Is Artificial Snowmaking Worth it?

[hank.ski]

Greetings, Scholars of that which is New! I come to you today with a question in the hopes of garnering some input on the worthiness of artificial snowmaking. As you all know well by now, climate change is a pretty fucking big deal. Like, an end of days, tipping point of irreversible, impact your future and kill your children big deal. Having just broken the tip of the (receding) iceberg on learning about the impacts of snowmaking on our climate, I would like to gather your opinions on whether or not it is worth it! Attached is an article on snow blowing at Snowbowl, one of hundreds, if not thousands of ski areas that are using artificial snowmaking to open their mountains earlier and account for a lack of snow throughout the season. It's about 50 pages long, so I don't expect any of you to get through the whole thing, much less open up the attachment. Regardless, if you have a strong opinion on the matter, or have done some research yourself, I would like to know:

 

[soup]

correct me if im wrong, but the only impact I see coming from making snow is the use of energy. the water will be replenished back into the water table, maybe not from the source it was drawn, but within distance to one day return. there may be the argument that wax from our skis contaminates the snow but I see that as very minor and not a factor in snowmaking.

whats the harm in storing water in ponds, pumping it through pipes, and spraying it into the sky to freeze and form crystals of fun?

 

[John18_6]

It does feel embarrassingly ironic but it really is becoming a need. Two out of my four dedicated seasons wouldn't have happened without artificial snowmaking. I really don't think snowmaking is making a significant impact on our climate. What we need to actually worry about is finding alternative energy solutions and transportation that doesn't rely on combustion engines.

 

[Z-Juice]

I've done a little research on snowmaking,

Based on this info from Roundtop (below), it takes approximately 235 kW at a minimum to transport water 300 feet uphill at 4000 gallons per minute. So if just ONE pump were to run for five days, the electrical energy consumed by the pump would be enough power around 31 U.S. homes for a month. There is also a tremendous amount of energy consumed in the rest of the process, such as compressing the air inside to pump the snow. However, a typical chairlift has costumes 500 kW, so running the chairlift for five days straight could power 66 U.S. homes for a month.

The amount of water used is the biggest negative in my opinion. With significant population growth and warming planet, it just seems so silly to use so much water for snowmaking. Problems like California's drought are going to last for decades, a beneficial El Nino or two will be negligible in the long run. Ski areas claim the water returns to the natural water cycle, but it is contaminated with chemicals, or most likely absorbed by the ground or diverted into inaccessible tributaries.

Obviously ski areas want their seasons to be as long as they can for profits. But here in Colorado for example, ski areas always try to make snow in October and November versus letting natural snow fall, limiting snow-making, and opening a few weeks later. Then they shut down in April (for most resorts), when there is always enough snow to keep the majority of runs open for weeks and natural snow is still falling. I don't know if this for the resorts own profits or US Forest Service regulations, but either way it should change (at least in Colorado).
https://www.skiroundtop.com/how-snowmaking-works

 

[Z-Juice]

I've done a little research on snowmaking,

Based on this info from Roundtop (below), it takes approximately 235 kW at a minimum to transport water 300 feet uphill at 4000 gallons per minute. So if just ONE pump were to run for five days, the electrical energy consumed by the pump would be enough power around 31 U.S. homes for a month. There is also a tremendous amount of energy consumed in the rest of the process, such as compressing the air inside to pump the snow. However, a typical chairlift has costumes 500 kW, so running the chairlift for five days straight could power 66 U.S. homes for a month.

The amount of water used is the biggest negative in my opinion. With significant population growth and warming planet, it just seems so silly to use so much water for snowmaking. Problems like California's drought are going to last for decades, a beneficial El Nino or two will be negligible in the long run. Ski areas claim the water returns to the natural water cycle, but it is contaminated with chemicals, or most likely absorbed by the ground or diverted into inaccessible tributaries.

Obviously ski areas want their seasons to be as long as they can for profits. But here in Colorado for example, ski areas always try to make snow in October and November versus letting natural snow fall, limiting snow-making, and opening a few weeks later. Then they shut down in April (for most resorts), when there is always enough snow to keep the majority of runs open for weeks and natural snow is still falling. I don't know if this for the resorts own profits or US Forest Service regulations, but either way it should change (at least in Colorado).
https://www.skiroundtop.com/how-snowmaking-works

So my personal take on that last paragraph is that I couldn't care less about skiing down a white strip of snow in October with hundreds of other people. I would like to keep skiing well into May or June in other areas besides A-Basin with nice slushy park laps or a late season pow day