New 'garden' city on Thames estuary, 15,000 homes at Ebbsfleet

[fl0wer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26600689

[PokerTime]

George Osbourne was talking about this on the Andrew Marr show this morning. On the same day the Telegraph published that the cost of buying a house in London could buy you 25 in Scotland. Claire Short made an interesting point in saying that she believes that the North/South divide in property prices could be the thing that in the end rebalances the economy long term, as people move out of London and the South East to buy homes. So as welcome as the new city is, I still think the government have things the wrong way round. They should be seeking ways to economically regenerate the north, to ease pressure on the south east.

[????]

....three ways tom start that.

Give more power back to regional govt but no bail out if they hang themselves as some will.....(usual suspects)

Unions recognise that we need regional pay rates so Public Sector jobs in economically suffering areas don't cream off a huge amount of local talent to the detriment of Private sector/entreprenueralism

Scrap HS 2 and improve transport links between the major regional cities

Still pretty cynical that govt/the state can do much about this though to be hones but more devolved power will at least give regions a chance to reinvent themselves...but some will choose the wrong route ie high public spending

[Loz]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Scrap HS 2 and improve transport links between the

> major regional cities

Surely HS2 is an improvement between major regional cities?? And one that drags us (forward) to the late 20th century?

[????]

...or it just makes Birmingham the next commuter suburb for London

...or as I saw from someone last week in City AM "if you gave Manchester or Birmingham etc ?Xbn to develop business in their regions how many would come up with 'Let's spend it all on a fast link to London'?"

[PokerTime]

I agreed ????, on everything you write.

I also agree that HS2 won't serve enough people to justifiy the expense and disruption. There are already good links between Birmingham, Manchester and London and knowing how things go in this country, it's likely to go widely over budget. And the only people who will be able to afford to use it will be those with high paying jobs in London.

Manchester has reinvented itself as the media capital of the North, so regeneration can happen.

[PokerTime]

And just to add that the other problem with HS2 is that it is already outdated technology. The future of high speed trains is Maglev - trains that run on magnets. They already exist - reaching speeds of 300mpr in the far east and China. They sit above ground and can't derail and are way more energy efficient.

[StraferJack]

and another issue with HS2 - the timescales. 2033?

[PokerTime]

Yes exactly! I sometimes wonder what goes through the minds of people that plan these things. Obviously some contractor stands to make a fortune out of the project.

[Loz]

Really? Japan had maglev trains decades ago (70's I think), but no one else seems to ever picked up on the technology.

[PokerTime]

I thinks it's always easier to stick with what you have than start afresh, I guess. There are all kinds of magnetic/ hydrogen technologies around that we should be using now - the reasons we aren't are often political and in the interests of established corporations.

Interesting view of HS2 here though....

http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/gravy-train-loaded-money-ndash-isn-t-stopping/story-20821933-detail/story.html

[Jeremy]

Maglev? Not sure that would stand up to a cost/benefit analysis! The Chinese are very fond of their status symbols....

Just because newer/whizzier technologies exist, doesn't mean more traditional methods are outdated. Bicycles didn't become outdated when the motorbike came along (and countless other analogies).

[PokerTime]

That's true, but that's because cycles are very good at what they do, and have little or no impact on the environment. A perfect design if you like. Train technology of the future won't run on tracks at all (the laying of which is the most expensive part of bulding a railway). There are already hoop systems being designed for example. And we have to find ways to cut oil and fossil fuel consumption. Hydrogen will always be a cleaner fuel than oil (and we can create that from bacteria and waste). A railway that runs on small amounts of efficient energy will always be better than the diesel and electric systems we have now. I think any future capital projects have to look to those things in their design.

[Jeremy]

Again... cost/benefit balance.

Hydrogen from rubbish? Can't see that making a dent in our electricity supply/consumption.

[PokerTime]

But Hydrogen from bacterial power plants can. It uses the bacteria found in all plants that makes them photosynthesize. It would take just 25,000 square kilometres of algea tanks, to displace gasoline use in the USA. That's just 10% of the area already used to grow soya. At present, the process is 1% efficient, but needs to be 10% efficient to make for a price comparable to the cheap gasoline that Americans use. So the leading area of research in biochemical hydrogen is in ways to improve efficiency. But there is no reason to assume science won't get there.

