This Is How We End Climate Change

Soil Carbon Tests. Big Cheap & Easy

         using Loss On Ignition (LOI)
*Big 2,000 grams sample size
*Dries sample in 30 minutes to 100°C
*LOI Temperatures - 350°C to 550°C
*Complete LOI in 60 to 90 minutes
*Integral weighing in-situ at 100°C
*Accuracy  1/1000
*No laboratory needed. Farm shed OK
With accurate infield sampling kit. Powered 4 inch auger. Powered mixer, Sampling sieves. 


Optics Determine Biosphere Temperatures

The sun determines the average surface temperatures of the solar system's inner planets provided only that they revolve creating day and nights. The Earth's internal heat has almost zero effect on our biosphere's temperature. This applies to any stable revolving planet with Earth like distances from its home star.   


Quotable Facts and Numbers

If we continue to use agrochemicals and fossil fuels, we cannot prevent catastrophic climate change. And those industries know it. Their marketing policy then must be to create doubt, to generate confusion and to totally split opposition to using and relying on their incredibly dangerous products . Below is what they really don't want you to understand


Aus’ Government Dumps Yeomans Methodology

Stopping all the world's carbon emissions today can't stop future centuries of continuous warming. So it's imperative that we start by removing our existing carbon dioxide overload. Sadly, the Department of the Environment and Energy here in Australia is quite clearly not prepared to take the concept of removal seriously.


Instilling Complacency and Money

When the voting public wakes up and begin to understand what is actually happening now with climate change now - and what it means to them - and they begin to appreciate the horror of what is in store for them in the months and years ahead - they will vote for action now. This site says what action that must be. And nobody has a sane "plan B". And there's no time to invent one.


Home Site & Navigating Around This Site

First; You put the Cursor on one of the 13 numbered buttons.
Second: The button turns yellow and the big square on the left side lights up with a summary of what you will find when you open the page.
Third: Leave the Cursor arrow there and Left Click and you have opened the whole page. The lower part of the screen then comes up with all the information.
Forth:Then scroll up or down to find what you want.
Fifth: Click the WHITE HOUSE if you want to go back up to the top of the page.


Written Library & Video Library

We are assembling a collection of meaningful and factual references and videos. They will go here. It will be similar to the Video Library at our  Yeomans Keyline Plow site at---   This new library is going to take me some time to get it up and running. There probably won't be much before Late January 2017-- Allan Yeomans.


Stop Press On Today’s Fictions

The Owners of the Tobacco Industry intended to survive and prosper despite the inconvenience of their products killing millions of their customers. To maintain sales, advertising their own individual brands became far less important than allaying fears in the millions of customers still alive. Their most significant weapon became the well structured manufacture of doubt in the public mind. Was smoking really that dangerous?


Who Is Allan Yeomans

For general introduction Google -- Allan Yeomans Wikipedia -- This gives a good summary. Allan is the originator of the concept of soil carbon sequestration. His concept was first described in his 1989 paper "The Agricultural Solution To The Greenhouse Effect". This paper was his  presentation to the Esalen Congress on Sustainable Agriculture. Big Sur, California January 1990.


Soil Carbon How It Happens

Tell me in a nut shell.

How does soil carbon sequestration work?

How do you take the carbon dioxide out of the air and put it into the soil?

Allan Yeomans answers:  
"Happily it’s a completely natural process. The world’s grasslands illustrate it best and they're the best soils in the world.


Link to Yeomans Plows and equipment

In the early 1950s, on our family farms in New South Whales we developed a system of farm management we called "Keyline". My father was the genius behind the whole concept. He was a geologist and mining engineer originally and turned this expertise onto the problems of water storage and handling for on-farm water storage and low cost irrigation. He understood insightfully the role for the enhancement of soil fertility in all forms of farm management. My role was in equipment design, and i did think up the name  "Keyline" to describe it all.   


How we produce enough abundant, cheap, energy continuously for 7.5 billion people. Without adding carbon to the biosphere.

