Nutation in Cucumber Tendrils

Nutation or Circumnutaion is the term used to describe how plant stems bend and move, it allows tendrils of plants to locate and grab hold of supports. The first comprehensive study of this process was done by Charles Darwin in 1865 in his work "On the Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants". The term Circumnutation was coined by Darwin in this study.

Clearly the plant doesn't know where the support is, but by successively growing the stem at different rates on either side it is able to move in a spiral pattern. Eventually the tendril will touch something, at which point the spiralling motion - rather than causing the stem to flail around randomly - will cause it to wrap around the thing it touched.

Its a fascinating process, there is no plan, no concious thought or knowledge of the surrounding area, it just happens all by itself. The simple act of irregular growth of a stem provides a surprisingly reliable mechanism for the plant to feel its way around and support itself, allowing plants such as peas, cucumbers, and other climbing plants to grow heavy fruit which would otherwise collapse it.

I've been growing some plants on my windowsill and was able to observe and record this process in a cucumber plant. It happened surprising quickly - the footage represents about 4 hours growth sped up to about 5 minutes.

How to power the planet

Image: xedos4 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The dripping of a tap in your house can be more of an annoyance than a leaking water main in the street, even though the amount of water wasted from the tap is small compared to that of the water main. The importance of an issue to you depends on how you perceive it to impact your life. Small issues can seem more important than more serious ones purely by presenting themselves to us in our own houses, day in, day out.

This problem was illustrated recently in BBC 2's Wind Farm Wars. The program featured the dispute between residents living in Devon to a proposed nearby wind farm at Den Brook. Since its inception in 2004 the project has been subjected to constant objections and appeals by locals.

The Local Perspective

The resident's argument is centered around the potential noise caused by the turbines and the impact on the look of the valley. The wind farm is expected to generate power for between 10,000 and 13,000 homes or 49% to 65% of Devon's power needs. The amount of time and money wasted during the 7 year delay is vast, during this time the power for these houses has almost entirely come from coal, gas and nuclear sources. 

The National Perspective

Estimations of the amount of power that comes from renewable sources in the UK vary between 5.9% and 6.5% which is well below our target of 10% by 2010. Admittedly on-shore wind farms aren't as effective as off-shore sites, one way of measuring the efficiency of power generation is their "load factor", which is their actual output divided by their potential output. On-shore scores 21%, compared to off-shore at 29%, conventional power station are around 50%. Overall the cost per unit of electricity from wind farms is 3 - 4p per unit, which is comparable to the cost per unit for a modern coal power station at 2.5 - 4.5p, and is cheaper than nuclear at 4 - 7p. Renewable sources such as on-shore wind farms might not be the most efficient source of power, but they're definitely better than burning fossil fuels.

The Global Perspective

Carbon Dioxide emissions are a global issue, as a country we contribute 1.8% towards the total output. Out in front by a huge margin are China at 22.3% and the United States at 19.9%. These countries have huge populations so in order to get a more balanced picture we can look at the total carbon dioxide output per person. These are the top 20 CO2 producing countries ranked by tonnes per person. The Global Total is included as way of a benchmark.

Data Sources: CO2 output by Country | 2010/2011 Populations | 2008 Populations

In the UK 65% of our carbon emissions come from burning fossil fuels to create electricity. Using this we can work out how much CO2 is emitted per person due to burning fossil fuels to create electricity:

572,617,000 x 0.65 =  372,201,050 tonnes of CO2 per year as a country.
372,201,050 / 62,008,048 = 6 metric tonnes or 6,002 kg of CO2 per person per year.

The Den Brook wind farm could produce electricity for a minimum of 10,000 people, that means that the electricity wouldn't have to be generated by burning fossil fuels, which is a saving of 60 million kg of CO2.

Due to the 7 year delay this means that at least 420 million kg of CO2 has emitted unnecessarily.

1 gallon of petrol burnt in a car causes 10.4 kg of CO2 to be emitted. Each year that goes by without Den Brook being built is equivalent to 5.8 million gallons of petrol being burnt, the 7 year delay is equivalent to burning 40.4 million gallons of petrol.

This government report from 2008 states that petrol cars in East, Mid, North and West Devon used 108,300 tonnes of petrol per year which is equivalent to 28.7 million gallons of petrol. The proposed wind turbines would be like taking 20% of the cars off Devon's roads.

