"Green" Ice Resurfacing Machines Fail In Vancouver 356
lurking_giant writes "The Seattle Times is reporting that the Men's 500 meter speed-skating competition was delayed more than an hour Monday evening by the breakdown of the two ice grooming machines at the skating oval. The real story is that the machines that failed were the latest state-of-the-art 'Resurfice Fume-Free Electric Groomers' leased to the Olympics committee. An old, propane-powered Zamboni had to be brought out to fix the ice. This makes two nights in a row with ice resurfacing machine failures. If you're going to spend twice as much on electric devices to replace non-green designs, at least test the things first."
Re:Summary & Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired (Score:5, Informative)
Or are they using Zamboni in place of "ice resurfacer" like Kleenex and Frisbee?
'Zamboni' is the common name for an ice resurfacer. Particularly in Canada, that is what almost everybody calls them. People not in the know don't even realize that it's a brand name.
A few years to recoup the cost. (Score:5, Informative)
Are you from India, or some other nation where they don't have arenas, let alone natural ice?
During a single high-level amateur or semi-pro hockey game, the ice will be resurfaced:
1) Before the warm up.
2) After the warm up.
3) After the first period.
4) After the second period.
5) After the third period.
6) If the game is tied, there may be one (or more) over-time periods, during which the ice is resurfaced.
During a typical day, the ice at a single rink will be resurfaced approximately 12 to 15 times, and being specialized facilities they're open year-round. So those 29000 resurfacings will have been done in about 6.5 years.
Most arenas these days have three or more rinks within the same complex, serviced by the same machines thanks to staggered schedules. So those 6.5 years could quickly become two years, or less.
Re:Summary & Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired (Score:5, Informative)
I am pretty sure that it will be a long time before the Olympic Committee manages to run their ice resurfacers the 29,000 times needed to break even.
All I was asking that the summary be more clear as to how much these things cost. It sounds blatantly one sided.
I'm not an expert on these machines but I did find an analysis for the town of Halton Hills [haltonhills.ca] which (on page four of that PDF) finds the per year cost of a natural gas ice resurfacer to be $14,225 versus $12,700 for an electric. Note a different service life is assumed:
The fuel source comparison chart illustrates that the natural gas powered machines would cost an average of $14,225 per year based on an 8 year service life and the projected cost for an electric battery powered machine is an average of $12,700 per year based on a 16 year service life.
I don't know where they got these numbers but I'm assuming this guy did the footwork. Even then, that report notes that the natural gas models have a history of performing satisfactorily and probably wasn't worth the $1,500/yr savings afforded by the electric model. This is called being prudent.
All I was saying is that I found the summary to be more than a little misleading in this respect. It just gave me an "electric will never be viable" vibe that I didn't really care for.
Re:Summary & Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired (Score:3, Informative)
That's why they're leasing them.
Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE - fact check? (Score:3, Informative)
Before coming up with convoluted rationalizations, it's best to do a little basic fact-checking first:
"Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year." -- source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm [skepticalscience.com]
Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE (Score:1, Informative)
This is blatantly wrong.
From http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
I don't know where you're coming from with the oceans, but these days they act as carbon SINKS.
From http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html
Also, like other people have said, it's better for your HEALTH to not have burning fossil fuels in an enclosed area. Don't believe me? Shut your doors and windows, unplug those carbon monoxide detectors, and fire up a lawnmower next to you.
Re:Green ? (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting that you made a generalized argument based on an assumption that you didn't check. And ATM you 6 replies, not 1 pointed it out
Re:Green ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Time to Move Winter Games OR Invent Warm-Wx Gam (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE (Score:3, Informative)
Complete and total lie. [usgs.gov]
Re:Green ? (Score:3, Informative)
Vancouver has a lot of Coal, but they also have Hydro, and IIRC, they have a nuke there
COMPLETELY wrong. Power in Vancouver is over 90% hydroelectric with the vast majority of the remainder natural gas and a small fraction diesel. They have NO coal, and BC (the province ) has no nuclear reactors.
