Bazz, how many people for what reason would want and need to travel so quickly between Melbourne and Sydney to make a VFT viable?

Best to go to theme parks for the thrill.

I think aircraft fuel will become a lot cheaper and available once science gets recognition and adequate resources to recycle sewage nutrient-fed algae into affordable biofuel.

JF Aus, I think you misunderstood my last post.
There is no justification for a Very Fast Train.
The VFTs are basically a line of sight construction which means the
cost between Newcastle and Wagga would be enormous.

As the airlines become uneconomical and further contract there will be
a need for a fast enough service along the east coast from Brisbane,
Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne & Adelaide.

The existing track was built using horses and scoops, but while the
fuel is readily available and not too costly the track should be
straightened and relaid for the existing trains to be run at their maximum speed. (XPT @ 125 MPH).
In any case the mainlines should be electrified and then
somewhat higher speeds might be possible, say 150 Mph.

Think what can be done with the money saved by not building Badgeries
Creek or transferring Mascot operations to Badgeries Creek and selling
Kingsford Smith Airport for housing or new zero growth age industry.
By the time all that is done the airlines will no longer be operating
in a manner that we now would recognise.
The fuels you mention are likely to be either unsustainable or
uneconomic. The problem that usually surfaces with fuels of these
types is to scale them up to the required volumes.

Geoff Dixon, past CEO of QANTAS recognises that airlines are on
borrowed times. I suspect that many more understand that but dare not
recognise the elephant in the corner.

More like Canute than Zorg, I think, Shockadelic.

>>Pericles, you sound like Zorg (The Fifth Element) breaking a glass so the makers of cleaning robots can feed their children. Bad = Good.<<

I was only trying to illustrate the underlying fallacy that disasters/disease etc. add to GDP, and instead put it into a more understandable context for Ludwig.

I actually support the "Zorg got it wrong" faction...

"Zorg breaks a glass and a bunch of little robot helpers immediately come in to clean it up, as Zorg explains that "all life comes from destruction" ... but that makes no sense in this context, because there'll be nothing to clean up after the universe explodes and no one to do the cleaning.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19498_the-5-most-needlessly-evil-movie-villain-strategies_p2.html

Although I would have suggested that if all he did all day was break glasses, there's be no time left to destroy the world anyway.

In exactly the same way, while disease and bushfires have economic consequences through the employment of nurses and firefighters, it is the economic activity we measure, not the disaster itself. The argument "if they didn't have to tend the sick/put out fires, they would be doing more for the economy" only holds true if you a) eliminate disease and b) eliminate bushfires.

Both eminently desirable of course. But not going to happen in this lifetime.

"a) eliminate disease and b) eliminate bushfires."

Of course, the only way you could get bad stuff out of the economy is for there to be no bad stuff.
Impossible.

Zorg wasn't really "wrong". He just didn't actually know the reason Mr Shadow wanted the stones, it was just a "deal" to him.
I'm sure if he knew, he'd be smart enough to know that would put him out of business.

Bazz, generally we are on the same track then.

I think algae has sustainable potential is food supply to feed the world human population can be sustained.
From my point of view there is so much nutrient overload/pollution proliferating algae that algae is choking ecosystems of the ocean, including causing ocean dead zones.

Biofuel using algae and fuel from new gas wells will all go toward sustaining world fuel supply.
Then there are the reports of oil newly formed in well that have been pumped reasonably dry.

The aqueduct I refer to could even be harnessed to grow algae for biofuel.

I think what is needed is more "walk the talk" about sensible sustainable growth from productive projects capable of providing local supply and exports.

Productive talk is needed.

GDP is made up of the good and bad elements of growth.

Pericles, I’m not quite sure, but I think you agree with this ??

There is no such thing as "good" and "bad" GDP. There is just GDP.

Ok, we can definitely agree on that.

<< If you deny the contribution made by the doctors and nurses who look after sick people, then you need to separate the amount they spend at the corner store from the money spent by the miners etc. >>

Sure. But you’ve got to admit that if illnesses increase, there would be more economic activity resulting from more doctors and nurses… and there would be a fundamental problem with that appearing as a positive contribution to GDP... if GDP is to be a meaningful indicator of economic prosperity and wellbeing.

Similarly with floods, droughts, earthquakes, road accidents, etc, etc.

The same principle applies to continuous population growth, which keeps the amount of economic activity constantly increasing, but which needs a vast amount of economic activity just to maintain the same standard of living for evermore people. Not to mention all the other negatives that accompany high population growth (think: degradation and stress on the environmental, resource base, infrastructure and services).

Economic activity generated by high pop growth contributes enormously to GDP. But it is almost entirely a FALSE contribution towards economic wellbeing. Indeed, this factor is vastly bigger than the false economic positives generated by illness and disasters.

continued