The residents of Den Brook are entitled to their views, however its clear to see what has a greater impact on the environment. I know I'd rather look out of my window and see a few turbines than 6 million gallons of petrol on fire.

What happens if the wind doesn't blow?
One of the major opposing views against wind farms is that we don't get consistent enough wind in the UK to make them viable and that the billions spent on them could be better spend. Wind speeds have been lower in recent years, however this doesn't necessarily mean this is part of a general trend. The Department of Energy and Climate Change publish statistics on wind speeds in the UK.

A study in 2007 by Garrad Hussan concluded:

"The indices appear to show no discernable pattern from one year to the next and therefore it is reasonable to assume annual mean wind speeds are randomly distributed." Long Term Wind Trends in Northwestern Europe - 2007 Garrad Hussan

One of the biggest criticisms of wind farms is that they are very costly to the tax payer, last year the subsidies paid by the UK government came to £1.1 billion, which works out to £18 per person.

In terms of cost per unit wind farms are one of the cheaper options for renewable power but alternatives still have to be used for times when the wind simply doesn't blow, new advances in solar and biomass electricity production may hold the answer.

Desertec are a company who are planning on building an array of solar thermal power stations around the world. The technology is still fairly new, as are the HVDC power lines required to transmit electricity over long distances, this means that the cost per unit is still relatively high, however the cost and efficiency will undoubtedly improve in the future. Many solar thermal power plants are already in use in Spain and other locations around the world with large numbers under construction. It is estimated that if only 1% of the Sahara Desert was used for solar thermal power stations it would generate enough power for the entire planet.

How to end world drought

Image: xedos4 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

"884 million people in the world do not have access to safe water. This is roughly one in eight of the world's population." - Water Aid (WHO/UNICEF)

Drought is a big problem, as populations and desertification continue to rise it is likely to become an even bigger problem. Charities like Water Aid and UNICEF are spending millions per year on local projects such as building wells, but is there a way of solving the problem on a much bigger scale?

A large number of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa effected by drought are on the coast, although the initial costs of desalinating sea water are relatively high, along with the costs of piping the water to where its needed, the long term cost benefits of large scale projects are significant.

A Potential Solution

Huge desalination plants such as those built in the Middle East, Australia and the United States could potentially provide the model for solving the issue. A desalination plant such as the one in San Diego produces 190 million litres of clean drinking water per day and cost $300 Million (£184.7 Million) to build.

"The average person in the developing world uses 10 litres of water every day for their drinking, washing and cooking." Source: - Water Aid (WSSCC)

"According to the World Health Organization (WHO), between 50 and 100 litres of water per person per day are needed to ensure that most basic needs are met and few health concerns arise." Source: UN - Water for Life

"Each person in the UK uses 150 litres of water a day. This takes into account cooking, cleaning, washing and flushing." Source: WaterWise

Using the current estimates on water consumtion, a desalination plant of the scale of the San Diego plant could supply water to 19 million people with an initial capital investment equivalent to £9.72 per person.

Using the WHO estimates for water consumption this could rise to £48.60 to £97.20 per person, although this estimate is far closer to water consumption levels in the wasteful developed world.

The Opposition

Desalination plants have been the subject of a large amount of opposition in the past. Issues include the energy required to desalinate sea water, the impact on the marine environment where the water is sucked up from and the impact of dumping the salt rich waste water back into the sea.

In 2003, Water International estimated that 44% of the cost of desalination was the energy component. The Kurnell plant in Australia takes all its power from a wind farm, and solar powered desalination plants in the Middle East are proving that the energy required doesn't need to have an environment cost.

The impact on the marine environment where the intake occurs can be mitigated by having a large number of intake pipes running at a speed slow enough for fish to escape and keeping pipes away from the sea bottom, breeding grounds and migratory routes of smaller marine life.

Some large scale desalination plants use a process called reverse osmosis to force the sea water at a high pressure through a membrane, filtering out the unwanted salts and impurities. The chemicals used in the cleaning of the equipment can be hazardous to marine life so its disposal needs to be carefully regulated.

Much of the opposition is focused on what to do with the salt rich waste water that is created a by-product of desalination. If this was simply put back into the sea it would disrupt the ecosystem around the outflow. An alternative is to evaporate off the water from the brine to create salt.

"The total salt requirement for Ethiopia is 350,000 tons per year. In spite of having its own sources, Ethiopia has been importing most of its needs. Production of salt by solar evaporation of inland brines is a relatively recent phenomenon in Ethiopia." Source: The Network for Sustained Elimination of Iodine Deficiency

The cost of charity

In 2010 Water Aid 2010 spent £45.6 million supplying water for 940,000 people and sanitation for 1.24 million people  However of the £45 Million expenditure only £28.4 Million went towards "supporting partners to deliver water, sanitation and hygiene", the rest was taken up by the cost of fundraising, staffing, influencing policy changes and other support costs. Source: Water Aid Annual Report 2010

Relative investment costs of water production 
A deep bore hole well with a submersible electric pump and diesel-powered generator costs $125,000 and will provide water for 6,000 people with a relative cost of $21 (£12.93) per person, Source: African Well Fund. A successful borehole can deliver up to 500 litres per hour or 12,000 per day.

Borehole: £77,000 to produce 12,000 litres per day = £6.40 investment per litre per day
Desalination plant: £184.7 million to produce 190 million litres per day = £0.97 investment per litre per day

Of course this figure does not include the huge cost of a pipeline network to deliver the water to where its needed. It seems like an unachievable goal however there was a project proposed by Rod Tennyson in 2007 to do this very thing, using two huge desalination plants and a 6000 mile network of pipes and pumping stations, the estimated cost would be in the region of $24 billion.

Considering that the Sub-Saharan African current spending on water supply and sanitation totals $7.6 billion per year, this mammoth project represents just over 3 years spending under the current strategy.

How to be an evil villain

© 1999 - New Line Cinema Productions, Inc.

Lets suppose you have decided to become an evil villain and build a giant laser, doomsday device or death-ray to threaten governments with or take out your enemies. Where should you build your evil lair and how much is it going to set you back? For that matter how much do giant lasers cost? Is there any way you could get away with it without incurring the wrath of the planets military forces?

Evil Moonbase or Space Station Lair

The Japanese have announced that they have plans to establish a moon base by 2020 with a price tag of $2.2 Billion. Although the International Space Station comes in at a pricey $160 Billion something like MIR will set you back a mere $4.2 Billion. 

If you're looking for a cheaper option you could always pick up a second hand space shuttle for £17.7 Million, Building a new one will cost about $1.7 billion. Add to that the cost of launching of $450 Million. Although it's not ideal for long term habitation it would probably do for a quick maniacal plot.

Unfortunately there are laws in space. Any would-be evil genius' planning to use their death rays from the moon or a space station could be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court even though your crimes weren't committed in any specific country, it is also likely that you would be subject to the laws of your country of nationality (most of whom don't look favourably on doomsday devices).

The "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies" includes the clause "states shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner". Even though the treaty only deals with "States" rather than individuals and doesn't specifically mention giant space lasers (Although the US government seemed to get away with it for their $100 Billion "Star Wars" project) you can be assured that you're going to piss off a few world leaders - but then who's going to want to mess with you once you've got your doomsday device working?

Start your own country

If you've set your heart on your own island paradise from which to enact your evil plans you have a few options:

• Find an unclaimed island: Unfortunately there aren't any left with the exception of Antarctica which has been declared an international territory and isn't up for grabs.
• Take one by force: Problematic since you're going to need an army to evict the old tenants. This would definitely put you on the UN's naughty list and since you haven't built your death-ray yet this wouldn't be advised.
• Create your own "island", something like an oilrig, sea fort or boat in international waters would work.

If you can pull this off you may still struggle to be recognised by other countries as an independent state, but if you manage it you could possibly claim diplomatic immunity to get away with some of your evil deeds. In most situations diplomats may not be detained or arrested, however they can be arrested in the interests of protecting human life.

Hollowed out volcano

Surely the "des-res" of any evil villain. Bizarrely there is a real absence of costings for doing this on the net with the exception of VillainSource, but they want $1 Trillion and that doesn't include the volcano! But they do have an "Add to Cart" option.

Lets assume the volcano you've found is extinct, if it isn't it may cause some building problems further down the line, although your heating costs will be severely reduced and it would open up the possibility of having lava traps or a potential power source for your big laser. The closest thing in terms of construction costs would be a nuclear bunker. Something like the Burlington Bunker at a bargain cost of £60 million would be great. However costs can go up into the billions for the Kelvedon Hatch Nuclear Bunker, with an estimated £1.6 Billion build cost and running costs around £3 million per year. It would make an ideal lair with plenty of room to build that giant laser you've been promising yourself, and while we're on the subject....

Doomsday Devices

• Nothing says "Evil Genius Weaponry" like a huge laser. The Department of Energy in the United States have got one that uses 192 separate beams combined to form a 1.8 Megajoule beam. When focused it generates temperatures of 15 million degrees centigrade. It's reported to have cost them £2 Billion, and is the size of 3 football pitches. For something more portable (like for your space station) The Free Electron Laser is a US Navy laser mounted on a warship and can burn through 2000 feet of steel per second. You could always have a big laser in your secret base on earth and bounce it off a mirrors stationed on satellites in orbit around the earth, allowing you to focus the beam on a target of your choosing. Satellites cost about $9 to $16 million each (based on a fleet of 12).
• For a more conventional weapon with a super-villainy twist why not consider a Rail Gun? Rail Guns use electromagnets to accelerate simple metal projectiles to incredible speeds. One of the biggest is the 32-megajoule Electro-Magnetic Laboratory Rail Gun from BAE Systems. It will let you launch projectiles at up to Mach 8, although you will need a power supply that can provide 3 million amps per shot. In theory rail guns could also be used to launch small craft or satellites into orbit.
• If you're feeling old-school you could always opt for a nuclear missile. The Minuteman III ICBM will set you back $7 Million each. If you're in a Blue-Peter-style DIY mood this website reckons you can make a simple nuclear bomb for between $5,000 and $30,000, although this would only create a pathetic 10 Kiloton blast (if you made it right) compared to the Minuteman's impressive 1.2 Megatons, you get what you pay for with doomsday devices these days.

Henchmen

What good is a villain without henchmen to protect them and scientists to make things work?

• Armed henchmen are a must, prices vary hugely but mercenaries can apparently earn between $100,000 and $300,000 per year.You'll probably need 100 to 200 of them since they seem to get taken out quite quickly based on the movies. They're also going to need some armor @ $1,585 and guns @ $24,000.They'll need some bullets too but considering how much you're spending on other things its hardly a significant cost (about $200 per 1000 rounds). Make sure you get plenty of ammo so your guards can waste most of it shooting just above attacking forces, at railings or chain link fences they are running past.
• You'll need some scientists to make everything work. Nuclear Engineer and Astrophysicist salaries start at about $50,000. You're going to need some top class brains working on your doomsday device so you can double that. A team of 100 "well motivated" scientists should get things up and running in a decent amount of time.

In summary...

Your Evil Villain shopping list so far is:

Space Shuttle to launch orbiting mirror = £17 Million (One careful owner) or £970 Million new

Launching the Shuttle = $450 Million or £273 Million
(Alternatively you could use a railgun to launch the mirrors into orbit)

12 x Satellites @ $16 Million each = $192 Million or £116 Million
Secret Base to scheme and plot from = £1.6 Billion

Running costs for Secret Base = £3 Million per year

Massive Laser = £2 Billion

200 x Armed Henchmen @ $300,000 per year = £36.4 Million per year

200 x Body Armor @ $1,585 each = $317,000 or £192,436

200 x H&K MP5  @ $24,000 each = $4.8 Million or £2.9 Million

100 x Scientists @ $100,000 per year = £6 Million per year

Totals:

Fixed costs approx £5 Billion

Running costs approx £100 Million per year (Allowing for sundries like paperclips, electricity, black leather chairs and long haired white cats)

It sounds a lot but scarily this is well within the range of any of the top 100 people in the 2011 Forbes Rich List

How to get more done

Image: Rawich / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

There aren't enough hours in the day, the "bonus" hour when the clocks go forward is great, wouldn't it be wonderful if there were other ways to get some extra time to do life's essentials like playing Portal 2, looking at funny pictures of cats on the web or making more to-do lists?

Special Relativity states that the faster you travel the slower time moves for you, relative to people who aren't moving, so how fast do you have to go to get an extra hour in a day?