In round figures we have dumped near a liter of dry ice on every square metre of the Earth's surface. It behaves like a sheet of glass the same thickness and adds to the greenhouse effect. We humans came into existence on this planet when it was covered with two sheets of glass. Now it's got three and we are getting runaway heating. It's crazy to destabilize the  Earth's entire biosphere just to keep the fossil fuel organizations in business


Getting the $10 Trillion to remove the excess carbon dioxide from the air comes from stopping our tax money funding fossil fuels and chemical based agricultural.

Our Global Warming problems are caused by the excess carbon dioxide in the air now. Not the particular rate we are currently adding to that excess. (For how to stop the adding, go to Button 12.)   So our immediate and urgent requirement is to realign the proportions of carbon within the biosphere. We turn atmospheric carbon (as CO2) into soil carbon (as soil humus and organic matter). Each country must accept its historic individual responsibility and pay to make that realignment happen. Countries must insist that neighbors and friends follow suit.

3. Quotable Facts and Numbers 4. Aus’ Government Dumps Yeomans Methodology 5. Instilling Complacency and Money 6. Home Site & Navigating Around This Site 7. Written Library & Video Library 8. Stop Press On Today’s Fictions 9. Who Is Allan Yeomans
2. Optics Determine Biosphere Temperatures 1. Soil Carbon Tests. Big Cheap & Easy 13. Getting the $10 Trillion to remove the excess carbon dioxide from the air comes from stopping our tax money funding fossil fuels and chemical based agricultural.

"The urgent problem is getting rid of the excess carbon dioxide that's already there. Soil can do that.

Emissions reductions must become zero, but that can be phased in over the next two to three decades."
Allan Yeomans. January 1998

Yeomans LOI Soil "Carbon Still"© test takes two hours. Accepts huge 2,000 gram test sample. 550°C

Plus - Yeomans Soil Test Protocol
(for info click Button 1)

10. Soil Carbon How It Happens 11. Link to Yeomans Plows and equipment 12. How we produce enough abundant, cheap, energy continuously for 7.5 billion people. Without adding carbon to the biosphere.

Salvation is – – SOIL NUCLEAR and BIOFUEL


Weight of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1950 was approximately two trillion tonnes. It has climbed to three trillion tonnes.

We have actually added two trillion tonnes (two thousand billion tonnes) since 1950. But half that has been absorbed into the oceans. So the quantity now in the atmosphere is three trillion tonnes.  The one trillion tonnes in the oceans will form calcium carbonate deposits and also stable silt deposits on the ocean floors, but not fast enough. If left alone and if we cease adding geological carbon to the biosphere it would take from centuries to many millennia to clean the CO2 overload out.  Unfortunately CO2 in water exists as carbonic acid (soda water) and is beginning to hinder the outer exoskeleton of  crustaceans, from prawns to krill.


Fossil fuel use and “climate change” now kills
5 million people per year.

(Air pollution from fossil fuels kills 4,800,000 people and the UN says
Global Warming effects kill 400,000 people Per Year)

         Today 400,000 people are dying every year from Global Warming weather related disasters. That figure was at 2012 and severe weather events have increased. So 400,000 is a minimum.  Air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuels is also separately contributing to the deaths of at least 4.5 million people a year. Click to the report in the Guardian-

     The use of fracking to mine oil and gas has
          destabilized geological structures

         This seems to happen to at least the depth the process is being used. And very probably to much greater depths.

        USGS (United States  Geological Survey) reports that between the years 1973–2008, there was an average of 21 earthquakes of magnitude three and larger in the Central and Eastern United States. This rate has ballooned to over 600 M3+ earthquakes in 2014 and over 1000 in 2015. Through to August 2016, over 500 M3+ earthquakes have occurred.

    (The United States Geological Survey is a scientific agency of the United States government. The scientists of the USGS study the landscape of the United States, its natural resources, and the natural hazards that threaten it.)

NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) on US costs
(This particular report does not factor in soil carbon sequestration)

         They report:-   “Global warming comes with a big price tag for every country around the world. The 80 percent reduction in U.S. emissions that will be needed to lead international action to stop climate change may not come cheaply, but the cost of failing to act will be much greater. New research shows that if present trends continue, the total cost of global warming will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Four global warming impacts alone—hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs — will come with a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s US dollars) by 2100.

