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."
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