Hinckley Point C.   An Expensive Project.   But What Is It?   UK, France, China, EU, Jews

Nuclear power. Coal. Electricity. Dumploads. Toxic waste. Transport. Water flows.

by rerevisionist » Added 21 Oct 2015

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 1056
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 11:40
There's a lot of information online about this project, though not, of course, anything very revealing. A typical figure (image, right) quoted now is about £25 billion, spread over ten years; about $17 Bn. (These projects tend to outrun their budgets. See for example information about the insane cost of Canadian 'nuclear power'). It has been stated that this could be the most expensive power station ever built.

The UK GNP for the year 2014 is given as about $3,000 Billion (US$). So $1.7 Bn a year (for ten years) is about 1/20% of the GNP. It's difficult to get such figures into perspective: profits on (for example) loans of paper money to governments make it look tiny. Road repairs for the whole UK are stated to need £12 Bn; the retail cost of 10,000 average houses is supposed to be £2.7Bn; the cost of a border fence between the USA and Mexico £4 Bn; costs of 'treatment for HIV', 'billions per year'. These may help with comparisons.

But these figures are only part of the story.

This site has (you may have noticed!) evidence that nuclear weapons and power are fraudulent. Here's a list of questions, in three parts–

Part 1: Is it in fact intended to be a 'nuclear power station'?

There's plenty of evidence that 'nuclear power' is a fraud, usually a cover for the much cheaper dumploads, which are huge steam kettles which waste surplus electricity to keep the voltage balanced at about the right level. If this is the case, Hinckley Point will need either cooling towers, or river water, or some new style of cooling perhaps analogous to 'heatsinks'.

The 'artist's impression' (above, right) doesn't make it clear whether there are to be cooling towers tucked away at a distance. See this image, below for the sort of thing. These seem to be described in Chinese sales literature as 'Nuclear Power Stations', even when they are clearly just cooling towers for excess electricity.

These maps (below) show shipping in the Bristol Channel, and the position of Hinckley Point and the M5 motorway. The Bristol Channel has an exceptionally large difference between low and high tides; and it has quite active ship traffic. This may make it suitable for carrying large volumes of warm water away, rapidly. It's also well adapted for shipping.

There are shortages of nuclear raw material. Part of the fightback is a claim that thorium is a new source of power. I don't find these claims convincing; if thorium was so wonderful, why wasn't it claimed to have been used before?

Another possible use for spurious 'nuclear power' is underground disposal of problematic wastes, since the claimed threat of radiation is useful for keeping people away. The Lake District has been a site explored for that purpose. If the radiation idea is simply fantasy, it makes sense to assume underground storage of toxic materials is being investigated. Hinckley Point, if it had shipping access, could presumably be used for that, as the site is large and people may expect it to be busy.

Wild-card possibilities include electricity supplies themselves; if the Trident fraud is continued, perhaps 'nuclear' submarines with batteries could be recharged by induction at Hinckley Point?

Part 2: Is electricity needed, and if so does it make sense to build that nuclear power station?

will generate only 7% of electricity

Of course electricity will be needed. But the demand is difficult to forecast. LED lighting is about to change the entire visual appearance of interior and exterior lighting, using less power. Computers are growing more efficient. And this 'nuclear' project is supposed to supply only 7% of present demand (their estimate—which may be optimistic), in a place remote from the main centers of electricity consumption. And coal or gas is much cheaper. In fact, the Chinese authorities have continued to build coal plants; and their biggest electricity sources are hydro-electric.

The Chinese authorities appear to have built large numbers of surplus tower blocks, and indeed entire unoccupied cities. This suggests someone bought large quantities of expensive construction equipment (cranes, caterpillar trucks, factories for prefab parts) which they want to use.

It's easy to see why Japan was not involved, after the events—whatever they were—at Fukushima.

Amongst the queries about China, the extent of Jewish influence is in my opinion crucial. The fact that China appears to go along with all the Jewish frauds suggests pretty complete penetration; on the other hand, who knows for sure? Certainly they must be uneasy about the Fed paper money fraud!

Part 3: Is the whole thing just a money-making scheme?

info about EDF in france Jewish CEO In other words, is this just a make-work scheme to supply the 'elite' with money, disguised as a utilitarian construction? Plenty of evidence points that way:–

The financing suggests horse-trading by investors; but why should they be needed for a useful project? EDF (Électricité de France) has (I think) bought up many of Britain's utility assets, ultimately as part of the control by Jewish paper money, which of course they wish to dispose of: bad money drives out good. This process started (arguably) with Thatcher, and continued under Blair, and now Cameron, all of course pawns of Jews. The CEO of EDF is a Jew (or thinks he is); in view of Jewish history of deceit, this is not a good thing. Such people have no interest in the general good, but in deference to public opinion have to pretend they do.

There is an EU subsidy. I won't add to the jokes about EU subsidies to non-existent bridges, but there was a challenge from Austrians who see no reason to pay a share. If it's genuine purpose is to add 7% to Britain's electricity, I agree with them.

There is a complicated 35-year finance scheme and bail-outs if the project stops. perhaps there are plenty of possibilities for failure; but, if so, why go ahead?

It appears Jews run all the companies allegedly dealing with nuclear materials.

Part 4: Conclusion

My best guess is that the whole nuclear power scheme is a fraud, in the tradition of Jewish frauds world-wide. Bigger than NASA, much bigger than 9/11 but without the Jewish war implications, but not as big as nuclear weapons. As time passes, and if civilisation continues (or perhaps starts) connoisseurs of Jewish activity will appraise this in all its fullness and assign it its rightful place in world history.

Anyone with technical info or links online might email hinckley at big-lies dot com [yes, com allows any prefix].

shipping in Bristol Channel position of Hinckley Point C

Austria EU subsidy challenge

35 year index linked support

hydro power by far the biggest power stations

Return to Nuclear Power Doubts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest