High-Speed Trains ...in Ireland

Húrin

Is anyone else sick of hearing people yapping on about how we need to develop more high-speed trains as a response to climate change? Even more ridiculous is the claim that we need them in Ireland.

George Monbiot points out that the carbon dioxide emissions of high-speed trains are comparable to those of aircraft. I think that the high cost of lines like these also make them unjustified, especially in small countries like Ireland. There's plenty that can be done to improve our rail infrastructure but that will not help.

I also object to this notion that much more transport infrastructure will help solve our problems. The reality of carbon emissions targets necessitates less and slower travel.

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

Is anyone else sick of hearing people yapping on about how we need to develop more high-speed trains as a response to climate change? Even more ridiculous is the claim that we need them in Ireland.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/02/28/we-are-all-killers/ points out that the carbon dioxide emissions of high-speed trains are comparable to those of aircraft. I think that the high cost of lines like these also make them unjustified, especially in small countries like Ireland. There's plenty that can be done to improve our rail infrastructure but that will not help.

I also object to this notion that much more transport infrastructure will help solve our problems. The reality of carbon emissions targets necessitates less and slower travel.

better and more regular trains means more people will use them.

Thus less people will use cars.

Less cars = less pollution.

hardly rocket science

BendiBus

French HST uses nuclear powered electricity so produces far less CO2 than aviation.

3 problems solved in one go - energy security, transport & CO2. Go nuclear electric

rarnes1 wrote: »

better and more regular trains means more people will use them.

Thus less people will use cars.

Less cars = less pollution.

hardly rocket science

But if your "Green" agenda is about returning to the stone age, like Monibot & the OP then you don't want people going anywhere. And you don't want rocket science either!

New fuel consumption figures for both fast passenger ships and ultra high-speed trains suggest that their carbon emissions are comparable to those of planes(22).

22. I have draft figures from Roger Kemp at the University of Lancaster and George Marshall of the Climate Outreach Information Network, which I will publish in Heat: how to stop the planet burning, in September.

ah ffs his references for the entire basis for his article are not accessible to the public without paying monies..........:rolleyes:

Húrin

BendiBus wrote: »

French HST uses nuclear powered electricity so produces far less CO2 than aviation.

3 problems solved in one go - energy security, transport & CO2. Go nuclear electric

The existence of the TGV does not "sort" France's transport issues. The high level of car use in France takes a lot of pressure off the SNCF, and indicates a dependence on fossil fuels for energy that is not exceptional in the western world.

If all the energy needs of France depended on nuclear (if coal and oil were unavailable or prohibited), then I doubt there would be much room for the TGV.

France is unusual in the scale of its dependence on nuclear power. I don't think that a roll-out on that scale is realistic for every other western country. So inevitably high-speed trains here, in Britain and in Spain where they exist already, are fossil fuel dependent. And that's before you even get into the fanatical opposition to nuclear that is common in Ireland.

But if your "Green" agenda is about returning to the stone age, like Monibot & the OP then you don't want people going anywhere. And you don't want rocket science either!

Care to explain how either me or Monbiot wants to return to the stone age?

I think that those who believe that the future will be like today, with everything running on nuclear and renewables (nuclear is non-renewable btw), generally have not done the sums or thought about it much.

My agenda is not a green agenda, it's an agenda for economic survival.

Deleted User wrote: »

ah ffs his references for the entire basis for his article are not accessible to the public without paying monies..........:rolleyes:

Doesn't that exclude anyone from ever using books and newspapers as references because you have to pay for them?

Húrin

rarnes1 wrote: »

better and more regular trains means more people will use them.

Thus less people will use cars.

Less cars = less pollution.

hardly rocket science

I favour trains, and I thought that was obvious. I think that railway funds should be used to improve existing lines, re-open closed lines (like the one to Navan), and other modest improvements. What we do not need is big budget megaprojects that exist just to impress people.

Carrots in the form of better public transport is not enough given how seriously over budget this country is, in terms of its carbon emissions and the seriousness of climate change. The government has to start giving people and/or business some sort of carbon ration.

The fact that people live dozens of miles from the place where they work is a problem that must be solved. Solve that, and you don't have to worry about most of this transport infrastructure. Any system like that which we have, where huge numbers of people are transported long distances every day, is unsustainable. Market forces will do some of this work but government needs to push it too.

Húrin

rarnes1 wrote: »

better and more regular trains means more people will use them.

Thus less people will use cars.

Less cars = less pollution.

hardly rocket science

I am not against trains. I am against thoughtlessly advocated high speed trains.

monument

OP do you truly think that trains at the current speeds can compete with the motorways around the country, most of which will be completed soon?

Húrin wrote: »

I also object to this notion that much more transport infrastructure will help solve our problems. The reality of carbon emissions targets necessitates less and slower travel.

Ok, by this logic would you say that Dart lines which cross the city in an X, and more Luas/Metro lines which will massivly expand Dublin's rail-based public transport (all with power centrally generated) is worse than cars and buses?

Húrin wrote: »

The reality of carbon emissions targets necessitates less and slower travel.

Less travel and slower that it it currently takes to get from one side/end of the country to another, do you understand what you're saying and think it is any way practical?

H&#250 wrote: »

What we do not need is big budget megaprojects that exist just to impress people.

Example one: Most of Western Europe, "big budget" urban and intercity public transport in place. Moves towards using rail (and tram lines) for cargo more.

Example two: The US and Ireland, cars are far, far more dominate. Trucks moves most cargo, and in Ireland the rail section of Irish Rail has been all but crushed.

To catch up with Europe it will mean "big budget" projects, your extent of slow down and less travel is dreamland stuff. I would say happy dreaming, but it looks like you're talking about dragging the country back to the stone age and that kind of talk (even if you don't mean it) is going to hinder and slow progress, not help it.

bonkey

monument wrote: »

OP do you truly think that trains at the current speeds can compete with the motorways around the country, most of which will be completed soon?

I would say that Switzerland shows that trains can be competetive, without being high-speed.

High-speed trains are only logical when the alternative is air travel...and even then they'll be too slow over very long distances. For somewhere like France (TGV) or German (ICE), with branches off into neighbouring countries, then high-speed rail makes a lot of sense for the longer journeys...where there's very few stops along the way.

Ireland would be better served by a reliable, frequent rail service operating at "regular" speeds. Whether or not it makes sense to invest in such, however, is questionable.

Ok, by this logic would you say that Dart lines which cross the city in an X, and more Luas/Metro lines which will massivly expand Dublin's rail-based public transport (all with power centrally generated) is worse than cars and buses?

I would say that Hurin is pointing out that neither are a route to solving to the problem, rather than commenting on the merits of one vs. the other.

Less travel and slower that it it currently takes to get from one side/end of the country to another, do you understand what you're saying and think it is any way practical?

If you travel less, then you can afford to invest more time on those occasions when you do travel.

To catch up with Europe it will mean "big budget" projects, your extent of slow down and less travel is dreamland stuff.

Sure its dreamland stuff...if your aim is to catch up with Europe. Of course, Europe is facing increasing problems as its infrastructure is increasingly being stretched closer and closer to its limits by increases in traffic.

I suspect that its only a matter of time before the Europe you want to catch up with is aggressively pursuing the "dream" that you scorn of encouraging people to travel less.

it looks like you're talking about dragging the country back to the stone age and that kind of talk (even if you don't mean it) is going to hinder and slow progress, not help it.

Replacing the need to travel with the best that modern technology (particularly IT, telecommunication and urban planning) can offer is hardly "back to the stone age". Rather, it is a refusal to cling to a 20th-century mindset that is increasingly creaking at the hinges.

Carawaystick

This statement doesn't make a lot of sense
"New fuel consumption figures for both fast passenger ships and ultra high-speed trains suggest that their carbon emissions are comparable to those of planes(22). What all this means is that if we want to stop the planet from cooking, we will simply have to stop travelling at the kind of speeds that planes permit"

Trains and ships don't travel at the speeds planes permit


He follows with the following sentence
"This is now broadly understood by almost everyone I meet."

Yet as has been pointed out here, the TGV uses mostly Nuclear, some Hydro and only 9.5% of it's power is from fossil fuels


and the first statement is completely unsubstantiated by any public reference - as I doubt it would stand up to much scrutiny

Húrin

monument wrote: »

I would say happy dreaming, but it looks like you're talking about dragging the country back to the stone age and that kind of talk (even if you don't mean it) is going to hinder and slow progress, not help it.

Effective immediately, I will refuse to answer any arguments so weak that they rely on hyperbolic claims that I want to drag us back to the stone age or middle ages. If you want to talk, rephrase this kind of silliness.

Húrin

Carawaystick wrote: »

This statement doesn't make a lot of sense
"New fuel consumption figures for both fast passenger ships and ultra high-speed trains suggest that their carbon emissions are comparable to those of planes(22). What all this means is that if we want to stop the planet from cooking, we will simply have to stop travelling at the kind of speeds that planes permit"

Trains and ships don't travel at the speeds planes permit

I expect he was referring back to the general argument of the editorial.

Yet as has been pointed out here, the TGV uses mostly Nuclear, some Hydro and only 9.5% of it's power is from fossil fuels

It's a good point and France has been proven right to have invested in nuclear energy to such a great extent. I don't think that it can be assumed that this course of action is available to every country. More often, high-speed trains are diesel powered.

and the first statement is completely unsubstantiated by any public reference - as I doubt it would stand up to much scrutiny

The article was written two years ago, and the references are now available, even if they weren't before. (and I think they were - Monbiot does not possess any magic keys to the inner halls of knowledge)

djpbarry

Húrin wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

ah ffs his references for the entire basis for his article are not accessible to the public without paying monies..........:rolleyes:

Doesn't that exclude anyone from ever using books and newspapers as references because you have to pay for them?

Unpublished data is generally not the most reliable on which to base conclusions. If the figures have since been published, then let's see them. If not, then there's probably good reason for it.

Húrin wrote: »

I am not against trains. I am against thoughtlessly advocated high speed trains.

Fair enough. Personally, I don't really see the need for TGV-style trains in Ireland; I don't think the country is big enough to make it economically feasible. Focus on making journey times competitive with driving (as has been done on the Dublin-Cork route) makes more sense at this point.

silverharp

djpbarry wrote:

Focus on making journey times competitive with driving (as has been done on the Dublin-Cork route) makes more sense at this point.

frequency is a problem as well , ideally every line should have a train every 15/30 minutes, but scale the trains down to single carriage if necessary

djpbarry

silverharp wrote: »

frequency is a problem as well , ideally every line should have a train every 15/30 minutes, but scale the trains down to single carriage if necessary

Maybe, but that's going to create a whole load of extra traffic on already-congested lines.

Pgibson

The country is too small for high speed trains.

Just as the train reaches highest speed out of Dublin the brakes would need to be applied to slow it down coming towards the destination..be it Cork, Limerick, Galway, Sligo or Belfast.

Fast,on time regular service at 80-100 MPH is what we really need.

(Preferably powered by clean electricity from a Nuclear Power Station.)

.

bonkey

silverharp wrote: »

frequency is a problem as well , ideally every line should have a train every 15/30 minutes, but scale the trains down to single carriage if necessary

Don't think it would be logistically feasible, tbh....not without building a whole truckload of new track.

You might manage one train an hour, every hour, doing the major stops only, with a second train in between that, that does as many stops as possible, whilst still fitting in the window it has (i.e. leaves 20 minutes after the "fast" train, arrives in front of the next "fast" train.

probe

A person travelling from Paris to Nice on a TGV generates about 5 kg of CO2. The same journey on a B-738 generates about 100 kg (taking into account radiative forcing). Air France claim that their aircraft emissions are only 79 kg on the same journey (presumably not taking into account radiative forcing). The typical car alternative = 187 kg.

If you can travel by high speed clean electric rail – don’t fly.

If I’m travelling between Cork and Dublin I might use the train. It would take about 1 hr in a TGV to travel this distance – but this would require a precisely engineered railway line (“permanent way” in Victorian era British rail speak still used by IR). The existing line is probably unsafe over 120 km/h, despite the fact that trains normally travel at 20 to 30 km/h faster than this along this route.

If I am meeting someone or connecting at Dublin Airport I will invariably fly because of the disintegrated rail service. It takes the best part of an hour to get from Heuston Station to DUB-AP. It would take 10 mins if the train terminated at the airport. Virtually all regional and inter-city trains to/from Dublin should start or end their journey in Dublin airport – as is the case in many continental city equivalents. Installing an expensive metro that will only serve the central Dublin to Swords area traffic is a gross waste of public money.

An airport-centric rail strategy allows city centre stations to handle far more trains with no increase in infrastructure because the trains would only have to spend 3 or 4 mins at Heuston or Connolly stations en-route – rather than parking there for half an hour or more. It also works better for commuters because they end up with a more frequent service, bigger trains, and more connection and en route shopping options.