               We know how to avert most of these damages through strong national and international action to reduce the emissions that cause global warming. But we must act now. The longer we wait, the more painful—and expensive —the consequences will be.”

               For the full report go to —–


3      billion tonnes  of  gas
4      billion tonnes  of  oil
9      billion tonnes  of  coal
That’s what we buy and burn every year now.


50    billion tonnes of carbon dioxide

 Is what that burning  produces every year.

$84 billion per year  —  That’s over $1.5 billion a week to spend on propaganda.

That’s the “money box” available to manipulate public opinion to suit the fossil fuel/agrochemical industries etc. It comes easy from  1% of sales value for coal and gas, and say US $2 a barrel for oil.

One typical propaganda is – blame commercial jet transport (planes which are hard to replace).  Reality is, jets use 0.230 billion tonnes per year, that’s about a quarter of a billion tonnes, that’s  a tiny 5.8% of the world’s total oil use.

We could live with that 5.8%. Motor vehicles, diesel power generation, and big merchant ships are the problem, and they are easy to change.

Each of us on Earth “owns” 0.6 hectares of useable land on which to grow our food, graze our animals, and to sequence the atmosphere’s excess carbon dioxide into the soil.

World total area 51.5 billion hectares…World population is now 7.13 billion…One third is land. We live on, build roads and houses and things on just over a third of the land…So each of us “owns” 0.8 hectares or 2 acres of land. Take out roads and houses etc which leaves us with the 0.6 hectares.

Homo sapien sapien, that’s us, have existed for 100,000 years.

Hominid are extinct bipedal primates. “sapiens” means wise.  “Sapien sapien” is extra wise. Homo sapiens, that’s Neanderthals and a few others have existed for around 200,000 years.

For more than a million years carbon dioxide (CO2 or CO2) levels have hovered around 275 ppm. Since the late 1940s they have climbed to 400 ppm.

275 ppm means 275 parts per million by volume (0.0275%). By weight it’s a different number. Air’s average molecular weight is just over 28. Carbon dioxide’s molecular weight is 44. So 400 ppm becomes 432 ppm by weight and so air is 0.0432% CO2 by weight. Go To — temperature-in-comic-form

Both the surface of the Sun and the centre of the Earth are  around 6,000° C. However the temperature at the centre of the Sun is 15 million degrees. The temperature on the surface determines the amount of radiant energy emitted, and its frequency.

All bodies radiate electromagnetic energy. . The Sun at 6,000° C. radiates white light, that’s normal visible light.  Things at Earth’s surface temperatures radiate infrared radiation. We can feel infrared as warmth but we cant see it. When any electromagnetic radiation hits and object its absorbed or reflected off in varying degrees.       Oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide are near transparent to the visible light from the Sun but infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface has trouble getting through the “mist” of carbon dioxide, throughout the atmospheres, and can’t so easily get back out into Space. So with more carbon dioxide in the air, the Earth’s surfaces have to be hotter to radiate enough energy to balance the incoming sunlight. That’s how global warming happens.

The conclusions of the Paris Summit on Climate Change of December 2015  to try to limit temperatures to below 1.5° C, and not to worry too much unless it got to near a  2° C rise, was utterly beyond stupidity.

