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."

18 of 356 comments (clear)

  1. Summary & Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired by eldavojohn · · 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.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Summary & Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired by Tridus · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    2. Re:Summary & Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired by eldavojohn · · 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 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.
    3. Re:Summary & Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired by anegg · · Score: 4, 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.

  2. Canada? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    More like Can'tada!

    amirite?

  3. Deals with "Official Olympic Partners" by captainpanic · · 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.

    1. Re:Deals with "Official Olympic Partners" by PitaBred · · 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.

  4. A few years to recoup the cost. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  5. Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE by Alioth · · Score: 4, 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?

  6. Re:Green ? by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If the electricity comes from 100% pure coal, then it is nearly 100% swap (assuming that all cars are kept tuned up). 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.

    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.
  7. Not Bad Math At All by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  8. Re:Green ? by The+Waffle+King · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  9. I think you've all missed an important point by tcampb01 · · Score: 5, Funny

    These machines were not creating any greenhouse gases while they were broken.

  10. Perceptions from Vancouver by Doviende · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's amusing to me that the world sees Vancouver as promoting these "green" olympic technologies, but we here in Vancouver are not fooled by the greenwashing (well, at least some of us). It's been nice and warm here lately, as is usual in Vancouver in the winter, so in order to keep snow on the local mountain where some of the skiing and snowboarding events are, they have to truck it in from another mountain that's quite some distance away. Then they use helicopters to bring the snow from where the dump trucks are, to the event location. The snowboarding halfpipe is actually constructed using hay bales stacked like lego blocks, and then they apply snow on top like icing on a cake. Any idea what the carbon footprint is of a helicopter bringing snow to the top of a mountain is? or the mining trucks used to haul it around?

    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.

    --
    "The value of a man resides in what he gives,
    and not in what he is capable of receiving."
    --Albert Einstein
  11. Not in Vancouver, dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Vancouver gets its power primarily from hydro electricity, dumbass.

  12. Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE by grumbel · · Score: 4, 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 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.

  13. Re:Hockey games everyday? by SoTerrified · · Score: 4, 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.

  14. Re:Hockey games everyday? by SoTerrified · · Score: 4, 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.