Anyway the key issues are end to end journey time, convenience and sustainability. The bottom line is the source of the energy used. It is not unlike the arguments about CFL light bulbs. Clean up the source of the energy (eg wind rather than coal) and you can use any lamp technology you like. I have 100% clean electricity (not nuclear) and I leave the aircon (a heat pump system) on 24h/24 and it doesn’t bother me one iota. I like my halogen lighting too. I have 500 W security halogen lamps in a garden/driveway which switch on automatically based on movement detection. Typically they are lighting for 3 minutes per night. If I had to replace them with CFL lamps, they wouldn’t work with the movement detection switches and I would need a few dozen of them to light up the area, and they would need to be switched on all night long.

We need an integrated, non-dysfunctional approach to sustainable living, rather than doctrinaire CO2 propaganda. CO2 emission is only a small part of the energy equation. Unfortunately CO2 seems to have taken over the media and political agenda in some countries, at the expense of taking a holistic sustainable view of energy needs.

.probe

http://www.voyages-sncf.com/dynamic/_SvMmComparator

monument

bonkey wrote: »

I would say that Switzerland shows that trains can be competetive, without being high-speed.

I was thinking there is at least some high speed lines in Switzerland... and a map on Wikipedia shows the line (even if it is a small section) from Bern to Basel / Zurich being up to 200km/h (125mph), and the same speed from Basel to Strasbourg.

bonkey wrote: »

High-speed trains are only logical when the alternative is air travel...

High speed rail at up to 350km/h maybe only logical when the only the alternative is air travel, but the entry level HSR of around 200km/h (or 125mph) isn't really an alternative to air.

bonkey wrote: »

Sure its dreamland stuff...if your aim is to catch up with Europe.

Is not having such aims, or at least direction, not more preferable to our current more US aligned intercity transport?

bonkey wrote: »

Of course, Europe is facing increasing problems as its infrastructure is increasingly being stretched closer and closer to its limits by increases in traffic.

Apparently that was the key rationale behind high speed rail in the first place.

Húrin wrote: »

Effective immediately, I will refuse to answer any arguments so weak that they rely on hyperbolic claims that I want to drag us back to the stone age or middle ages. If you want to talk, rephrase this kind of silliness.

Oh, right. Sure. You want people to travel slower that it it currently takes to get from one side/end of the country to another, do you understand what you're saying and think it is any way practical or realistic?

And now, could you please explain your "hyperbolic" statement of "What we do not need is big budget megaprojects that exist just to impress people" and its relationship to high-speed rail? (BTW if you try to cut down on the hyperbolic your self, you might get less in return)

Pgibson wrote: »

Just as the train reaches highest speed out of Dublin the brakes would need to be applied to slow it down coming towards the destination..be it Cork, Limerick, Galway, Sligo or Belfast.

Are we talking about high speed rail or a worm hole? ... or have Cork etc moved to just outside Dublin? And I don't think many would suggest HSR to Sligo and Galway.

Húrin wrote: »

More often, high-speed trains are diesel powered.

Could you back that up please?

silverharp

bonkey wrote: »

Don't think it would be logistically feasible, tbh....not without building a whole truckload of new track.

You might manage one train an hour, every hour, doing the major stops only, with a second train in between that, that does as many stops as possible, whilst still fitting in the window it has (i.e. leaves 20 minutes after the "fast" train, arrives in front of the next "fast" train.

agreed it is not possible except to make marginal improvments in service.

A thought occured to me and it is that in saying that Ireland has a rail system is a bit like saying Ireland is a catholic country, in the sense that niether is relevant to most of the people most of the time. What is the cost/benefit of rail in its current form in Ireland, given the low density and small radius of the network would commuters be happier with an effecient bus system based on an existing or additional roll out of a motorway system?
when you look at routes like dublin to mayo , the rail network is worse then useless, and diverts resourses away from other forms of transport

Pgibson

monument wrote: »

Are we talking about high speed rail or a worm hole? .

This new Swedish job would make short work of the 160 mile Dublin-Cork route.

http://cleantechnica.com/2008/08/12/sweden-rolling-out-183-mph-high-speed-green-train/

Its ok for Sweden (Malmo-to-Kiruna is the longest national train run in Europe outside of Russia).