refer to caption

Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2015, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the annual mean and the red line is the 5 year “running mean”   Source: NASA GISS.
The mean line they use here is 1880 to 2015 but that’s a mix of before global warming started and well into it . The big carbon dioxide influx into the atmosphere really started with WW2. To me the important starting line on NASA’s graph is the period ending at the start of WW2. From then until 2015 world temperatures have risen approximately 1.0° C .
That  1.0° C  is all that it took to create the incredible weather instability we are now constantly experiencing all around the world.
 This astute quote from the Economist points out the utter pointlessness of the Paris Summit on Climate Change of December 2015, and how they decided things.
 “The two-degree maximum appeared initially in papers written by the Yale economist William Nordhaus in the mid-1970s. As “a first approximation” he suggested the world should not warm more than it had in the past 100,000 years or so—the period for which ice-core data were available. Given how little was known about the costs and damages of global warming at that time, Dr Nordhaus admitted that the estimate was “deeply unsatisfactory”. Nevertheless, European scientists discussed the two-degree limit during the next decade or so; in 1990 the Swedish Environment Institute produced a report that argued that, on the basis of “the vulnerability of ecosystems to historical temperature changes,” warming above just 1°C was not advisable. The authors knew it was too late to keep within this level, and so suggested 2°C instead. From thence the maximum was adopted by the European Union’s Council of Ministers in 1996; the G8 picked it up in 2009. During the chaos of the UNFCCC talks in Copenhagen that year, the two-degree limit emerged in glory, forming part of the deal made there between the world’s biggest polluters. In 2010 it was enshrined within UN policy.”

Sea levels rise because the water  expands slightly as it gets warmer. Plus glaciers melt and the released water flows into the sea.  Then there are various location effects.   

Location effects. Prevailing winds can heap water up more on one side of an ocean than the other. That’s a location effect. Around three million years ago atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were also 400 ppm and that resulted in temperatures settling out at between 2°C and 3°C higher than they are now. Those sustained temperatures produced sea levels 25 metres higher than now. And even back then, there was still plenty of ice at the poles ready to melt if temperatures got higher.

Storms, cyclones and tornados automatically get more violent with higher CO2 levels. So does the size of hail stones.

By trapping the heat we get higher temperatures in the lower atmosphere and lower temperatures in the higher atmosphere. (called the lower stratosphere).

 Upward air velocity in storms is a big determinant in their destructivity capabilities. As a hot air bubble rises, it simultaneously cools. The higher altitude it can rise to, the higher the upward air velocity gets. Finally when the surrounding air is warmer than the bubble it stops rising. Higher atmospheric CO2 levels traps extra heat energy in the lower troposphere (ground level to around 35,000 feet). This, plus lower ozone levels lowers the temperature of the lower stratosphere (35,000 feet to around 160,000 feet) so the rising bubble goes higher and so continues to get faster. These heating variations are the main reason for the phenomenal increase in the  intensity and severity and the destructive results of storms, typhoons, cyclones and tornados all across the World.

Tropical cyclones, as a rule only form when the sea surface temperatures get above approximately 28° C. (83° F)

We are now getting those sea surface temperatures at the latitudes of the Tropical Jet Streams.
And that’s a deadly mix.
We can confidently expect to see more frequent and more violent tropical cyclones in the months and years ahead.     Google these words —    “If you thought 2015 was hot, just wait”


Every 1° C rise in ocean surface water temperatures means the tropical cyclone belt spreads 300 kilometres further north and south from the equator.


Would cutting all CO2 emissions to zero tomorrow fix climate change? No. No way. Without removing the excess CO2 that’s now there runaway biospheric  heating is an absolute certainty.          

Without some form of massive sequestration, eliminating all CO2 emissions won’t do the job; levels would stay at 400 ppm for centuries. Ocean water temperatures would slowly rise to catch up to air temperatures. With zero emissions starting tomorrow morning,  biospheric temperatures would rise by an estimated minimum of 0.6°C. This effect is referred to as “committed warming”. With this committed warming, the frighteningly unstable West Antarctic Ice Sheet would continue to melt, along with most other ice sheets on the planet. What’s not included in that 0.6°C rise estimate is that the world’s permafrosts would continue to thaw and release their trapped methane. Methane is 100 times worse a green house gas than CO2.  Arguing that just cutting emissions, by itself, might fix the “climate change” problem is a giant well marketed lie designed to placate the unthinking masses.  Do yourself a favour: get the facts. Read published papers by qualified meteorologists, not news paper journalism.  


 World temperatures once changed slowly,  a single 1° C temperature change could easily take a thousand years or more.   Now it’s a thousand times faster.

