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."
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.
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?
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
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).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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.
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.