Slashdot Mirror
"Green" Ice Resurfacing Machines Fail In Vancouver
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."
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.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
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.
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 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.
My work here is dung.
Vancouver (all of BC) uses no nuke, and no coal (at least not for power). We're about 90% hydroelectric. http://www.bchydro.com/about/our_system/generation.html
Vancouver gets its power primarily from hydro electricity, dumbass.
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 don't impress me much. They even tried to sue the misquoted scientist with the notorious UK libel laws 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.
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.
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
Being this is BC, power generation is usually hydro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
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.
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.