For 20,000 years, since the middle of the last ice age, world temperatures have moved within a 4.5°C range.. But temperatures are now changing up to possibly a thousand times faster. Most of Earth’s species cannot cope with that.  This link is a good illustration:

Also a recent study, published in the scientific journal Nature, uses some sixty  ocean sediment cores to develop a record of Earth’s global average surface temperature dating back 2 million years. ——The study found that if all greenhouse gas emissions were to cease today, the climate would still warm by about 5 degrees Celsius, or 9 degrees Fahrenheit, during the next several centuries.


Stable tropical rain forest definitely do not absorb carbon dioxide

Get a shovel and have a look. When a rain forests originally formed it would be an absorbers of carbon dioxide. Then the trees mature, and die. So once formed and established, a rain forest totally ceases to be a net absorber of carbon dioxide. The marketing that claims that a rainforest is always absorbing more carbon from the air is an outright lie. If they did, then after a few thousand years the trees would have to be thousands of feet high. And if no big trees then the forest floor would have to be hundreds of feet deep in carbon. They’re not. Rain forest soils are always extremely poor and very lacking in soil organic matter. Tropical rain forests generate the worst soils in the world: except possibly deserts.


Stable tropical rain forests are net greenhouse gas producers. To combat global warming tropical rain forests are worse than useless:  As jungles produce methane.  

 A stable rainforest breathes in CO2 by day, and breathes it out during the night. Decomposing forest floor litter also discharges carbon back into the air. “Carbon in”, equals “carbon out”. (See previous note)  Unfortunately the “carbon in” is carbon dioxide but some of the “carbon out” is discharged as “marsh gas” from the rotting vegetation. Marsh gas is methane. Methane is one hundred  times more  powerful a greenhouse gas than the carbon dioxide being absorbed. However, over the next a hundred years the methane being generated will ultimately decompose into the less dangerous CO2. But we don’t have a hundred years. And yet it’s constantly drummed into us, and our kids, that tropical “rain forests can save the World”. That’s worse than telling kids that cocaine won’t really hurt you. Again I say  “Do yourself a favour. Get the numbers. Get the facts and only then, decide what to believe.” And then have the courage of your convictions.



Coal seam gas is at least, twice as bad as coal

 Coal seam gas is almost pure methane. Shale gas is the same. Burning either for energy produces about much less carbon dioxide than burning coal. But there is a big problem with  methane. In the whole process from mining and collecting the gas to where it is finally delivered and burnt there is typically a 5% minimum escape factor of the gas to the atmosphere. A 10% loss is not uncommon. They named it  “Fugitive” gas, which somehow suggests the methane escape was “not really their fault”. Great PR. In some cases Fugitive Gas volumes can be as high as 20% of total production. It’s almost never below 2.5%.
Consider it this way. Burning 100 tons of good quality coal produces  around 280 tons of carbon dioxide. Now let’s burn 100 tones of methane.. This produces only 275 tonnes of carbon dioxide. But the Fugitive gas leak into the air at 5%, is 5 tonnes. And 5 tonnes of methane is as bad as 500 tonnes of carbon dioxide. So burning the methane produces 275 tonnes of CO2 plus the 500 tonnes of CO2 equivalent from the Fugitive methane.  So it’s 280 tonnes of CO2 from burning the coal   And 775 tonnes from burning the, supposedly benign, coal seam gas.   But methane gas produces almost twice the energy per kilogram of coal. 
For equal energy, the ratio with a low 5% Fugitive Gas loss is therefore closer to 280 tonnes CO2 from coal and to 387 tonnes of CO2 from methane. So at best methane is “only” 37% worse than coal.
Fugitive losses would have to be an impossibly tiny 1% for methane to no worse than coal. And that’s near impossible.Much higher than 5% seems to be very common. So burning coal seam gas is never ever better than burning coal, And is often many times worse. But that’s certainly not what the coal seam gas PR people encouraged us to believe.  Google —- “Opinion Dirty Little Secret About Natural-Gas Fracking: Fugitive Methane Emissions”
Or go direct to  ——- .

If it doesn’t come up look at the top of your screen. Click it if it’s there.


Nuclear energy is a totally sustainable energy system and we must always acknowledge it as so. It must always go on any list of “sustainable fuels”.


