For most of a mountain, a snowmaking additive is the cheaper way to make snow in marginal conditions. An all-weather snow machine makes snow at any air temperature, but it does so inside a refrigeration unit at roughly 6–65 kWh per cubic metre and needs dedicated capital equipment. A polymer additive widens the wet-bulb window of the snow guns you already own at a parts-per-million dose — no new capex, and a fraction of the energy per cubic metre.
These are two different answers to the same operator problem — "it is too warm to make snow" — and they sit at opposite ends of the cost curve. This guide compares them honestly: what each one is, what each one costs to run, and where the crossover point actually falls for a real resort.
Key takeaways
- All-weather (temperature-independent) machines make snow above freezing by chilling and crushing ice inside a sealed unit; conventional snow guns need a cold-enough wet-bulb temperature.
- All-weather machines are energy-heavy: reported figures run from about 6 kWh/m³ (IDE, with cold feed water) to roughly 65 kWh/m³ (large containerised systems), versus roughly 0.5–1.5 kWh/m³ for a modern fan gun or lance.
- A polymer snowmaking additive does not replace cold or the snow gun — it widens the marginal wet-bulb window on existing guns at a 6–7.6 ppm dose, with no capital retrofit.
- SL6733 targets a modelled +3 °C wet-bulb advantage; the economics come from recovered marginal-condition hours, not from a lower snow cost per cubic metre.
- The two are complementary: all-weather machines are point solutions for a snow guarantee; additives scale the whole mountain's marginal window cheaply. All SL6733 figures are modelled and pre-commercial.
What is an all-weather snow machine, and how is it different from a snow gun?
An all-weather snow machine makes snow at any air temperature — even +25 to +30 °C — by chilling water and forming ice inside a sealed refrigeration unit, then crushing and blowing it out as granular snow. A conventional snow gun sprays water into cold air and relies on the ambient wet-bulb temperature to freeze the droplets. That is the whole distinction: internal refrigeration versus atmospheric freezing.
The two best-known temperature-independent systems are TechnoAlpin's SnowFactory, which uses containerised refrigeration to produce snow "regardless of the outside temperature," and the IDE All Weather Snowmaker (VIM), which uses a vacuum-ice process originally developed for deep-mine cooling. Both generate a dense, granular product rather than the crystalline snow a gun throws, and both are marketed for exactly the situations a gun cannot cover: a snow guarantee for an event, a cross-country loop, a beginner area, or a resort base that must open on a fixed date.
A conventional snow gun, by contrast, is an atmospheric machine. It cannot make snow at +5 °C wet-bulb no matter how much you spend, because the physics of droplet freezing depend on the surrounding air. The full explanation of that limit is in the wet-bulb temperature and snowmaking guide — but the short version is that a gun's output collapses as the wet-bulb rises toward −2 °C and stops entirely above it.
What does an all-weather snow machine cost to run?
A lot, per cubic metre. Because it runs an industrial refrigeration cycle instead of borrowing the cold from the air, an all-weather machine uses roughly one to two orders of magnitude more energy per cubic metre of snow than a conventional gun. Reported figures span about 6 kWh/m³ at the efficient end to around 65 kWh/m³ for large containerised systems — before you count the capital cost of the machine itself.
The numbers are worth setting side by side. IDE's system has been reported at roughly 0.17 kW per cubic foot (about 6 kWh/m³) when the feed water is already cold — and chilling warmer feed water can roughly double that. At the other end, a modular-system vendor's comparison of its plant against a TechnoAlpin SnowFactory put the SnowFactory at about 65 kWh/m³ (that figure comes from a competitor, so treat it as directional). Conventional guns are in a different regime entirely: a modern fan gun runs near 0.7 kWh/m³ at −4 °C wet-bulb, and lances about 0.6–0.7 kWh/m³, per the industry figures collated on Wikipedia's snowmaking page.
| System | How it makes snow | Works above freezing? | Reported energy per m³ | Capex profile | |---|---|---|---|---| | Conventional fan gun | Atmospheric freezing | No (needs cold wet-bulb) | ~0.5–1.5 kWh/m³ | Already installed | | Snow lance | Atmospheric freezing | No (needs cold wet-bulb) | ~0.6–0.7 kWh/m³ | Already installed | | All-weather machine (IDE / SnowFactory) | Internal refrigeration | Yes, any temperature | ~6–65 kWh/m³ | New dedicated unit | | Polymer additive (SL6733) + existing guns | Widens the gun's wet-bulb window | Extends the marginal window (modelled +3 °C) | ~0.5–1.5 kWh/m³ (the gun's) + ppm dose | Zero (drop-in) |
The pattern: an all-weather machine buys you temperature independence, but you pay for it in electricity every single cubic metre, forever, plus the upfront equipment. That is fine for a small, high-value patch of snow. It does not scale to a mountain.