Hurtling at 183MPH out of Dublin the brakes would have to go on pretty soon!



.

bonkey

monument wrote: »

I was thinking there is at least some high speed lines in Switzerland... and a map on Wikipedia shows the line (even if it is a small section) from Bern to Basel / Zurich being up to 200km/h (125mph), and the same speed from Basel to Strasbourg.
...
High speed rail at up to 350km/h maybe only logical when the only the alternative is air travel, but the entry level HSR of around 200km/h (or 125mph) isn't really an alternative to air.

OK - I guess it depends on how you define High Speed Rail. I wouldn't consider short stretches of 200km/h to be High Speed, any more than I'd consider the German Autobahn to be "High Speed Motorway", despite having had my Mondeo up at comparable speeds on stretches there either.

The newer tunnels in Swissville should be running trains up to 240 km/h. I'd consider that the low-end of high-speed, but I accept that other people use different standards.

Is not having such aims, or at least direction, not more preferable to our current more US aligned intercity transport?

In fairness, Ireland isn't aligned with anywhere. Ireland has a road system which is being rapidly developed to be comparable to what developed Western nations had perhaps 30-40 years ago....except it's already carrying traffic comparable to what those systems are also carrying today.

Europe is discovering that their decades-old solution doesn't scale beyond todays capacity....but Ireland doesn't seem to care. We have the traffic, and despite being able to see that better roads aren't the solution, we want the roads anyway. With luck, by about 2030, we'll be where Europe is today, and start looking for the alternative. By then, our kids will be complaining out how stupidly short-sighted our generation was...a bit like today's generation makes the same complaint about why we didn't build motorways in the 70s.

Apparently that was the key rationale behind high speed rail in the first place.

My sister (who also lives in Switzerland) lives close to a rail-line. There is, approximately, one train every six minutes travelling that line, for close to 20 hours of the day. You can work the math whatever way you like, but high-speed rail can't match that capacity.

Don't get me wrong - High-speed rail is useful for certain amounts of volume between well-spaced major hubs, but it is not the solution to volume. There is no solution to volume...except to reduce the volume. Hence the idea that we need to adapt to travelling less.

Oh, right. Sure. You want people to travel slower that it it currently takes to get from one side/end of the country to another, do you understand what you're saying and think it is any way practical or realistic?

In Italy, due to rising fuel costs, increasing number of people drive at 100 rather than 120 on the motorways, because over any sort of distance, it makes a significant cost difference. It irks a lot of Swiss who go down that way, because petrol is cheaper here, and because people generally are paid better, so we don't feel the pinch...yet. However, it does show that there is a price-barrier, and once its crossed, people start asking themselves whether X euro is worth Y minutes less travelling time.

Ultimately, its no different to the same logic as to why the whole world isn't driving the best possible cars they possibly can. We all have budgets, and only so much money we will spend on transport. Once costs rise enough that reducing speed pays a worthwhile dividend, people will not only do it, they'll think that those who don't are nuts.

I side with Hurin. It is not only realistic, it is inevitable that once costs rise enough, people will absolutely reduce speed. They'll travel less often. They'll completely change their habits based on what they can afford. It is merely a question of where that limit is.

Húrin

probe wrote: »

An airport-centric rail strategy allows city centre stations to handle far more trains with no increase in infrastructure because the trains would only have to spend 3 or 4 mins at Heuston or Connolly stations en-route – rather than parking there for half an hour or more. It also works better for commuters because they end up with a more frequent service, bigger trains, and more connection and en route shopping options.

I think that airport traffic will decrease sharply over the next ten years, thus I think that any new infrastructure serving it is a waste of money.

Pgibson

Húrin wrote: »

I think that airport traffic will decrease sharply over the next ten years.

And I think I will win the Lotto next week.

The real problem with Irish railways is bad management.

The filthiest building I ever walked into was Limerick station two years ago.

Dirt was hanging off the walls and seats...obviously for years.

Quite unlike the clinically, surgically, antiseptically spotless continental stations where you can eat your dinner off the floor.

If thy can't be bothered to wash a station they won't bother about efficient service either.

.

slumped

Húrin wrote: »

George Monbiot points out that the carbon dioxide emissions of high-speed trains are comparable to those of aircraft. .

But Michael O'Leary says aircraft only account for 2% of all CO2 emissions.

I believe him - why would he lie?

