Snowmaking in Austria: Energy consumption, water turnover, CO2 emissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction & Purpose Winters in Austria have warmed by 1.7 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times (Olefs et al., 2020). Since 1961, snow cover periods in Austria have shortened by an average of 40 days (Olefs et al., 2020). This has led to a deeper look into adaptation measures and to ever more efficient snowmaking systems (Steiger & Mayer, 2008). Knowles et al. (2023, p. 2) describe “a surprising lack of research” on the resource consumption of snowmaking. This study collects for the first time evidence-based data on snowmaking. The study region is Austria, the second largest ski tourism market in the world. The focus is on water turnover, energy consumption and CO2 emissions. The study aims to improve the level of knowledge on snowmaking and thus make a contribution towards a more economically and ecologically sustainable development of ski tourism. Methods A comprehensive questionnaire was sent out to 141 ski resorts in Austria between June 2023 and April 2024. Continuous plausibility checks have been performed throughout the survey process. Data at the required level was returned from 30 small, medium-sized and large ski resorts. The sample covers an area of 4,253 hectares equipped with snow makers and 34.0% of the Austrian ski tourism volume. Results The water turnover of snowmaking per season throughout Austria is 43.8 million m³. This equals a water consumption of 3,501 m³ per hectare of slopes equipped with snow makers. The energy requirement for snowmaking is 281 GWh. This corresponds to 5.3 kWh per skier visit or 22,449 kWh per hectare of slopes equipped with snow makers. The carbon footprint of the entire annual snow production in Austria amounts to 2,831 tons of CO2. That is 54 grams of CO2 per skier visit. Discussion The electricity requirement of 281 GWh corresponds to 0.46% of Austria’s total energy requirement, which is 61,080 GWh. The CO2 emissions of 2,831 tons correspond to 0.004% of Austria’s annual CO2 emissions of 72.8 million tons (Umweltbundesamt, 2024). The range of the assumed total energy consumption for snowmaking in Austria found in the literature to date varies considerably – between 335 and 950 GWh per season (Steiger et al., 2020). The results of the evidence-based study presented here are below this range. Conclusion The consumption data for snowmaking in Austria assumed in the literature appear to be too high. Both the public and scientific debate about snowmaking need an updated discussion which includes concrete data. On the way to climate-neutral ski resorts, snowmaking is only a small hurdle compared to diesel-powered slope preparation and guests’ travel to and from the ski resorts. The increased use of renewable energy sources can reduce the carbon footprint of snowmaking even further. Similar studies in other ski tourism markets could round off the picture drawn here and lead to interesting discussions about country-specific differences and peculiarities. References Knowles, N., Scott, D., & Steiger, R. (2023). Sustainability of snowmaking as climate change (mal)adaptation: An assessment of water, energy, and emissions in Canada’s ski industry. Current Issues in Tourism, 27(10), 1613–1630. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2023.2214358 Olefs, M., Formayer, H., Gobiet, A., Marke, T., & Schöner, W. (2020). Klimawandel – Auswirkungen mit Blick auf den Tourismus [Climate change – Impacts on tourism]. In U. Pröbstl-Haider, D. Lund-Durlacher, M. Olefs, & F. Prettenthaler (Eds.), Tourismus und Klimawandel (pp. 19-46). Springer Spektrum. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-662-61522-5 Steiger, R., & Mayer, M. (2008). Snowmaking and climate change. Mountain Research and Development, 28(3), 292-298. https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.0978 Steiger, R., Pröbstl-Haider, U., & Prettenthaler, F. (2020). Outdooraktivitäten und damit zusammenhängende Einrichtungen im Winter [Outdoor activities and related facilities in winter]. In U. Pröbstl-Haider, D. Lund-Durlacher, M. Olefs, & F. Prettenthaler (Eds.), Tourismus und Klimawandel (pp. 109-122). Springer Spektrum. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-662-61522-5 Umweltbundesamt. (2024). Treibhausgase [Greenhouse gases]. https://www.umweltbundesamt.at/klima/treibhausgase
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".