the north for natural reasons, that’s where the big rivers are. But why not place the nuclear plants there as well since infrastructure needed for the hydropower already exists and since the north of Sweden is practically uninhabited?
Another thing I find it likely that nuclear power plants do in regions with hydropower like Sweden, is producing hydrogen. And they either sell that hydrogen or use it to power turbines also situated in the plants during high demand. This may sound far-fetched at first glance, but when investigated it actually makes a lot of sense. Hydrogen electrolysis is a simple process. All you need to do is to run a current through water and it will split into hydrogen and oxygen. The biproduct is hot water.
And we find circumstantial evidence that supports this. All nuclear plants in Sweden are placed by the seaside. This doesn’t make sense with the official version that the water is used to cool the reactors. Salt water is corrosive and thus a bad choice for cooling purposes. But for hydrogen electrolysis it’s the preferred choice, since salt water is more conductive than fresh water and thus results in a more efficient electrolysis.
The Swedish nuclear plants also produce high amounts of hot water:
https://www.slu.se/en/departments/aquat … est-basin/
To make hydrogen makes perfect sense since hydropower can produce as much electricity in the summertime when the demand is low. So why not make hydrogen out of that surplus electricity and then sell it as expensive nuclear energy?
Hydrogen cooking is also well suited for surge protection. In that scenario it’s essential to be able to dissipate electrical energy instantly. And electrodes immersed in water can do that. The electrical energy is quickly converted to heat with hydrogen production as a side benefit.
And if we now take a look at NASA (disregarding for a while the fact that it’s physically impossible for their rockets to create any thrust in space) they have for some reason chosen hydrogen as fuel for their rockets. An odd choice I would argue, since even though hydrogen theoretically has a high energy density, that requires either the hydrogen to be in liquid form which in turn require temperatures at zero kelvin, and/or storage in high pressure tanks, which is technically challenging. This is why jet planes, cruise missiles and other rockets use kerosene instead. Hydrogen, because of the insulation and pressure tanks required, makes it extremely impractical – arguably impossible to use as a fuel in these applications.
But if NASA’s space program is used as a front for the development of technology for hydrogen production in power grids, this makes sense. Since hydrogen is the fuel their rockets use, it’s not odd that they spend their funding on things like building the largest hydrogen tanks the world has ever seen: https://energynews.biz/nasas-liquid-hyd … ompletion/
So to summarize, I argue that the Nuclear plants actually contain the technology necessary in a power grid to govern its current and frequency. Some plants are also producing hydrogen when the demand for electricity is low. The so called reactor is then a huge hydrogen tank and the turbines in the reactor are running on hydrogen when the demand is high.
And to hide this, the nuclear energy narrative has been created. This makes it possible to have workers in the plants that think they are controlling a nuclear process, while they are in fact controlling power grid governance and in some cases a hydrogen production process. If something goes wrong, they call in the International Atomic Energy Agency and freemasons take upon them to go into the parts of the plant that allegedly contain deadly radiation and to fix the problem.
The alchemy (to make gold out of lies), I would say is pretty obvious. This way the price on electricity can be set much higher than needed and also facilitate hydrogen production. They’ve also locked out any competition in the power grid business by making it practically impossible to build competing hydropower. You will not get a permit to do so for “environmental reasons”. But as any monopolist worth it’s name knows, it’s crucial to maintain the appearance of a free market and to make the potential competition to exhaust their resources in futile efforts, and that is why wind and solar power is so encouraged. And to quote Ezra Pound, “the art of infamy is to propose two opposing lies as the truth and to get people arguing over them”. So when the lie about wind and solar power is exposed, the non-existing nuclear power becomes the alternative.
The bottom line becomes similar to vaccines. Since the premise – viruses and contagion – have never been confirmed, it becomes a non-issue. The power grids have always had the capacity to provide enough energy that is almost entirely produced by renewable hydropower. Nuclear power is non-existent. There is no spoon…
Nuclear power was supposedly discovered by Enrico Fermi at the University of Chicago with the Chicago Pile-1 reactor. I can highly recommend reading this historical thread on Cluesforum on that subject before you continue: https://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.p … 0#p2382470
Let’s start by looking at how a power grid actually works:
In essence AC (alternating current) is produced by an alternator (an AC generator) connected to a so called prime mover – turbines running on water, steam or gas. The rotational speed of the alternators determines the frequency of the current, usually 50 or 60 hertz (the current switches between positive and negative 50/60 times per second). It is crucial that both the voltage and frequency is kept within certain limits, otherwise the grid and the equipment connected to it will be damaged. Because of this, voltage and frequency needs to be carefully monitored and regulated throughout the grid.
Turbines in Hoover Dam
Mammoth flywheel for Ireland’s grid stability
The frequency is typically regulated by having several synchronized alternators connected to either movers (gas/steam powered turbines) and/or large flywheels. The purpose of the flywheels is to provide the necessary extra inertia needed to keep the power grid stable. If there’s a rapid change in demand, the flywheels keep the frequency stable during the time it takes for the movers to be adjusted to fit the change. Historically these flywheels sometimes weighing several tons, taking weeks to reach their operational rotational speed, was the only way to provide the necessary inertia. But today other solutions exists. I can recommend these videos if you’re interested in learning more about inertia and the power grid:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9JN7kj1tso
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT3xfppte3Y
If we now move on to investigate what typically constitutes the “prime mover” in a power grid, hydropower offer several advantages compared to the alternatives. The mover (water driven turbines) can quickly be regulated so that the alternators spins at the desired speed. It is also possible to store water in dams or magazines to be used during higher demand. Furthermore hydropower, just as wind and solar power, is completely renewable and emission-free. And as opposed to wind and solar power, hydropower produces electricity 24/7 and provides a substantial part of the grids required inertia all in itself. And for these reasons, hydropower has historically (when available) been the preferred choice for power grids.