The maths surrounding the time-dilation effects of Special Relativity are described by the following equation:

Luckily there is a website called Resources for Science Fiction Writers which will work it out for me:

If you travel at about 0.28 % of the speed of light you will get 25 hours out of a day compared to other people on earth. Unfortunately that works out to 37,524,307 Miles per hour. This presents us with a few problems namely:

• Earth's circumference is 24901 miles, you will be doing over 1500 orbits per hour, the task of crossing international borders, going through passport control or dealing with the various air traffic control authorities would take a good chunk out of our speed.
  
• The G-forces involved in accelerating to that speed in a reasonable amount of time would turn you into a fine paste stuck to the back of your chair. The record for G-Force tolerance is 25 G for 1.1 seconds, with a peak at 46 G. This acceleration left the test subject with permanent vision damage though. Something like 17 G might be more comfortable.
  
• The fastest machine made by man is the Helios probe launched to study the Sun during the 1970s. It achieved a top speed of 250,000 kilometers per hour. Assuming we can survive accelerating at 17 G ( 166.71 m/s²), V=U+AT gives us a value of T  of 89974960 seconds. At that acceleration you would be doing 250,000 kilometers per hour after 28 years.
  
• Getting a reliable Wi-Fi or mobile phone signal at this speed would be tricky at best. Although the signals themselves travel at the speed of light, there would be a Doppler effect caused by you traveling at almost a 3rd of the speed of the signals which would most likely mess up your downloads. Mobile phones can switch between cell towers at motorway speeds but at 37 million miles per hour they wouldn't stand a chance. So that rules out using this method for extra time spent looking at funny pictures of cats. This fact alone makes this method unsuitable for our needs.

How to sell shampoo

Image: Kittikun Atsawintarangkul / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Shampoo manufacturers love using clever sounding science, or statistics in their adverts Here's a couple of statements made by companies and why I think they're rubbish.

Head and Shoulders

"Up to 100% flake free hair"

"Up to 100%" is about as vague as you can get, this statement includes making no change at all. You could argue that if you have more dandruff after using their product then their statement is also true.

Garnier Nutrisse

"up to 100% grey coverage"

See Head and Shoulders

Pantene Pro-V

"Healthy looking hair"

Well that's good to know, as long as it looks healthy. Next time I need to see to a doctor I'll send him a photo so he can see if I look healthy. How can something which is made of dead cells be "healthy" anyway?

"Strengthen and Repair Hair"

The hair that protrudes from the skin is made of dead cells, it cannot technically be repaired. Hair has a scaly appearance at a microscopic level, the more damage your hair is subjected to the scalier it gets, making it rougher and less shiny. You can coat it with things to make it smoother like the additives in shampoos and conditioners, or the oils naturally secreted by your scalp. These are temporary effects though and will wash out, so its not really "repaired". If a plank of wood has chips or a crack in it applying a coat of varnish wouldn't be deemed to be a"repair", although it might make it look better. Indecently a Pantene advert was banned in 2005 for making unsubstantiated claims about how it could increase the strength of your hair.

Pro Vitamin B5

It sounds awfully scientific, its got the word vitamin in it, our bodies need vitamins to stay fit and healthy, so it must be good for my hair right? Wrong! Your hair is dead! It doesn't need vitamins, and anyway "Pro vitamin B5" isn't even a vitamin. Otherwise know as Panthenol its a coating which sticks to the outside of the hair fibres, making them shiny and protected from further damage.

Tre semmé

"This shampoo will quench your dehydrated hairs' thirst - thanks to its nourishing formula with vitamin E and restorative sunflower, hazelnut and almond extracts."

Any effect from vitamin E or plant extracts is most likely down to providing a shiny, protective coating for the hairs. Although there are some claims that taking vitamin E as a dietary supplement can improve your hair, however a recent study by the European Food Safety Authority showed: "On the basis of the data presented, the Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the dietary intake of vitamin E and maintenance of normal hair."

In summary...

• "Up to 100%" doesn't mean anything
• Hair cannot be repaired - only covered in something
• Rubbing vitamins or mashed up plant on your hair doesn't make it any healthier, it's dead - which is kind of the opposite of "healthy".

If only someone could come up with a shampoo that stops you getting "hat hair", you never know how messy your hair will be until you take your hat off, but by taking your hat off you will force it into a state of either messy or non-messy - A phenomenon known as "Schrödinger's Hat".

How to eat a bomb

Credit: New Line Cinema

Is it possible to swallow a bomb and survive?

