"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."
Electric Zambonis nothing new (Score:3, Insightful)
Despite the summary's gas-good/electric-bad tilt, there is nothing new or experimental about electric ice resurfacers. The Zamboni company's site claims to have been making them for fifty years now.
For indoor ice rinks they have obvious advantages. Greenhouse gasses are one thing, but CO poisoning is quite another. (Though this could also be ameliorated by ventilation.)
Green ? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm always confused about "green" electrical devices.
I mean, the power is in most cases still being generated by coal or oil fired power stations in most countries, so aren't you just playing "out of sight, out of mind" games with the pollution ?
How long is your run (Score:1, Insightful)
So using the figures listed, 25 cents versus four dollars per flood. Flood is apparently a single event tied to resurfacing the ice. Can you make up the $80,000 cost in the lifetime of the machine? If we assume a per hour cost instead you can do 20,000 hours of work using gasoline before the cost is made up, or ten years continuous operation.
I am still trying to determine the justification other than in FGU, Feel Good Units
I guess if convince ourselves its by the minute costs then it might start looking right.
Is my math that bad this morning?
Deals with "Official Olympic Partners" (Score:5, Insightful)
I heard (on TV, so no link) that they weren't allowed to use the old machines because those are not official Olympic partners...
Even the engine (which isn't visible to the audience) had to be made by an Olympic partner.
Anyway, that, plus the fact that the band was only allowed to play 2 songs in the break, showed to me that the Canadians keep to the rules a bit too precise. The organisation seemed so afraid of problems by unexpected events by people that when the machines broke down, all creativity and initiative was smothered under a blanket of Bureaucracy On Ice.
Re:Summary & Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired (Score:3, Insightful)
So like a lot of 'green' things they are designed to save you money in the long run. Like paying out your ass for CFL bulbs or installing a windmill. Granted that's over 29,000 floods you'd need to recoup the eighty grand, it's a bit misleading to say it's more expensive. The other thing to look at is whether or not the eighty thousand is worth the health of your fans (you know, where you get your revenues from). I mean, fume free might not mean much to me but to the six year old kid suffering from asthma in the front row?
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.
Re:Green ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever been around a homeless person? Typically, they smell very bad.
You and I take for granted the ability to wash ourselves in a shower or bath. We are able to get much cleaner in a very short amount of time. Homeless people, on the other hand, may not have access to such luxuries and be forced to wash themselves in gas station or park sinks. The water is the same, and given enough time the bums should be able to wash themselves to cleanliness. However it is very inefficient because instead of dousing themselves all at once in hot water, they are forced to wash themselves piecemeal.
Same with electric vehicles vs gas vehicles.
Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE (Score:5, Insightful)
And the fact is saying that human CO2 emissions are "infinitesimal" is to miss the point entirely.
An analogy (that does not involve cars). Imagine the balance between CO2 sources and sinks is like a funnel. Into this funnel, you pour one litre per second of liquid. The funnel can allow up to 1 litre per second to leave, too. Therefore, the level of liquid in the funnel remains the same although 1 litre per second is constantly being added. However, add an infinitesimal increase, let's say, just 0.1% more - just one mililitre extra per second, and as sure as night follows day, the level in the funnel increases and eventually it will overflow. What is more, what we have done is effectively not only added more liquid to the funnel, we have also constricted the exit (by removing carbon sinks). The rate compared to other things is totally irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is - is the CO2 being added at a rate higher than which it is being removed?
Re:Green ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, it is much easier said to clean up a single source than millions of tiny ones.
With that said, electricity is actually better, because few countries rely 100% on Fossil Fuel for their Electricity. China probably has the most at more than 90% Fossil Fueled (and growing). America is less than 50% Coal (and dropping) with another 20% Natural gas (rising, but not that fast). Vancouver has a lot of Coal, but they also have Hydro, and IIRC, they have a nuke there (???? not sure about that).
Re:Green ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not Bad Math At All (Score:4, Insightful)
No, your math is correct. You also forgot to mention that the propane ones are also "fume free" in terms of producing NO toxic fumes. Someone with asthma is going to be equally effected by the electric one as the propane one.
ALSO, you people are forgetting to mention the carbon footprint the electric one has: is it's power source a petro power station? Or a coal power station? Those cases would make the electric one worse. I love how we are doing a bunch of fancy footwork in the name of "green," but it is just the same old problems all over again (if not worse in the case of CFL bulbs) at twice the cost.
Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE (Score:4, Insightful)
It's really a shame that people believe politics over science.
You are confusing "green marketing" with science. The first one happens to be full of crap, but well, what do you expect from marketing? That however doesn't make the issue they peddle to a non-issue, climate scientist will tell you quite the opposite, CO2 is an issue and current evidence points to a man made climate change, go watch this [youtube.com] and educate yourself.
Olympic Fail.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Gah, the whole Olympic speed-skating competition is a giant fail already..
Very poor ice conditions, very high humidity in the stadium, ice that is cleaned/groomed only once a hour (wtf!) during contests, contests that have to be delayed because of machines breaking down, a 2 minute break between each next match.... puhlease....
I expected a whole lot more from the Canadians when it comes to ice-skating to be honest....
Re:Green ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. OTOH, a lot of power is lost during transport from the central plant to the consuming device.
Basicly we have three fields here:
1) "Greener" energy usage (no local fumes)
2) "Greener" energy production (Windmills vs. whatever)
3) "Greener" energy transport and storage
It's the weakest link that defines overall "greenlieness" amongst these three. (anything else is just shifting from local pollution to remote pollution)
And in addition to these three we have efficiency. Any gain in that directly goes to the total "Green"-Result.
Re:Phil Jones, ex-head of CRU, admits no GW (Score:1, Insightful)
You say: "Phil Jones, ex-head of CRU, admits no GW"
Yet in the article Phil Jones says:
"I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed."
Apparently, the article doesn't support your initial statement.
Electric devices are still powered by fossil fuels (Score:2, Insightful)
Green? *chuckle* They're still fossil fuel powered. The grid is not magic. The electricity doesn't magically come from the hole in the wall. There's a whole infrastructure behind that hole and that infrastructure runs on fossil fuels.
Clean the source and every single electrical device you own becomes green with zero work on your part. You also have to replace nothing. Batteries are horrible for the environment. What damage are we doing through their manufacture and disposal?
Can't we get over this fear of nuclear power yet? Please? For the good of humanity.
Re:A few years to recoup the cost. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE (Score:4, Insightful)
The terms green and CO2 are being tossed around as blatant lies to convince people to spend more to get the the same, or in cases like this, to get nothing at all.
It's really a shame that people believe politics over science. It makes me a cynic. Someone obviously decided to buy these "green" ice resurfacing machines because it made them feel like they were doing "their part" to help the environment. The problem is they were sold a lie. Not only were they sold a lie, but a non-functioning lie as well.
Seriously people, CO2 emissions are nothing to be afraid of. CO2 emissions are nothing you should be paying extra to decrease. The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.
The people who bought the electric zams, which are actually pretty common, probably made the decision to reduce the carbon monoxide and particulate emissions that are not so great for the health of spectators in enclosed ice arenas.
Also, you made a blunder in your CO2 rant. The argument that CO2 emissions aren't bad is supposed to be, "increased CO2 doesn't lead to significantly more global warming," not "humans don't significantly affect CO2 levels." The reason for this is that contention 1 may be true, while contention 2 (yours) is demonstrably false. Note the ~25% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration in the last 50 years shown here [wikipedia.org].
Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, starts like a good analogy.
But to be more accurate, you'd need to have that water comming in anything from doplets to gushes, into a funnel thats unpredictably changing it's diameter, periodically clogging up by freezing (at the exit) while some of the water may evaporate because it's boiling. While walking on a tightrope.
And you know that either spilling or letting the funnel run dry is going to kill you.
And so far, it's only the analogy for the natural CO2.
Now you have to take a lieak and the only possibility for that is said funnel. Blindfolded.
I guess thats closer to the actual state of climate research.
Re:Summary & Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired (Score:3, Insightful)
"Or are they using Zamboni in place of "ice resurfacer" like Kleenex and Frisbee? "
Probably. Zamboni has basically had the Kleenex/Xerox treatment at this point. I'm fairly certain that "Zamboni Dave" at Cornell actually drives an Olympia around the rink... I need to check in two weeks. :)
Re:Electric Zambonis nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently I've been fortunate. I've been to a LOT of hockey games, and never had trouble with the fumes. I sat on the front row for over 200 college hockey games, and no issue. Usually no fumes.
It may be that there are malfunctioning Zamboni machines out there, and those need to be repaired. But the 'green' push is just about CO2 and being politically correct, not about any widespread or even uncommon CO danger. Pure nonsense, that.
