"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."
Summary & Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're going to spend twice as much on electric devices to replace non-green designs ...
From the linked NYTimes article:
Electric resurfacers are also cheaper to run — about 25 cents a flood, Mr. Schlupp said, compared with at least $3 for a propane-powered flood and at least $4 for gasoline. The drawback is the cost of the electric machine, which he said would sell for about $160,000, twice the price of a propane model.
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?
... at least test the things first.
Again, from the NYTimes article:
Mr. Hainault said that so far the machines had run, well, smoothly.
Sounds like they tested them to me. The Seattle Times article is either wrong or confusing when they say that the Zambonis also had problems:
It's the second straight day there have been issues here treating the ice between sessions --- yesterday it was the women's 3,000. Problems with that Zamboni left only one available for today, and then that one that began to have problems. The Zamboni left some piles of slush in the turn near where I am sitting --- which is also the front straightaway.
The Resurfice Olympia models appeared to be the electrics with the Zambonis being the gas fed ice resurfacers. So are they saying they had problems with the Zambonis just as much as the Resurfice Olympia models? Or are they using Zamboni in place of "ice resurfacer" like Kleenex and Frisbee?
I would bet they were having problems with temperatures. I've been to Capitals hockey games were breaks between periods went long since the abnormally high temperatures caused problems with the Zambonis.
Re: (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: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: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: (Score:3, Informative)
Further, eight years seems a little sh
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's why they're leasing them.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I live near an Olympic ice skating training facility. One of only eleven 400 meter indoor ovals in the world, so they say. Its 18 years old.
29000 / resurface 4 times a day / 365 train every day = 19.8 years.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"Zamboni" is probably a generalized trademark by this point.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
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 did some rough "on the napkin" calculations at about how long it would take to recoup the extra cost on the electric resurfacers for a busy ice rink and I figured it would take about eight years, give or take. Figure about eleven resurfaces a day for a rink that's available 320 days a year. If that number seems high, it's really not. All the rinks I'm familiar with have ice sessions from about 6am to 11pm at night at hour and a half intervals, so it's not out of the question. The resurfacer (Zamboni
Re: (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: (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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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
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: (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, bu
Re: (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: (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 p
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: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: (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 t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The olympics didn't purchase these machines outright solely for use during the games. The NYTimes article pointed out that an area company purchased the machines, then leased them to the IOC for the games.
Pu
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to see them NOT ventilate the arena with a few tens of thousands of fans inside.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How long is your run (Score:4, Funny)
...or install a small diesel generator....
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: (Score:2)
Your years are shorter than mine?
20000 / 24 / 365.25 = 2.3 years.
But that article says busy rinks can need flooding every hour. But I wouldn't expect them to be "busy" 24 hours a day anyway.
The propane one is $3 so you need 29000 runs to break even, so 5-6 years or so depending on how "busy" the rink is. Of course the time value of money means that depending on what interest rates are it'll be a bit longer.
Of course not running a propane/gasoline burning machine in an enclosed area will be of benefit all b
Re: (Score:2)
No. They have not yet invented the magic zero emission fossil fuel engine yet, and if they did the first installation probably wouldn't go on a Zamboni.
Re: (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 va
Canada? (Score:5, Funny)
More like Can'tada!
amirite?
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.)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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].
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 ?
Re: (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 thems
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'll get this printed on a t-shirt.
"I got BAGged on Slashdot".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
" 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. "
Not very many homeless people even wash themselves after using the restroom, what makes you think they are all a bunch of Adrian Monks who wash themselves one part at a time????
Most have mental problems which prevent them from really caring how bad they smell, a lot of them could benefit from a mental facility ran like a group ghome where they would have a couple of sh
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:5, Informative)
Re:Green ? (Score:4, Funny)
Shush, you. It's no fun making fun of Canadians when you just go bringing up facts about how much better things are up there.
Now let's get back to talking about how their nuclear plants always explode, their hockey teams always lose and their health care system is stuck in the stone age, okay?
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: (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.
Re: (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:Green ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It really does depend. Sometimes it really is just pollution-shifting, although you could argue that discharging aerosols in the middle of nowhere is better for human health than discharging them in the middle of the city. Either way they're diluted to parts-per-septillions in the atmosphere or whatever, but before that they exist in concentrated levels either around people or around trees.
The other factor, which is potentially large, is efficiency. Thermodynamics dictates that the efficiency of any heat
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Before you accuse anyone of Tunnel Vision, it it worth noting the following :-
British Columbia != World. Not everywhere has the mountains in which to store the potential energy (water) needed for hydro.
To call nuclear "clean" simply because it doesn't emit any CO2 but has a half life of however many thousands of years is simply scary. The CO2 may or may not have any effect on the atmosphere, but it sure clouds people's common sense.
Whatever you build your clean power stations out of, be it PV, Hydro, Wind,
Re: (Score:2)
NET?
It's just bringing back the CO2 that was bound in biomass (and finally coal) in prehistoric ages?
Re: (Score:2)
That is not physically possible. It is only nominally possible from a publicity perspective by ignoring greenhouse gas put off by manufacturing the items in use or by making the greenhouse gases "somebody else's problem" by buying carbon offsets or otherwise giving your pollution problem away.
Re: (Score:2)
There is often a big difference in efficiency between the power station and a small portable engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency [wikipedia.org] gives a decent summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends upon where you are. The games are in Canada, where electrical production is about 60% renewable. In the US it is 7%; the remainder of the world (ie. not US) is about 21%.