Don Gorsky has been featured on the internet this week, he is "famous" for having eaten his 25,000th Big Mac.

A Big Mac contains 490 Calories

1 food calorie = 1000 thermochemical calories

1 thermochemical calorie = 4.184 Joules

490,000 x 25,000 x 4.184 = 51,254,000,000 Joules or 5.1254 x 10¹⁰ Joules

This is equivalent to the energy released by a GBU-43/B MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast) bomb, the second most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed.

So, yes, you can eat a bomb, as long as you do it slowly.

How to live forever

... statistically

Image: graur razvan ionut / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Large amounts of data are useful, the more data you collect about things the more useful that data becomes and the more predictions you can make. Well, yes and no, its what you do with that data that counts, you can get the numbers to show you pretty much whatever you want if you cherry pick, ignore external factors or mangle it in the right way.

Here's an example, In recent years the number of people who die each year in the UK is falling, therefore there must reach a point where people will live forever. I'm going to ignore all other factors than just looking at the raw data to prove this.

Here's a graph showing the number of people who die each year in the UK:

The red line is a trend line based on the supplied data, its sloping downwards, we can extrapolate from this line to find out where it reaches 0 i.e. nobody dies in that year:

The trend line crosses the 0 mark in the year 2056. Therefore if you live another 45 years you will live forever.

Data Source - Office for National Statistics

How to fix a road

Image: nuttakit / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

 Pothole repairs 'could cost £13bn' says Labour

According to this article on the BBC News website the roads of Britain are in a right state, I'm not doubting that, but the figure of £13 Billion sounds like an awful lot of money.

I'm sure the local authorities have done their research and got their quotes, but that is a hell of a lot of tarmac, How much road needs repairing? how much does it cost to fill in a pothole? We're going to ignore the motorways for this because they aren't managed by local authorities. Here are the numbers:

DFT statistics on UK Roads

The total road length in Great Britain in 2010:
	Miles	kilometers	meters
Dual Carriageways	4,938	7946.94	7946940
Single Carriageways	24,123	38822.21	38822205
B roads	18,729	30141.4	30141403
C Roads	52,700	84812.43	84812428
Unclassified	142,384	229144.8	229144836
Total	242,874	390,868	390,867,812

How many potholes are there? In the UK, there’s an average of one road defect for every 110 metres of road.

This news article says there is one pothole every 120 yards on England's roads which is 109.7 meters, so that's pretty much the same.

How much does resurfacing cost? According to this government report The total cost of road renewals activity per square metre of resurfacing is £89

Lets assume its not just the area of the pothole itself that needs resurfacing, we'll do a proper job and allow for the whole section of road, in both lanes.

How wide are the roads? The European carriageway width for a two-way road is 7 meters, lets assume dual carriageways are twice that width and that all the single carriageway roads are 7 meters (which they aren't)

	meters of road requiring repair	surface area	cost to repair
Dual Carriageways	72244.91	1011428.78	£90,017,156
Single Carriageways	352929.14	2470503.96	£219,874,852
B roads	274012.75	1918089.28	£170,709,946
C Roads	771022.07	5397154.51	£480,364,751
Unclassified	2083134.87	14581944.11	£1,297,793,026
Total	3,553,344	25,379,121	£2,258,741,731

Hang on a minute... £2.3 Billion? That's quite a bit less than £13 billion, and my figure assumes all minor roads are the standard 7m width and we're going to resurface the entire section of road where there's a pothole!

If they only repair the area of the pothole (lets assume each pothole is 1 square meter) that figure comes down to £322,677,390!

There's a bit of a gap between the figures, my total is almost 6 times smaller which means either:

It actually costs £489 per square meter of road

There is one pothole every 20 meters of non-motorway road in the UK, or

The people they are contracting are doing such a rubbish job they have to fill in each pothole at least 5 times.

I must have got something wrong, lets try this again in case I've got my maths completely wrong on the cost to resurface the road:

There are 390,867,812 meters of non-motorway roads in the UK

There is one pothole per 110 meters of road so there's about 3.5 million potholes.

This calculation means local councils are telling us that each pothole is going to cost £3,771 to fix!

Unless I'm missing something huge (please correct me if I have!) something is very wrong in local government.