The Sun is powered by nuclear fusion (fusion is joining little atoms together; The Hydrogen Bomb was a fusion device )

Nuclear fusion inside the Sun produces the heat that generates the light that is the “sustainable” energy source that powers solar cells. The same energy evaporates ocean water to make rain to produce “sustainable” hydro electric power.


Earth’s deep interior is hot because of nuclear fission (fission is pulling big atoms apart:  Atoms Bombs are fission devices )

The interior of the Earth contains small quantities of uranium U235 mixed up with a lot of U238. Uranium 235 a fuel used in many nuclear reactors. Deep inside the Earth, U235 fissions as it does in any uranium reactor and the process produces heat. This heat is the energy that drives “sustainable” geothermal power stations.


The reality is that Tidal Energy is the only non-nuclear energy source on our planet

The Moon revolving around the Earth produces tides in the ocean. No nuclear energy is involved. Tidal energy, therefore is the only energy source that isn’t nuclear based. Tidal energy causes the Moon to slowly slow down.


All life on Earth evolved in a world full of low level nuclear materials so we are used to it and it’s good for us.

Gamma, X Ray, infrared, ultra violet, radio waves, and visible light are all electromagnetic radiation. Alpha and Beta radiations are particles. Alpha particles are the core of helium atoms. Beta particles are electrons whizzing around and not attached to anything. Electrons, flowing down a wire is electricity. Neutrons make up the numbers in a nucleus and loose ones can be fast or slow. They can get absorbed by an atom and that atom will become another and different material. Neutrons penetrate solid materials and are best stopped by the hydrogen in water. We need to have a good shield to protect us from loose neutrons. Wikipedia is good for neutron information.         Everything can kill you and everything is totally harmless; it just depends on the dose and how it gets into your body.
         Sunshine and nuclear radiation are good for you; and again it depends on the dose. Typically nuclear workers that receive increased radiation are healthier than their fellow workers that don’t. The coal, oil and gas industries of the world will go out of business if the amazing safety of the nuclear energy industry becomes well known. And especially if the health enhancing benefits of getting regular doses of nuclear radiation becomes widely known.        On May 14, 1945 Albert Stevens was injected with a huge dose of plutonium (the world’s biggest ever) to cure his terminal cancer and prevent his pending death. Big mistake. Albert Stevens didn’t have cancer. The injection gave him, in effect a permanent dose of 1,000 mSv per year for the rest of his life. He died just before he turned 80. See Wikipedia and Albert Stevens. Also for some history on the antinuclear propaganda campaign go to —

Australia’s known uranium resources are the world’s largest – almost one-third of the world total.

In 2015-16 Australia produce 8000 tonnes of uranium oxide (8206 tonnes).  From that we could produce  7000 tonnes of uranium metal (6941 tonnes) . Australia is the world’s third-ranking producer, behind Kazakhstan and Canada. All production is exported.


In your whole life you will produce a billion litres of CO2, or an egg cup full of nuclear waste

The fossil fuel organizations have a huge, unsolved waste disposal problem. Their solution is to convince the gullible public that there is no problem, and additionally, using the atmosphere as a waste dump is perfectly safe. It’s the principal of the “Big Lie”. Tell a lie loud enough and often enough and it becomes the “truth”. 
A person living in any Western society powered by coal, oil, and gas is responsible for discharging into the atmosphere around one billion litres of carbon dioxide throughout his life. The same person in a totally nuclear powered society would produce about one egg cup full of high level nuclear waste. (In conventional nuclear power station design they’re more conservative and allow for a volume of two hen’s eggs.)


Nuclear waste into deep ocean subduction  zones is the absolutely perfect, political correct solution . And it’s OK for a quarter of a billion years.       

 So the fossil fuel interests got the UN to declare that nuclear waste had to be stay on land and not “pollute the oceans”.  A subduction  zone is like and upside down volcano. It’s where the oceanic plates dive down under the continental plates. They also form the deepest ocean trenches in the world. Mount Everest would fit in some of them, and you wouldn’t see its peak. The subducted materials gets mixed with the molten outer mantle of the Earth’s crust. The round trip, that’s before any individual atom resurfaces, can be a quarter of a billion years. Cast the waste into concrete blocks and drop them into the trenches. It’s so ridiculously simple and easy and incredibly cheap and incredibly safe.