So, in most of the world it makes a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on how the power is generated, of course. If it's something like coal, you're actually playing "efficiency of large-scale centralized power facilities".
Re: (Score:2)
BC produces so much Hydroelectric power we export most of it.
Re: (Score:2)
In general large power plants are more efficient than small point of use engines, this is traded off against transmission losses and can end up either a win or a loss for total input energy.
For cleanliness, power plants run much cleaner than small point of use engines and they don't concentrate the adverse effects in close proximity with people. (You may need to pee, but don't do it in the pool.)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
It's easier to make large scale devices more efficient or to replace them with ones that don't emit whatever the thing is you don't like this decade.
So it's a valid step if you want "greenness".
Re: (Score:2)
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 ?
In BC (the province Vancouver is in), over 90% of the power produced is hydroelectric. Their thermal generating capacity is primarily natural gas, with a small fraction diesel. They have little if any coal or oil burning generating stations.
Re: (Score:2)
In many ways power plants will still be running and generating pollution anyway. I think extra power-usage vs. pollution generated may be a smaller increase. vs. the power plants still polluting + a device that is polluting too. Think about the extra power you car makes that you normally don't need. Heat, Noise, extra trust... So it does help to be electric.
Is it a utopian vision of 0 pollution. No but it is a case the power plants produce 25% more pollution which is less then the 40% the non-electic ve
Re: (Score:2)
Typically, fixed electrical plants are more efficient, since they don't have to worry about power to weight ratios or power to volume ratios, and they run at a relatively constant load level that they can be optimized for.
They also typically have significantly more emissions controls than vehicle engines do.
Re: (Score:2)
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: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.
Coaches didn't like it (Score:2)
I think that's the first time I've seen coaches come out and say their athletes wouldn't compete until conditions were improved.
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:Olympic Fail.... (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, it's Vancouver. Vancouverites aren't quite sure what ice is. They've heard it's frozen water, but really, if the copious amounts of rain that fall on Vancouver froze that would really hurt, wouldn't it?
Apparently this thing called ice exists on top of those mountains you can see from the city, and there's lots of it on the other side of them on the "prairies," but those are just rumours.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope, ice repairs are done during the breaks when the ice gets shaved of across the entire track....
The two minutes breaks between each and every run are purely for the $.
Apparently in some countries (I'm looking at you USA) they have small commercials between each run.
The new testing is releasing! (Score:2)
It's the Microsoft model: The release is the test.
I think you've all missed an important point (Score:5, Funny)
These machines were not creating any greenhouse gases while they were broken.
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 fe
Not in Vancouver, dumbass (Score:4, Informative)
Vancouver gets its power primarily from hydro electricity, dumbass.
Perceptions from Vancouver (Score:5, Interesting)
Then there are the ~100,000 trees cleared for olympic venues, the massive highway expansion that was unnecessary for the games, the construction of huge buildings for various events at a time when homelessness has been increasing for years. The whole thing is a big PR scam, but for the past few weeks it seems like most of the vancouverites on facebook have been abuzz about how silly the whole thing is....except the opening ceremonies for some reason...everyone got all weirdly patriotic about that, which is unusual for Canadians.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (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.
They jinxed the rink! (Score:3, Funny)
They didn't use a Zamboni to do the ice with, so the gods demanded the return of the Zamboni by destroying the infidel machine.
Everyone knows you always use a Zamboni, or you insult the gods of the ice by using anything else.
Electric Zamboni (Score:4, Interesting)
Zamboni has had electrics for a long time.
I've been watching US College hockey for a long time. Most rinks have a Zamboni. They last a long time. I've seen a few new ones and usually the go electric because the propane ones generate CO2 and that's not good indoors. I've seen rinks add a 2nd Zamboni for faster resurfacing between periods too.
Zamboni isn't the only maker of ice resurfacers. I bet most rinks in the US are Zamboni though. I remember Union College in Schenectedy had another brand.
FWIW Clarkson University gave Mr Zamboni and honorary degree in 1988 in recognition of his engineering achivement in creating the ice resurfacer.
What does that spell? (Score:3, Funny)
Another
Industrial
Leap!
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... 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: (Score:2)
It is also a complete and total lie.
"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to abou
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: (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: (Score:2)
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.
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: (Score:2)
Not quite. Read on McDuff [answers.com]. And look, even more refutation [scientificamerican.com].
Are we done with this canard yet?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Complete and total lie. [usgs.gov]
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: (Score:2)
Possible replies:
1. Yeah sure, trust that ONE guy who says the opposite of what most of the others say.
2. Didn't we start reducing CO2 emissions about 15-20 years ago? See, it's working!
3. Oh, look, a rabbit!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Perceptions from the 'burbs (Score:3, Interesting)
...what's next a near fatal curling accident????
The mind wobbles...
I don't live in Vancouver. I do not, repeat not live in Vancouver. I live in Burnaby, a suburb of Vancouver. A quiet leafy green residential cul-de-sac, where you would never know anything was happening. The daffodils are coming up.
With that said, I feel the Olympics have lost their way. The athletics have become secondary to money and hype. I also feel that it's completely unfair to expect the entire province to assume financial responsibility for the Olympics, when only Vancouver re
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 Resurfacer