How to spend billion of pounds

Image: renjith krishnan / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

You can't watch TV or open a newspaper without reading about celebrities buying lavish houses, yachts and private jets. Or how the government are planning to cut millions here and spend billions elsewhere. How can they justify cutting funding for scientific research, health and education while allowing large corporations to avoid paying taxes? How can they justify spending billions on bank bailouts or defense. Could that money go to making the world a better place?

Professor Brian Cox, chair in particle physics at the University of Manchester and popular science broadcaster, questioned the government’s financial priorities by arguing that the bailout of the banking system had cost “more money than the UK has spent on science since Jesus”.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=413590

"The government should be cutting subsidies to banks, not the NHS and other essential public services. The £100bn claimed in benefits by banks could pay for the entire NHS budget," said UK Uncut supporter Sophie Healey.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/10/uk-uncut-targets-banks

But what do millions of pounds buy you? How about 10s, hundreds of millions or even billions?

When figures get big they can be tricky to quantify and compare so I decided to look at a few examples:

Up to £1 Million

Bugatti Veyron = £810,000

£3 Million +
Sunseeker Predator 92 = £3.3 Million

Learjet 45 = £7.5 Million

£100 Million +
A 3 Floor Apartment Suite at 1 Hyde Park, London = £136 Million

Boeing 777 = $232 Million or £143 Million

Roman Abramovich's Super Yacht "Eclipse" = £300 Million

£500 Million +

The total cost of the worldwide program to eradicate smallpox in the 70s is estimated at $298 Million which equates to $950 Million or £590 Million adjusted to 2010 value

A B-2 Stealth Bomber = $1 Billion or £620 Million

The total cost of the Voyager Space Program from 1972 through to 2001 (including launch vehicles and support costs) was $865 Million which is approx $1 billion by 2010 value or £620 Million

£1 Billion +
British Government spending on consultants in 2010 = £1.8 Billion

The amount of money we waste in Pay and Display machines in car parks the UK due to them not giving change = £2.4 Billion

The Human Genome Project cost $2.7 Billion in 1991, which equates to roughly $4.3 Billion in 2010 or £2.6 Billion

Estimation of the cost of Benefit Fraud on UK economy = £3.5 Billion

Tesco's Annual Profits 2010 = £3.8 Billion

£5 Billion +

Estimated value of video games company Zynga, developer of Farmville - one of the most popular games on Facebook is estimated to be between $7 and $10 Billion = £4.3 to £6.1 Billion

The CERN research facility including the Large Hadron Collider $9 billion or £5.5 billion

The US investment in the Hubble Space Telescope Program is estimated to have been $6 Billion in 1999 dollars which equates to approximately $9 Billion by today's value or about £5.5 Billion

The total for the 2012 Olympic Games and the regeneration of the East London area is £9.3 billion

BP Gulf Cleanup Fund = $20 Billion or £13.5 Billion

£20 Billion +

Value of Facebook (2011) = $50 Billion or £30.7 Billion

The UK Ministry of Defense budget for 2010/2011 = £36.9 Billion

£40 Billion +

Interest on the UK National Debt (2011) = £43 Billion

(total UK national debt is about £920 billion).

£80 Billion +

UK Education budget for 2011 = £83.6 Billion

Total cost to build the International Space Station $160 Billion or £99 Billion

£100 Billion +
UK NHS budget for 2011 = £102 Billion 

The total cost of The Apollo Space Program $170bn (in 2005 dollars) which equates to approx $193 Billion in 2010 dollars or £120 Billion

2011 UN Estimate of the yearly cost to end world hunger, poverty and disease = $195bn or £121 Billion 

Estimate of the cost of tax evasion, tax avoidance and unpaid debts per year (2010) = £123 Billion

Estimated cost of a manned mission to Mars is speculated to be $200 to $300 Billion or £124 to £186 Billion

Value of Apple Corporation = $302 Billion or £187 Billion

Estimated cost to repair the damage caused by the Japanese earthquake = $300 billion  or £186 Billion

In summary...

The UK bank bailout was reported to have cost £850 Billion which is equivalent to:

The Voyager Space Program, The eradication of Smallpox, The mapping of the Human Genome, CERN, The Hubble Space Telescope, The 2012 Olympics, The budget for Education and NHS for a year, The International Space Station, The Apollo Program, Feeding all the starving people on the planet for a year and a manned mission to Mars.