The other issue of course, is that we all see fossil fuels as just energy, petrol etc. But oil is used to make pretty much everything. All plastics and rubber use vast amounts of oil. So we have to look to ways to reduce consumption of those things. Do we really need the billions of cracker toys - plastic items that have no use and no point? Thay are just a massive waste of oil.

[LadyNorwood]

There's a large waste management site just outside Sheffield - the hydrogen generated from the decomposing mush is piped back into the city and heats all (or most of) the municipal buildings so there is some merit in it.....

[Jeremy]

Never said there wasn't merit in it! Wouldn't want to sound like I'm anti-renewables at all... it's fascinating stuff and without doubt we're all stuffed if we don't come up with reliable clean energy.

But surely HS2 will be electric anyway? It's just a matter of how that electricity will be generated in years to come.

[PokerTime]

It does work, but the issue is quantity (ie all the waste produced by the homes of Sheffield won't produce enough hydrogen to power all the homes of Sheffield).

It's the same with renewables like solar, wind and tidal. They don't constantly generate electricity (no wind, sunlight or tide). So they are never going to be the solution to fossil fuels.

We already do have a solution in nuclear power. France has the cheapest energy prices in Europe and generates 80% of it's energy from nuclear power. It sells energy to the rest of europe. Todays third generation power stations have a lifespan of around 70 -100 years and fourth generation stations are being designed that will be able to recycle plutonium waste. America also buy Russian warheads and recyle those in their power stations.

And just on the issue of waste. There's been a lot of nonsense created by the ant-nuclear lobby. Nuclear power is one of the cleanest energy forms out there. if you were to take all of the waste ever created from every nuclear power station in the USA since construction, it would only fill a football pitch to a height of three meters, and of that only 3% is hot plutonium (ie would still be hot in 1000 years).

America stores it's waste in seal containers above ground. France in tubes in the floor of it's stations. And of course, all of this can be reused with the next generation stations. Compare that to the particulates of fossil fuels that have killed people for decades. China are experiencing the same smog western cities did in the past. It's a no brainer to me.

[StraferJack]

I saw a documentary once where the manager of a nuclear plant in the US had a red alert signal, and so complacent was the culture, he didn't even realise he was responsible

Oh hang on, no wait. That was an episode of the Simpsons

[PokerTime]

I love that episode of the Simpsons!

But seriously, for the projected cost of HS2, we could build ten modern nuclear power plants, and third generation plants automatically shut down in the event of a problem or human error (so a Chernobyl couldn't happen). Given how much fuel we import and how much we pay for energy, I think ten nationalised power stations would be a much better spend of 42bn of tax payers money. The power stations only take around five years to build as well - but throw in all the alarmist anti-nuclear legal challenges and it could take 15 years.

[BrandNewGuy]

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We already do have a solution in nuclear power.

> France has the cheapest energy prices in Europe

> and generates 80% of it's energy from nuclear

> power. It sells energy to the rest of europe.

I'm not knee-jerk anti-nuclear, but these energy prices need to be taken with a pinch of salt. French state subsidies (mostly indirect) to their nuclear industry are significant and are not reflected in cost to consumers, although French consumers, of course, do pay these through their taxes. I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong, but nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuels is not a cheap option.

[PokerTime]

It's way cheaper than wind, solar and tidal production, and yet we are investing billions into those things. And nuclear is cost comparative to other energy except where there is direct access to cheap fossil fuels. The main difference is in the cost of building nuclear power plants compared to coal and gas plants, but it's still econimically a better option than wind turbines and other renewables over the long term.

If we can find 42bn for a rail link when the country is being held to ransom on the price of energy, then you have to ask if this government has it's priorities right? One of the biggest failings was to privatise energy companies. We are all paying for it now.

[BrandNewGuy]

Agreed re wind, solar and tidal. These are fine for local and specific needs (eg solar passive water heating, wind power for pumping etc), but to suggest they will feed the grid to replace the contribution from fossil fuels is delusional. One of my problems with nuclear is that it too (along with the hi-tech renewables options) relies heavily on fossil fuels. Think of the mining, shipping, construction etc that is dependent on oil. As those costs squeeze, so do those of nuclear. There is no cheap way out of the cheap fossil fuel era I fear.

[PokerTime]

There's no cheap way, but using exisiting fossil fuel energies to build plants that provide an alternative over their life time to fossil fuels has to be a good starting point. What we can't do, is stick with coal, gas and oil burning energy plants. Nuclear power is a workable alternative to those things.