Not in Vancouver, dumbass (Score:4, Informative)
Vancouver gets its power primarily from hydro electricity, dumbass.
Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE (Score:5, Informative)
Real scientists will laugh at you for claiming CO2 is an issue,
Where can I read their papers? If they are real scientists they must have published their findings, right?
I'll see your enlightened video link and raise you one.
Sorry, but videos made by people that fabricated their data and misquoted scientists in a fraudulent way [wikipedia.org] don't impress me much. They even tried to sue the misquoted scientist with the notorious UK libel laws [libelreform.org] after he complained, great way to react to criticism...
Just go watch the video I linked and the other ones in the series, they do a great job of explaining many common climate myth, both from the skeptics side as well as the believers. And if you have any info explaining the errors in the video I linked I would love to read them.
Re:Not Bad Math At All (Score:4, Informative)
You also forgot to mention that the propane ones are also "fume free" in terms of producing NO toxic fumes.
Too bad this was an AC b/c it needs to be modded up. Propane Zambonis are emitting CO, but this isn't generally considered a pollutant or irritant like gasoline engine exhaust (yes, yes, in can still kill you, especially if your ice rink is only 500 sq. ft.). So it wouldn't be any more problematic for that poor asthmatic child than some beer-swilling guy in the too-tight hockey sweater one row behind him.
I really can't believe someone tried to drop a "save the children" into an argument about Zambonis.
Re:Not Bad Math At All (Score:4, Informative)
Being this is BC, power generation is usually hydro.
Re:Summary & Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How long is your run (Score:4, Informative)
Cold and batteries don't usually mix.
You might want to check on what ice resurfacing machines do. They sit parked in a garage bay 90% of the time. When it's time for them to work, they go out onto the ice, scrape off the top layer, AND MELT IT. Then they flood the ice surface to make it smooth and nice.
Yes, I know we're talking about ice here. But the point of the machine is to be hot. If you've ever watched one, you might have noticed that they steam. There really is no temperature issue with the batteries.
Re:Hockey games everyday? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm from the mid-Atlantic and the hockey teams I've heard about only play 82 games in a season, not the 365 that you considered.
As a Canadian, I can verify that the hockey teams you've heard about play 82 games a season. Do you suppose they ever practice? Do you suppose there might be other levels of hockey? The average facility around here is in use 365. (Yes, there are even games on Christmas) You're only thinking about top-level hockey. You're completely forgetting Senior, Club, City league, Junior (Major, A, B, C, D), Women's, etc. Just ask the parents of young hockey players who have been up at 5 am for the child's game because that's the only ice time available.
Yes. Hockey games every day.
Re:How long is your run (Score:1, Informative)
Ice resurfacers typically do not melt their shavings. They might have a hot-water wash to keep the augers clean and free from ice chunks, but the majority of the shavings are pulled up an auger and deposited into the giant bin in the front of the machine while still frozen.
The machines only steam because they've got liquid water near cold air and ice -- it's only "hot" in the sense that water is typically warmer than air. The water coming out the back of the machine is cold-tap temperature, and there's no heating element anywhere in the machine.
Plus there are still a good number of outdoor rinks in the world that use ice resurfacers and do not have 70-degree storage for their machinery.
Re:Not Bad Math At All (Score:3, Informative)
First generation limited production machines are usually higher cost and lower quality than the ones available after a couple years of production use ( you can't properly test until the thing is used by a variety of people in a variety of situations. )
If after a reasonable amount of time the cost-benefit analysis still doesn't pan out, then yes, we go back to propane.
But arguing that these early models are too expensive up front doesn't mean that it's a bad thing to do - just that no one should do it with the intent of saving money in the next few years. They should do it in the hopes that a few years out production costs will come down and it will make sense for everyone to do.
Green thinking isn't about being stupid. It's about ending this disastrous (Enron, AIG, etc.) mentality where "short term" is this year, and "long term" is five years. That's fine for a person, but for an institution, "short term" needs to be 5-10 years, and "long term" needs to be 30-40. Looking at it in that sense, spending 80,000 on a machine that will last 5-10 years and maybe recoup its investment is well worth it if the cost drops by half or more before it needs to be replaced. The capitalist will say it's better to let someone else make that initial investment, but the capitalist is a dick.
