 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
You drive a Tesla ?
But can't see the obvious irony in consuming energy to produce artificial snow because global warming has raised average temperature in alps by 2-4C ?
In simple terms that is equivalent to snow line rising by 330-660m.
|
I see the irony but binning snow making would have a dramatic effect IMO. Does it have to be all or nothing? Yes for sure look for better and more efficient ways to prepare the pistes but as someone who loves skiing and has a place in the mountains I’d rather avoid destroying the industry if possible.
I mean you could make the argument to ban air travel but again the effect would be pretty dramatic!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@rambotion, Would a H fuel cell suffer from the cold?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
You drive a Tesla ?
But can't see the obvious irony in consuming energy to produce artificial snow because global warming has raised average temperature in alps by 2-4C ?
In simple terms that is equivalent to snow line rising by 330-660m.
|
I see the irony but binning snow making would have a dramatic effect IMO. Does it have to be all or nothing? Yes for sure look for better and more efficient ways to prepare the pistes but as someone who loves skiing and has a place in the mountains I’d rather avoid destroying the industry if possible.
I mean you could make the argument to ban air travel but again the effect would be pretty dramatic! |
In reality :
1) Emissions from snow-making are a small (if ironic) proportion of emissions.
2) On current climate-change trajectory alpine skiing maybe restricted to the highest slopes in 20-40 years time anyway.
Likely in my / your lifetime there will be still be a ski industry in the alps.
But that may not be true for our children unless society makes some dramatic changes to reduce emissions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| Does it have to be all or nothing? |
This is the point. I don't think it said anywhere about not grooming, or not snow making. Reductions in energy consumption could be made all across the resort without impacting too much on the amount of piste or snow.
I'm sure everyone can think of certain pistes in various resorts that are wide for wides sake, and could be reduced in width with little or no detriment?
..Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Thinking about it again perhaps a de intensified ski resort might make economic sense?
If they can reduce snow making and piste grooming they will save a lot on costs. They would also need fewer staff and they could choose to refurbish rather than replace their ski lifts. Big savings could then enable them to become very competitive on ticket prices and they could market the resort as low carbon which might be an important new niche.
It’s a big risk but could be a future direction of travel?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given that our valley is virtually 100% supplied by hydro power from the 2 main rivers running down to the Inn valley (one of them has 3 separate hydro stations on the way down) does that make it OK for us to make snow? The water is also supplied from run off from the hillsides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter S wrote: |
Thinking about it again perhaps a de intensified ski resort might make economic sense?
If they can reduce snow making and piste grooming they will save a lot on costs. They would also need fewer staff and they could choose to refurbish rather than replace their ski lifts. Big savings could then enable them to become very competitive on ticket prices and they could market the resort as low carbon which might be an important new niche.
It’s a big risk but could be a future direction of travel? |
We as a familiy stay and ski in smaller places like this and have been for some years, very nice they are too 
Stepping outside some of the big headliner areas, there are some great places to ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
@Chris_n, I would have thought so?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Chris_n, I suppose it all depends on the flow rate of the river at the times you need it. If you have enough run off to support water for snow making and keep the power levels to match consumption then yes. However as the dreaded Climate Change conundrum looms winter precipitation in Europe has loosely fallen about 10% per decade so whether that is sustainable long term is another matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| twoodwar wrote: |
| Most skiers want well groomed pistes, the off piste is jaunts between pistes, to make us feel good. Most skiers like me are holiday skiers. I’m a decent holiday skier, happy on blacks, can get pretty much anywhere on piste, with according to my instructor in Zermatt ( first lesson in 30:years in 2020),a reasonable amount of style. For 3 weeks skiing a year tops, that’s as much as I could reasonably hope for. It is also wonderful. From my observations most off piste skiers are not very good at it, and struggle terribly. Some are obviously excellent and I watch with admiration. At the age of 64 however its on piste Or Nothing. Without pistes, skiing as we know it today will not exist. It will not attract anything like the volume of skiers. |
It's a bit of a chicken egg thing though. In North America where controlled off piste is a thing even the holiday skiers are renting fat skis and getting off piste, sure they may not be fantastic skiers but they are (mostly) competent enough and enjoy themselves. The resorts out there don't even advertise their km of groomed pistes because nobody really cares. In fact Snowbird even used a 1 star review that complained about lack of grooming in their and campaign! https://www.snowbird.com/uploaded/1star/1star-Disappointed.jpg
(Imo an awesome as campaign you can see the other 1 star reviews they made into adverts here https://www.snowbird.com/one-star/)
If European resorts started offering controlled areas with good freeride terrain we may well see a similar shift in what skiers want, and skiers would likely spend more time off piste and in the process become better at skiing it. It seems like a win for everyone - less grooming is better for the environment and saves the resort money, people looking for freeride/off-piste get some controlled terrain, emptier pistes for those that enjoy cruising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
All the little club fields in nz are snowmaking and grooming free. Epic when it's on, shite when it's not. Passes are cheap and lifts are brutal and agricultural.
