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."
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.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
The whole Green movement is "Feel Good" Games. The other posters have hit the nail on the head. Electric is needed because you can not expel CO in an enclosed area. Something that is so obvious. However, everyone will feel good my labeling it "Green"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
In this interview he admits there has been no statistically significant global warming occurring for the last 15 years.
I couple of weeks ago, you could have held the Winter Olympics at sea level ... London, Florence, Amsterdam, take your pick. Global Warming my ass.
I am still trying to determine the justification other than in FGU, Feel Good Units
Why?
I don't need any other justification for drinking coffee instead of brown muddy water, besides that it tastes better!
bickerdyke
It doesn't sound like these are even running for 1 event. Plus how long are those batteries expected to last? Cold and batteries don't usually mix.
If they want electric, they need to do it bumper car style and just have an overhead grid.
The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans. Not quite. Read on McDuff. And look, even more refutation. Are we done with this canard yet?
Yes quite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs
The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently measured to be 0.038%. A staggering 0.28% of that is directly attributable to human beings. I can keep this up as long and probably longer than you can...
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
Read this and Re-Educate yourself: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begins-to-unravel/
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
A Whole Continent for the Winter Games....
I thought this is why Antarctica exists in the first place, hold the games down there, and it is "international" territory so no more country squabbles about who gets to host it.
Last I heard the Ice was growing on Antarctica.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
A dead Luger, broken Zamboni, what's next a near fatal curling accident????
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
"The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans." Complete and total lie.
Funny how the scientists don't agree.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
Fast now. Since you believe in all this global warming crap. Do me a favor. Stop emitting the gases you think are responsible for it. CO2 and Methane. Let me know when you are done.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
who the hell would listen to multiple university professors anyway right?
People who fall for a argument from authority. Science isn't done by people posing with impressive titles in front of the camera, but by publishing peer reviewed research. And as said, go watch the movie I linked, its not hard and it answers plenty of your misconception by looking at the actual science.
My scientists say your scientists are full of shit. Now what?
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
They also forget to include the carbon cost of creating the more expensive machine. Generally, the cost of a thing is roughly proportional to the energy input that it takes to make it, including everything from the metal to the electricity used to light the homes of the workers to, as you alluded to, the costs of running the bank that made the loan. If it saves money over the long run (including all operating and maintenance costs), then it is more likely to be "greener". If it breaks down all the time, as these appear to, then you have a situation where you have made a huge outlay, consumed HUGE amounts of power, and put HUGE amounts of pollutants into the air, all for nothing.
"The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans." Complete and total lie.
Before anyone else mods this guy up without doing any reading at all, I would like to point out that this guy is a liar, and is quoting lies. You can read here to see why. I'll quote the relevant section:
Over 95% of total CO2 emissions are non-anthropgenic. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. In 1997, Indonesian peat fires were estimated to have released between 13% and 40% of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single year.[6][7][8] The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, but modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 teragrams (0.13-0.23 gigatonnes or 145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year,[9] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities.[10]
Emphasis mine.
Which maths are the liars using to turn 5% into the majority? Multiple people have lied here claiming that man puts more CO2 into the air than volcanoes and the ocean. It's clear after some very minor investigation that that is a lie, and in fact nature itself puts 95% of the CO2 into the air; leaving humble man responsible for a meager 5%.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
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.
Since the liars seem intent on modding all my posts on this thread troll, I'm replying to myself in the hopes that some truth gets through to the skeptics.
Nature itself is responsible for 95% of the CO2 emissions, and humans get to claim responsibility for 5%. Anyone saying that man puts more CO2 into the air than volcanoes or the ocean is lying to your face.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#Sources_of_carbon_dioxide
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
I'm also wondering if the "green cost" to operate an electric-powered unit is actually higher than that to operate a propane-powered unit. After all, the electricity was probably generated, at least in part, by burning something (maybe even natural gas!) -- is it more "greenly efficient" to just burn the propane on the spot and cut the middleman?
Furthermore, what is the "green cost" of manufacturing an electric unit, vs. that of manufacturing a propane unit? I'd guess the total green cost is somewhat lower for the propane unit, since it probably requires fewer manufacturing steps, notably no need for large storage batteries that have their own "green costs" both in manufacturing and disposal, etc.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?