Now, as an aside, making an electrically-driven Zamboni is nontrivial. Those are relatively heavy machines, some include a water heater, and the cold climate makes batteries less useful. All this conspires to make for a difficult design - big battery pack, big motors, high demand, cold, not an easy thing.
And the comment earlier about how the Zamboni left slush in the corner of the straight... Well, sometimes it's the driver. Sometimes it's the ice.
Somehow, this actually seems like a performance problem unrelated to electric or propane.
And of course, we know that propane cars are essentially pollution-free. Right? Propane forklifts are safe enough to use in warehousesM [colorado.edu].
Re:Perceptions from Vancouver (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Summary & Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for green designs, but you need to re-think your arguments.
The lower cost to operate does not change the fact that the device itself is twice as expensive. In any case, there's nothing misleading about saying that you should know the thing works before putting twice as much money up front as you would for a traditional model. After all, if it doesn't work, then you're never going to realize any of that long-term cost-savings.
I've never heard of anyone having problems with fumes from a zamboni. If you're going to paint hypotheticals about front-row asthma sufferers as an advantage of the electric version, then citation needed.
I'll buy that they are likely to have problem with resurfacing in general due to weather, but I also saw pictures of the ice after the first attempt to resurface. The coaches were shocked that anyone would suggest sending speed-skaters onto that surface. It was inexcusable, and apparently it was ultimately the old model that was able to do a better (if still imperfect) job.
Maybe the electric models are more prone to problems in warm weather. Maybe design factors unrelated to the power source are inferior (since they are made by a different company). Maybe a lot of things, but it sure looks like the rush to go green caused them to utilize equipment that was not sufficiently tested for big-time use - and it doesn't get much bigger-time than the olympics. Whether or not electric is the future of ice resurfacing - and hey, if it's cheaper and less polluting then I hope it is - the IOC should be embarrased as hell by this.
Re:Deals with "Official Olympic Partners" (Score:5, Insightful)
And people wonder why I boycott the Olympics any more. It's no longer about the athletes or the competition, it's all about the IOC and how they can get more money and control. Fuck 'em.
Re:How long is your run (Score:3, Insightful)
Pure economics aside, there is the air quality argument. .... You can't necessarily put a price on it, but you can bet that for something like the olympics people notice.
Actually, you CAN put a price on it. Or, at least you can for year-round facilities. When you use propane powered machines, you have to ventilate the arena. In the winter that's not a big deal, but in the summer it means a significant increase in air-conditioning costs.
Re:Perceptions from Vancouver (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a privilege if you own a TV station or a tourism business. It's a privilege if you particularly care about competitive skiing. If you're just a citizen trying to get on with your life, it can be a very inconvenient couple of weeks, and cities often lose millions of tax dollars hosting the olympics.
Re:Green ? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, even with 100% coal, you have a big advantage. You can 1. dump the CO2 into the ground. 2. Run it through a green house. 3. Run it through an algae farm. 4. etc.
but you can't restore the removed mountain tops and restore the destroyed ecosystems. You also need to account for the Hg, SO2, and NO(x) emissions, and the waste dumped into the waterways.
Sorry, but there is no such thing as "clean coal".
Re:Summary & Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I was reading the article fairly objectively, and I didn't see any blatant one-sided reporting. The use of the term "cost" when applied to a piece of equipment is often used to express the initial capital expenditure required to aquire a piece of equipment. The term "total cost of ownership" (TCO) is the term often used to provide an overall lifetime cost. The way the term "cost" was used in the article was consistent with the ordinary use of the term.
For example, I installed a geothermal HVAC system in my house last year. When I talk about the "cost" of the system, I refer to how much money I paid the contractor who installed the system. Since the "cost" of the system was about twice that of a comparable non-geothermal system, I certainly expect the quality (i.e., performance and repair rate) of the system to be no more than that of a convential system. I think that was the only point being made about the "cost" of the electric ice resurfacers.