Alternatively use abandoned mines for storage .

      There are plenty a kilometre or so deep. The geology at some of them has been stable for hundreds of millions of years. Back fill with a dozen or so truck loads of concrete. It would sit there, until some dim distant, future, advanced, civilization, decided to study how ancient humans lived, and decided to dig it up.


All the high level nuclear waste in the world adds up to just under 240 thousand tonnes. The whole lot would fit in any one of the current world’s bigger oil tankers.

The Earth’s crust contains approximately 40,000 billion tonnes of Uranium

The current estimated Plutonium content of the Earth is 6 million tonnes


Cost of nuclear energy same as coal     

       And that’s because we allow coal fired power stations to dump their waste into the air, which hinders sunlight energy radiating out. But we make nuclear energy producers lock up their waste for a thousand years: But even so: coal energy in still not cheaper than nuclear energy. US costs comparisons show this clearly.


France is 100% nuclear. The fossil fuel lobby promote only 75%      

      Nuclear power stations are the cheapest and safest way of producing electricity. France produces enough nuclear energy to totally supply all its electricity needs. It also produces a lot of hydro power. So it produces something like 115% of its need. It sells the rest. France is the world’s biggest exporter of electricity. However in the world’s fossil fuel compliant media France is always portrayed as being only 75% nuclear, not 100% nuclear. The inference being that it must make up the difference somehow. Maybe with fossil fuels? It’s called “perception management”. France is not silly. It’s not giving away its electricity. It’s selling it for a profit and waste disposal is definitely factored in.


Biofuels and batteries can run self contained transport   

     There are two major biofuels, Ethanol and bio-diesel.  Ethanol can replace petrol in spark ignition type engines. And biodiesel in diesel engines. Almost all the major automobile manufacturers in the World manufacture engines that run on pure ethanol. When the world price for oil was above US$100 a barrel ethanol was cheaper than petrol. Aircraft engines are now made to run on pure ethanol. In Brazil most agricultural aircraft use these engines. They have been making cars in Brazil for years that can run on pure ethanol, pure petrol, or any blend between.
       Biodiesel is produced when you mix palm oil with ethanol with a little bit of caustic soda to catalyze the bonding chemical reaction. Virtually all diesel engines run equally as well on biodiesel as they do on petroleum diesel. Most run better with less problems as biodiesel doesn’t vary from where you get it.        Ethanol is made by the bulk fermentation of sugar from sugar cane, or the fermentation of any of the grains. Sugar cane makes the most economical sense as you’re fermenting the sap whereas with grain you’re fermenting only the plants seeds.
        Methane is over 100 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. Sugar cane and oil palms grow best in the wet tropics unlike tropical rain forests, no methane is produced to discharge into the air .
        In a modern two car family it would be nice if one car at least was battery powered. Of course the perfect combination is a hybrid vehicle with a biofuel design engine.


Fossil fuel PR promotes nuclear energy as non-renewable        

    What is promoted as “sustainable energy” is derived ultimately from nuclear fission in the Earth interior or nuclear fusion in the Sun’s interior. Then the pro-fossil fuel, anti-nuclear lobby creates an incredible piece of “double think”. They promote the image that nuclear energy doesn’t qualify as “sustainable energy”. The reality is that there is enough easily and cheaply mined uranium and thorium in the world to last our civilization many thousands of years. There is enough uranium in the world’s ocean, and, with a little development,  it would be reasonably easy to extract. It would then easily power human society for many millions of years. And, as has been noted, there is enough waste disposal systems to last us a few billion years.


Nuclear energy is a totally sustainable energy system and we must always acknowledge it, as so. It must always go on any list of “sustainable fuels”.


The World,s first nuclear merchant ship.
NS Savannah passing under the Golden Gate Bridge in 1962
[thank you Wikipedia]




Abridged link to Wikipedia — Nuclear Ships of the World pkD18dnKbgQU0%3D&dpr=1&ved=0ahUKEwjc_eO0-world