It's a bit marmite for most people. Don't think it really appeals to the average holiday skier - too hard to score good conditions, and too hard to access. Ungroomed refrozen crud isn't a lot of fun.
Great for flexible self/unemployed locals though, during good seasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m happy to admit I know nothing about engines but, @rambotion, what is bonkers about the JCB hydrogen engine? Surely powering a propulsion system directly by burning hydrogen like petrol must be more efficient than converting the energy into electricity before converting it again to propulsion? Energy will be lost at each stage so reducing the number of stages is surely wise, isn’t it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
>The JCB hydrogen engine is just bonkers. I cannot fathom why they want to burn it like petrol rather than put it through a fuel cell which is considerably more efficient than burning it.
I listened to Lord Bamford explaining the development of his hydrogen ICE for diggers etc. The fuel cells are not robust enough for the digger environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Chris_n wrote: |
| Given that our valley is virtually 100% supplied by hydro power from the 2 main rivers running down to the Inn valley (one of them has 3 separate hydro stations on the way down) does that make it OK for us to make snow? The water is also supplied from run off from the hillsides. |
1) Water shortages in mainland Europe are becoming more common
2) Personally I think the biggest impact of snow-cannon is environmental.
The fixed cannons, pipe work and reservoirs are a huge scar on the landscape.
Many big ski resorts look particularly ugly in summer.
All so you can ski back to resort for an extra 5-6 weeks a year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
It was interesting last "season" given how little grooming / snow-making went on after it was confirmed that lifts would not open, how long the pistes held up.
Snow-cannon snow due to its structure (lack of crystals) is able to be compacted far more than natural snow, and with the resulting lack of airflow, it doesn't melt as fast, we had all this explained to us when we interviewed the Head of Pistes and Security in Serre Che as he was attempting to Greenwash why they make snow, this was after the cannon were working hard when it was dumping, as he explained that they need this type of snow to make sure the season can go on into mid April.
There's only really a couple of months when they can make snow at lower altitudes as has to be at least -10
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| ...All so you can ski back to resort for an extra 5-6 weeks a year..... |
So a perfectly sensible commercial decision then?
Serre too does not have any issues with water, though I didn't quite buy the fact that all the lifts would be sustainably powered in the near future?
They've stuck a few wind-turbines up in various places to make them feel better 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Weathercam wrote: |
So a perfectly sensible commercial decision then? |
Indeed.
Though just because something makes commercial sense doesn't necessarily mean it is the correct thing to do.
Particularly with regards to eco-issues.
Many parts of the alps trashed by insensitive ski development over the years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Weathercam wrote: |
Snow-cannon snow due to its structure (lack of crystals) is able to be compacted far more than natural snow, and with the resulting lack of airflow, it doesn't melt as fast, we had all this explained to us when we interviewed the Head of Pistes and Security in Serre Che as he was attempting to Greenwash why they make snow, this was after the cannon were working hard when it was dumping, as he explained that they need this type of snow to make sure the season can go on into mid April. |
and presumably this hangs around longer on the lower slopes, which prevents the natural grass/flowers blooming vs slopes that aren't still covered in man made snow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
...