Total cost of ownership is a separate issue which often (unfortunately) seems to be a required part of the ROI analysis for "green" technologies. I think the issue with the electric ice resurfacers breaking down and not performing well bears close examination, because my personal experience with green technologies (i.e., my geothermal system) is that the payback analysis involved in the TCO is generally optimistic (i.e., you don't save as much as initially estimated), the initial acquisition costs are optimistic (i.e., it costs more than the initial estimates), failures with the "green" systems are more likely to occur, and correcting those failures is more expensive than with traditional technologies. As we gain more experience with green technologies this may change, but adopters should go into the experience with their eyes wide open or else we may see a negative backlash that hinders adoption rather than encourages it. In my case I made sure I had a 10 year parts and labor warranty on the entire system from a single provider (to avoid finger pointing) which has already helped me avoid $1000 in unexpected repair costs.
I was watching the Olympic coverage on TV and I saw the ice surface that was at issue. It was completely unacceptable for the competition at hand. Whether the fault lies with the capabilities of the electric resurfacers, with a random failure, or in some other area, I don't know but am interested in finding out.
Re:Hockey games everyday? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, so you just assume that the ice skating rinks in general only have a single team as their only customer?
I'm just basing this on the rink in the town I grew up in, but there were multiple teams of different levels from kids leagues on up who used the rinks. It was open to the public almost all week because inside the building there were multiple rinks, and more than once I've been skating there while a game was in progress. They may not resurface quite as often as when a hockey game is in progress, but based on my observations it is at least a few times per day, times the number of rinks in a facility when only being used for light public skating, more frequent resurfacing for everything else.
A rink has high capital expenses and certain minimum operational expenses, so they need to be open as much as possible to make the money to meet those expenses. Even pro stadiums will get rented for use by other teams or for classes, though they might not be open to the public.
Re:Hockey games everyday? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're also from FREAKING CANADA.
Last I checked, we were talking about ice resurfacers purchased for the winter Olympics in Vancouver. Vancouver would be in Canada.
Re:Summary & Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't know or don't care. I am aware of the difference in each case, but I continue to use Zamboni, Kleenex and Frisbee as my terms of choice.
"Ice resurfacer," "facial tissue" and "aerodynamic flying disc toy" are not terms that roll off the tongue. In terms of useage, they've been replaced with more efficient words. Companies (and language purists) can whine about it all they want, but the steamroller of changing language can not be stopped.
Re:Hockey games everyday? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm from the mid-Atlantic and the hockey teams I've heard about only play 82 games in a season
So hockey teams don't practice, and there's only one team per building, and that's all the rink is ever used for? I've never played (or even watched) hockey, but that sounds strange.
Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the best analogy I've seen for climate science. I myself am a scientist, and any branch of science that relies on computer models, closed source data sources, closed source algorithms, and funding from politicians isn't a branch of science at all. It's a branch of Goldman Sachs!
Re:A few years to recoup the cost. (Score:3, Insightful)
How well will it's battery pack last for those 29000 resurfacing? I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it looses much of it's capacity and needs to be replaced well before it's completed all of them. And that battery pack is the most expensive thing on the resurfacing machine...
It depends, and not necessarily. I imagine it's a DC drive with a relatively meager charger, so the pack cost/drivetrain cost ratio is probably relatively high (most people would be surprised at how low it is for modern EVs -- most people think the packs are more expensive than they are and the drivetrains cheaper than they are). If the pack is PbA, it'll need to be replaced once every 3-5 years. If it's LFP or LiMnO4 (the "stable" types of li-ion), it should be good for closer to 10 years, so long as the DoD (Depth of Discharge) is kept reasonable.
One thing people haven't been mentioning is how much lower maintenance the drivetrain is in an EV than in an ICE-powered vehicle. There's something like 1/10th as many moving parts.
As for these particular machines... bad development and testing is bad development and testing, no matter what type of powertrain your vehicle has.
Solving the wrong problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the part that gets me is. . . who CARES (from an environmental standpoint) if ice resurfacers put out a little CO2 (there might be concerns about CO/CO2 accumulation in an indoor environment, which might be relevant). Why should Zamboni's be green?
I don't know how many ice resurfacing machines there are on Earth, but I can't imagine it could possibly be more than 100,000, and would expect it's probably closer to 15,000 or 20,000. There's not all that many Ice Rinks in the world.
Making Ice Resurfacers 'green' will have a mathematically insignificant impact on our CO2 emissions. You know, I'm all for 'greening' our automobiles, ships, industrial equipment, factories, Semi-Trucks, etc - things for which there are millions upon millions of them deployed on Earth. Things which can be changed on a massive scale.
Worrying about Ice Resurfacers is an expensive waste of time.
Re:How long is your run (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to see them NOT ventilate the arena with a few tens of thousands of fans inside.