Pgibson

slumped wrote: »

Michael O'Leary....I believe him - why would he lie?

Our Michael is a saint.

Here he is..... smiting down Aer Lingus:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/St_Michael_Raphael.jpg

.

parsi

probe wrote: »

a precisely engineered railway line (“permanent way” in Victorian era British rail speak still used by IR).

What's the relevance of this comment ?

probe wrote: »

The existing line ... trains

Sounds like Victorian era British rail speak used by probe...

probe wrote: »

Virtually all regional and inter-city trains to/from Dublin should start or end their journey in Dublin airport – as is the case in many continental city equivalents.

Before you get carried away you should note that many continental cities don't have direct rail connections to their airport. Stockholm only got theirs a few years ago, Berlin just has cross-Land trains, Paris has a wee smattering, London Heathrow has none, Gatwick has a few.

djpbarry

Húrin wrote: »

I think that airport traffic will decrease sharply over the next ten years, thus I think that any new infrastructure serving it is a waste of money.

While I’m sure airport traffic will decline in the coming years, I don’t think that’s a good reason to omit Dublin Airport from all future infrastructural planning.

Pgibson wrote: »

Quite unlike the clinically, surgically, antiseptically spotless continental stations where you can eat your dinner off the floor.

Where does this rosy image of European rail come from?

parsi wrote: »

Before you get carried away you should note that many continental cities don't have direct rail connections to their airport. Stockholm only got theirs a few years ago, Berlin just has cross-Land trains, Paris has a wee smattering, London Heathrow has none…

Yes it does. The Piccadilly line terminates at Heathrow and I’m pretty sure there’s a Heathrow Express train to Paddington.

parsi

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes it does. The Piccadilly line terminates at Heathrow and I’m pretty sure there’s a Heathrow Express train to Paddington.

Apolgies - I meant in the sense of "Regional/InterCity" trains as described by probe.

djpbarry

parsi wrote: »

Apolgies - I meant in the sense of "Regional/InterCity" trains as described by probe.

Ah, I see. In that case I would agree that such services are not absolutely necessary.

I wonder has it been considered feasible to build a spur off an existing rail line to Dublin Airport? Maybe from Drumcondra? It could terminate at Connolly. It would be awkward, what with the high concentration of residential properties between Drumcondra and the Airport, but then, that's part of the proposed route for the Metro.

probe

Húrin wrote: »

I think that airport traffic will decrease sharply over the next ten years, thus I think that any new infrastructure serving it is a waste of money.

I can’t see global air traffic volumes dropping materially. If the economy stays in the doldrums as a result of the fallout from the regulatory negligence and gross incompetence over real estate bubble lending / sub-prime securitization / hedge funds and dysfunctional derivatives* oil will remain cheap and people will be able to fly inexpensively – even if they have to resort to a customer hostile, race to the bottom, one star airline like Ryanair. Interest rates will be forced to near zero – making mortgage repayments and business borrowing much cheaper.

If on the other hand the global economy recovers, people will have more money to spend on air travel….

Air travel has experienced continuous growth since the invention of the airplane. In due course aircraft will be H2 powered – water vapour doesn’t hang around for long in terms of greenhouse gases – compared with CO2.

Geneva airport has half the traffic volume of Dublin, and yet the airport supports a busy railway station with direct rail connections all over Switzerland – as well as providing a 5 minute journey time to the city centre. The entire Canton of Geneva has a smaller population than Co Cork. It is inconceivable that Dublin airport traffic will fall by anything like 50% - no matter how much the Irish media spin the gloom and doom story over and over and over.

.probe

*functional (ie “green”) derivative example: a wheat grower selling his crop forward at a fixed price to a baker so that the farmer knows with some certainty what they will make for his wheat and the baker will know the cost of his raw material in six months time.

Dysfunctional derivative example: the credit default swap (CDS). An insurance company guaranteeing sub-prime mortgage bonds in return for a premium (allowing a financial "institution" to hide its property exposure bubble until the insurance company it sold the risk to becomes bankrupt). Insurance is based on risk spread. A company that insures 1 million houses won’t find them all going up in flames in the morning. A company that insures mortgage bonds of 1 million sub-prime home mortgages is highly likely to default claims hitting them left, right and centre once the economy turns sour – as AIG and others have learned to their cost.

High time the world turned to “green” (ie sustainable) financial engineering.