Many big ski resorts look particularly ugly in summer.
All so you can ski back to resort for an extra 5-6 weeks a year. |
I think that's going to be a major factor going forwards for many resorts, particularly the ones without the heavy infrastructure already in place as they look to commercialise the resorts for the summer tourism markets as well as winter seasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Ironically in Serre Che if they had left some of the old drag lifts that they took out then there would be more skiing on some of those North Faces?
And like I said their future strategy is to replace the valley chairs that take you to the mid-stations with big gondolas that will go up beyond the mid-stations.
There's one lift Pontillas, that we call Pointless, as it is exactly that now, which was the first of its type, a big Gondola, put in for Club Med development took you to another rickety old chair, however they ripped out that old chair-lift so now Pointless is like a dead end, as it only takes those that use it a third of the way up the mountain, and then they have to ski back down to the valley floor to another lift, creating bigger queues, they could have put a drag in to take skiers up the 100m vertical to the new chair that was put in above it!
Matey Boy that did that initial interview refuses to be drawn on this cock-up which is affecting a lot of business and future commercial development as well as increasing traffic as people avoid Pointillas!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Gordyjh, Counterintuitively, changing energy form more often doesn’t necessarily lead to a drop in efficiency. Hybrid petrol cars such as the Toyota Prius beloved by taxi drivers due to their great fuel economy are a prime example. A petrol engine alone might average something like 25% efficiency when used over a variety of speeds as typical in urban driving. However, used at a single set speed to power a generator that efficiency can be held closer to the 45% mark. Electric motors typically have very high efficiencies, 90%+ over a range of speeds is not unrealistic. Therefore, for stop start driving hybrids can often perform much better than conventional ICE powered cars even with the extra weight of a generator, an enlarged battery and electric motors as well as still having a fossil fuel engine.
Hydrogen is similar but a little less extreme in this respect; robust figures are harder to come by but you might be looking at 60-70% efficiency through a fuel cell compared to 40% through an ICE at optimal speeds and the fuel cell can be kept at its optimum speed constantly unlike the ICE.
@colinstone, I’d be dubious of that claim, I’m no expert on fuel cells, but placed on an isolated bed with a filtered air inlet I would have thought that JCB’s engineering team could make them work. I would suggest that the actual reason for JCB developing this technology is that they already manufacture diesel engines and could turn their production lines over to hydrogen engines with relative ease. AFAIK, they have no manufacturing capability of fuel cells or electric motors.
Toyota are testing a 3-cylinder hydrogen ICE engine but if you read their marketing material it is all about maintaining the feel and noise of a petrol/diesel engine, rather than any practical use. For off highway applications, practical use should be the be all and all
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It will all be very interesting to see. My perspective is that it takes more time on the slopes to become proficient at off piste. Unless you live on or close to the slopes, it is the travel there that is environmentaly damaging, not the piste bashes and snowmaking. I’m not talking about the aesthetics of the lift and snowmaking gear. For most people and the limited time they have to ski, piste is it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
My perspective is that it takes more time on the slopes to become proficient at off piste. Unless you live on or close to the slopes... For most people and the limited time they have to ski, piste is it.
|
Using north America as an example again, I don't think this is necessarily true. Pretty much as soon as people have learned the basics on piste there they begin to start dabbling into off piste. Sure they are not skiing extreme terrain or have the skills of a top skier, but they enjoy themselves. I'm guessing a lot of people that think off-piste is extremely difficult or out of reach for the average competent 1-2 week per year piste skier have simply never tried it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@rambotion, >the actual reason for JCB developing this technology is that they already manufacture diesel engines and could turn their production lines over to hydrogen engines with relative ease..
Exactly. Cost and ease of retrofit. We can't just ditch all the ICE kit costing ££££ and effectively waste tons of existing emissions by replacing almost perfectly good stuff.
https://www.fwi.co.uk/machinery/technology/jcbs-hydrogen-fuelled-combustion-engine-examined
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ FWIW : I don't think this discussion is about on-piste vs off-piste ?