Re:Deals with "Official Olympic Partners" (Score:2, Informative)
....the Canadians keep to the rules a bit too precise
As a resident of Vancouver who is not affiliated with the Olympics in any way whatsoever, I think I can say that it's not that we're strict on the rules... It's that the Olympics are incredibly bureaucratic. I've seen all sorts of ridiculous things happen around here all in the name of "accommodating the Olympics in 2010."
Welcome world! Just remember, that you've worn out your welcome in another week-and-a-half... Go home. :-P
Mod parent up (Score:3, Informative)
I was talking to a parent at the free skate while they were resurfacing the ice (they resurface before and after the skate, and once in the middle) and he was saying that he would be back at 6am for his kid's hockey practice. 6am - 2am, resurfacing at least once an hour.
Frankly, I think the 12-15 times a day estimate was conservative, and that the number is probably closer to 20.
Re:Summary & Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired (Score:3, Informative)
And if we're thinking of the children, how about thinking about all the children in places like India that become dumping grounds for the waste produced by the "green" electronic technologies?
You're thinking of computers, which generally aren't considered "green". This zamboni most likely either runs on PbA batteries or one of the "stable" li-ion variants. PbA batteries are nearly universally recycled, generally at home here in the US; they're the most recycled product on the planet. The stable li-ion variants are nontoxic; in many municipalities, you can legally just throw them in with municipal waste after discharging them.
Are you referring to the drivetrain? An AC induction motor is windings of aluminum or copper with an aluminum or copper rotor and an aluminum stator. Which will almost certainly be recycled when scrapped. A DC motor will additionally tend to use rare-earth magnets, which in addition to being nontoxic will likely be ground-up and recast at end-of-life. There are other electric components, such as the charger and inverter, but we're talking high-power hardware like silicon carbide thyristors, not high-performance CPUs that contain every other toxic metal known to man.
Computer "recycling" in the third world involves shipping masses of computers over there, lighting them on fire to burn the plastic (releasing all sorts of horrible compounds in the process), then sifting through the scrap for gold, copper, etc. Nothing like that would or even could be applied to most bulk EV hardware.
Re:Summary & Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired (Score:3, Informative)
Further, eight years seems a little short for a natural gas machine; our last one (propane, actually) went 15-20 years (and we still use it to take out the ice in April and when our main one breaks down (man, it's a PITA to drive)) and our newer one is still going strong after nearly 10 years, and given its 3,800 hours of use, we probably won't be replacing it till near the end of the decade (barring unexpected problems), hopefully when electric motors are more competitive.
Lastly (not a reply to you, but to others), so long as your ventilation system is decent (which I would assume an Olympic oval's is), and it's actually used properly, air quality in an arena using a natural gas resurfacer is essentially the same as that in one using an electric resurfacer. If our arena didn't pass with the flying colours it got and instead got the massive fail 4 Glaces got I'd be suing my city (or getting our union to do it) immediately; I'm sure Olympic spectators have nothing to worry about.
Re:Perceptions from Vancouver (Score:3, Informative)
We discussed this on Another Forum[tm]. Turns out the average city suffers a net loss of about $8M on the Olympics, PLUS the cost of future maintenance of facilties that generally turn out to be of little use for future events. As I vaguely recall, there was only one case in history where the hosting city didn't lose its shirt.
And remember, ALL the money the city spends comes out of YOUR taxpaying pockets, one way or another.
Re:Not Bad Math At All (Score:2, Informative)
the concentration in the air will be much lower than in... say... cigarette smoke, orders of magnitude lower.
YES, carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke can affect the amount of oxygen a smoker can hold in their blood, but its near marginal as far as i know... orders of magnitude lower concentration shouldn't be any sort of issue compared to other "polutants"
Oh, and you forgot, water vapour as an exhaust gas... people drown you know