Sweden, where I live, is well suited for hydropower, and we can learn from official sources that hydropower accounted for 95 percent of the total electricity production in 1965 and all of it in the years before.
But then this changed. Despite the fact that more hydropower was built in Sweden during the 1970s and 80s, another power source – nuclear power was supplying an ever increasing demand for electricity. And as we can see from the graph below from the same source, nuclear power allegedly produced almost as much electricity as hydropower in the world in 2005. But as we see from the graph below it, it doesn’t seem that the energy consumption per capita typically changes that much.
I think the clever people reading this can see where I’m going. It doesn’t appear that Nuclear power plants are actually producing any energy. And as explained, keeping a power grid stable is complicated and requires fast reacting governance of both current and frequency, located at strategic places in the grid where there’s a high risk of sudden change in demand. So could it be that this is the actual function of nuclear plants? To govern the current and frequency in the grid?
Something that’s puzzled me and that supports this theory is that despite being so dangerous, nuclear plants are commonly placed in densely populated areas. In Sweden the hydropower resides in the north for natural reasons, that’s where the big rivers are. But why not place the nuclear plants there as well since infrastructure needed for the hydropower already exists and since the north of Sweden is practically uninhabited?
Another thing I find it likely that nuclear power plants do in regions with hydropower like Sweden, is producing hydrogen. And they either sell that hydrogen or use it to power turbines also situated in the plants during high demand. This may sound far-fetched at first glance, but when investigated it actually makes a lot of sense. Hydrogen electrolysis is a simple process. All you need to do is to run a current through water and it will split into hydrogen and oxygen. The biproduct is hot water.
And we find circumstantial evidence that supports this. All nuclear plants in Sweden are placed by the seaside. This doesn’t make sense with the official version that the water is used to cool the reactors. Salt water is corrosive and thus a bad choice for cooling purposes. But for hydrogen electrolysis it’s the preferred choice, since salt water is more conductive than fresh water and thus results in a more efficient electrolysis.
The Swedish nuclear plants also produce high amounts of hot water:
https://www.slu.se/en/departments/aquat … est-basin/
To make hydrogen makes perfect sense since hydropower can produce as much electricity in the summertime when the demand is low. So why not make hydrogen out of that surplus electricity and then sell it as expensive nuclear energy?
Hydrogen cooking is also well suited for surge protection. In that scenario it’s essential to be able to dissipate electrical energy instantly. And electrodes immersed in water can do that. The electrical energy is quickly converted to heat with hydrogen production as a side benefit.
And if we now take a look at NASA (disregarding for a while the fact that it’s physically impossible for their rockets to create any thrust in space) they have for some reason chosen hydrogen as fuel for their rockets. An odd choice I would argue, since even though hydrogen theoretically has a high energy density, that requires either the hydrogen to be in liquid form which in turn require temperatures at zero kelvin, and/or storage in high pressure tanks, which is technically challenging. This is why jet planes, cruise missiles and other rockets use kerosene instead. Hydrogen, because of the insulation and pressure tanks required, makes it extremely impractical – arguably impossible to use as a fuel in these applications.
But if NASA’s space program is used as a front for the development of technology for hydrogen production in power grids, this makes sense. Since hydrogen is the fuel their rockets use, it’s not odd that they spend their funding on things like building the largest hydrogen tanks the world has ever seen: https://energynews.biz/nasas-liquid-hyd … ompletion/
So to summarize, I argue that the Nuclear plants actually contain the technology necessary in a power grid to govern its current and frequency. Some plants are also producing hydrogen when the demand for electricity is low. The so called reactor is then a huge hydrogen tank and the turbines in the reactor are running on hydrogen when the demand is high.
And to hide this, the nuclear energy narrative has been created. This makes it possible to have workers in the plants that think they are controlling a nuclear process, while they are in fact controlling power grid governance and in some cases a hydrogen production process. If something goes wrong, they call in the International Atomic Energy Agency and freemasons take upon them to go into the parts of the plant that allegedly contain deadly radiation and to fix the problem.
The alchemy (to make gold out of lies), I would say is pretty obvious. This way the price on electricity can be set much higher than needed and also facilitate hydrogen production. They’ve also locked out any competition in the power grid business by making it practically impossible to build competing hydropower. You will not get a permit to do so for “environmental reasons”. But as any monopolist worth it’s name knows, it’s crucial to maintain the appearance of a free market and to make the potential competition to exhaust their resources in futile efforts, and that is why wind and solar power is so encouraged. And to quote Ezra Pound, “the art of infamy is to propose two opposing lies as the truth and to get people arguing over them”. So when the lie about wind and solar power is exposed, the non-existing nuclear power becomes the alternative.
The bottom line becomes similar to vaccines. Since the premise – viruses and contagion – have never been confirmed, it becomes a non-issue. The power grids have always had the capacity to provide enough energy that is almost entirely produced by renewable hydropower. Nuclear power is non-existent. There is no spoon…