Rather it is about the expectation there must be a maintained man-made skiable run back to town
As opposed to simply uploading / downloading on a gondola to where the snow might naturally lie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
In France when many went touring last winter, the skiers could skin up the hill fairly easily but were challenged skiing back down off piste. Pistes had to be provided for the return.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
^ FWIW : I don't think this discussion is about on-piste vs off-piste ?
Rather it is about the expectation there must be a maintained man-made skiable run back to town
As opposed to simply uploading / downloading on a gondola to where the snow might naturally lie. |
There are quite a few ski areas where that is quite normal. The resort runs - even when they are open - are quite stiff and not of mass-market appeal.
I fully suspect that will become more common as temperatures rise.
I doubt we will see much of a reduction in grooming. I doubt the economics of the lift systems, restaurants, ski shops etc would work with the lower skier count that would result from less grooming.
I could see snowmaking becoming a bit of dirty word. Conceivable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Rather it is about the expectation there must be a maintained man-made skiable run back to town
As opposed to simply uploading / downloading on a gondola to where the snow might naturally lie.
|
"Death before download" is a phrase I heard a few times at Whistler. There were times I had friends visit and at the end of the day I'd say I'm going to take the gondola down as the runs back into the village would not be particularly fun at best (crowded, mix of abilities meaning everyone travelling at different speeds, snow often wasn't the best) or an injury risk at worst - i got crashed into once. Only 1 friend ever downloaded with me (to be fair he was absolutely knackered) all the rest skied down, a few actually commented after saying they should have downloaded as the pistes back into village were a clusterfk. There is a psychological aspect that seems to make downloading a very unfulfilling end to a ski day for many.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@colinstone, we saw many people skinning up and walking back down again!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
the lower skier count that would result from less grooming
|
What percentage of grooming could resorts cut without people being bothered? Sure if you completely stopped grooming you would put a lot of people off. I'm not sure 10-15% less grooming makes much of a difference, especially if you are smart with how you market it (i.e. create freeride zones, nature routes, itineraries etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I think any change will be gradual, and in the initial stages will be as much about marketing as anything. I think they've seen a potential storm heading their way and they are trying to head it off, and these are the source of the director of Serre Chevalier's comments (and no doubt others will follow). The words 'hope' and 'less of' are used a few times, words without any real commitment. I think we'll hear more talk of say x% of the piste grooming being carried out by eco-friendly (or whatever the right term is) bashers. Or a x% decrease in snow-making, or more likely an increase in snow making from more sustainable sources. I think less grooming or snow making will be done, but it will be picking off the lowest hanging fruit i.e. reducing it in the areas where it will be seen the least.
I think they'll view it (rightly or wrongly) as a evolution not a revolution, so will continue to provide the same level of service (even if that involves a marginal %decrease in the above) until either legislation forces them to do something, or the technology catches up to the point that it makes it easy to shift, or that they go too slowly and face a huge backlash from the public that forces a step-change.
Maybe all the ski resorts in Europe should get together to commit investment to speed up this transition - it might mean no new (proactive) ski lifts or runs, no fancy ziplines, or new ice rinks or sports centres for a few years - but no one would be left behind as they would all be doing the same, it would just be put on pause. Sadly things are rarely as straight forward as that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@colinstone, @rambotion, thanks, I understand it a little better now. What we really need is the hydrogen fuel cell to take off to give us clean energy with the convenience of petrol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@Gordyjh, Fairly off topic but I may have given the wrong impression, I don't actually think that hydrogen should/will play a major role in transportation or off highway equipment, just that if you insist on using it then it is better to use it with a fuel cell than burning it directly. Filling up with hydrogen takes ages, slower than charging. Toyota entered their 3 cylinder hydrogen car in a 24 hour race and managed a shade over 1000 miles with a full support team on a closed track, some Tesla enthusiast knocked out 1728 miles in 24 hours using the public German charging network, the key difference being the length of the time it take the respective vehicles to charge. A fuel cell variant should perform better than the Toyota 3 cylinder due to less wasted energy and hence fewer refills needed but it would still struggle to beat the Tesla so from a practical POV hydrogen isn't the petrol/diesel replacement that people think. From an efficiency/on going cost POV, plugged into the grid via pantograph or tether is the best option if possible, then battery power, the FCEV and lastly using hydrogen in an ICE. Turning water into hydrogen, compressing it, and turning back into electricity is hugely wasteful compared to just using the electricity.*If blue hydrogen takes off the economics may change but this would likely be an environmental disaster so I'm hoping that it doesn't.
Going back to the JCB hydrogen engine, it's also poor compared to electric technology currently in production. They claim that it has the same performance as a JCB Dieselmax 448, this is typically used in a backhoe loader. This comes in 108 and 129 kW variants. A model S plaid can put out 645 kW. The model S plaid can also put nearly twice the torque of the 129 kW Dieselmax. Onto the battery, the model S battery has approx 100 kWh capacity. Say you're averaging 25% of the max power of the 108 kW variant, which is a pretty high duty cycle, you would need 1 battery swap per 8 hour shift. That seems a lot more feasible than refilling a backhoe loader with hydrogen every couple of hours and hugely cheaper too.
Legislation may be needed to push backhoe loaders away from diesel but once they do, no one will be buying hydrogen models
https://insideevs.com/news/358616/video-tesla-model-3-ev-distance-record/
https://www.autosport.com/super-taikyu/news/toyota-gives-hydrogen-car-successful-debut-in-fuji-24-hours/6514761/
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@rambotion,
| Quote: |
Filling up with hydrogen takes ages, slower than charging.
|
This is simply untrue. There are already hydrogen filling stations in a number of countries and it takes about 5 mins to fill up a car.
https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/cars/hydrogen-cars-how-the-fuel-cell-works-where-the-uks-filling-stations-are-and-how-expensive-they-are-to-run-1386285
There are all sorts of issues with HFC cars but filling time is certainly not one of them.
I actually think that big off highway vehicles are one of the applications where hydrogen fuel cells may well get adopted. Some of the big miners are rolling out FC mining trucks in big remote pits. They will produce hydrogen locally from renewable power. They currently truck diesel in long distances to remote high altitude mines which makes H2 a less painfully expensive option than one might think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Ahh well, better brush up my bumps technique (not that I can ski a zip line)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Posted the above to suggest that it'll never happen. Imagine every run to resort everywhere with car sized moguls the whole way down, slush on one side, ice on the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@jedster, I was sure that I read that in several places but maybe I am wrong on refill times. Totally at a loss as to why the Toyota hydrogen car managed such a pathetic distance in 24 hours then
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
2) Personally I think the biggest impact of snow-cannon is environmental.
The fixed cannons, pipe work and reservoirs are a huge scar on the landscape.
Many big ski resorts look particularly ugly in summer.
|
Really? Wind turbines are a much bigger blight on the landscape than a few snow cannons and when they do dig it up to lay pipes it’s covered again by the next season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| ... What percentage of grooming could resorts cut without people being bothered? Sure if you completely stopped grooming you would put a lot of people off. I'm not sure 10-15% less grooming makes much of a difference, especially if you are smart with how you market it (i.e. create freeride zones, nature routes, itineraries etc.). |
Of course resorts are designed and maintained for real people, whose skills are vastly inferior to those on the internet, so there is that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
2) Personally I think the biggest impact of snow-cannon is environmental.
The fixed cannons, pipe work and reservoirs are a huge scar on the landscape.
Many big ski resorts look particularly ugly in summer.
|
Really? Wind turbines are a much bigger blight on the landscape than a few snow cannons and when they do dig it up to lay pipes it’s covered again by the next season. |
That is a strawman argument:
1) Wind turbines help reduce emissions (though that is not what we are discussing).
2) Wind turbines aren't generally placed above snowline in alpine environment
Many (but not all) alpine resorts are a total mess in the summer.
Bulldozed pistes, artificial reservoirs to provide water for snow making, fixed metal pipe work and cannons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