What does a snowmaking additive do differently?
A snowmaking additive does not make snow above freezing and does not replace the snow gun. It changes the water chemistry so that existing guns produce usable snow higher up the wet-bulb scale than they otherwise could — recovering the marginal hours at the edge of the window rather than manufacturing cold. It is a chemistry lever, not a machine.
DeepSnow's SL6733 is a two-component polymer: an ultra-high-molecular-weight anionic poly(acrylamide-co-sodium acrylate) that inhibits ice recrystallization, paired with a cold-water-swelling starch nucleant, dosed at 6–7.6 ppm in the snowmaking water. The mechanism and the wider category are covered in how polymer snowmaking additives work. The modelled effect is a +3 °C wet-bulb advantage — meaning a gun that would otherwise shut off can keep producing through part of the marginal window.
Crucially, the additive rides on the energy the gun already uses. There is no separate refrigeration cycle to power. The incremental cost is the additive dose itself, and the value is measured in recovered snowmaking hours, not in a lower cost per cubic metre. This is the chemistry-as-efficiency argument set out in the missing fifth lever: it reduces the water and energy needed per cubic metre of usable snow in marginal conditions, rather than adding a new energy load.
Additive vs all-weather machine: which problem are you solving?
They solve different problems, so the honest answer is "it depends on the job." If you need snow at +10 °C on a fixed 200-metre patch for an event, an all-weather machine is the tool — no additive makes snow that warm. If you need to defend hundreds of marginal wet-bulb hours across the whole mountain each season, the additive is the tool, because you cannot afford to refrigerate an entire ski area.
Here is the decision framing operators actually use:
- Choose an all-weather machine when the requirement is absolute temperature independence on a small, defined area: a snow guarantee for a race or festival, a lower-mountain beginner zone, a cross-country stadium loop, or an indoor slope. The cost per cubic metre is high, but the area is small and the revenue is fixed to the date.
- Choose an additive when the requirement is to extend the productive window of an existing snowmaking fleet across large terrain: earlier openings, more reliable coverage through warm spells, and better snow durability. The cost per cubic metre stays near the gun's baseline; the payoff is the recovered hours.
- They coexist. A resort can run an all-weather unit for its guaranteed base and dose its main guns with an additive for the marginal window. They are not substitutes competing for the same budget line.
The comparison people get wrong is treating the additive as a cheaper all-weather machine. It is not — it does not make snow above freezing. It is a cheaper way to win the marginal window that sits just above where guns normally quit, which is where most of the lost snowmaking hours in a warming climate actually are.
What does the economics look like for a mid-sized resort?
For a mid-sized Alpine resort, the additive wins on the marginal window because it protects a large revenue line with a small chemistry cost, while an all-weather machine only ever covers a small footprint. A modelled 300–500 recovered snowmaking hours per season translates to roughly $2.4–2.8M of EBITDA uplift — figures that are modelled and pre-commercial, but that dwarf the additive's cost.
The reason the additive economics are attractive is the same reason set out in the snowmaking cost breakdown: snowmaking is a large operating line — about 17% of daily operating cost at large Alpine resorts, per Vorkauf et al. 2022 — and the value at risk behind it is far larger, because early, reliable openings drive lift-ticket, lodging, and food-and-beverage revenue. Widening the window earlier converts directly into that revenue.
| Dimension | All-weather machine | Polymer additive (SL6733, modelled) | |---|---|---| | Terrain covered | Small defined area | Whole existing snowmaking network | | Works above freezing | Yes | No — extends the marginal window (+3 °C modelled) | | Energy per m³ | ~6–65 kWh/m³ | The gun's ~0.5–1.5 kWh/m³ + ppm dose | | Upfront capital | New refrigeration unit | Zero (drop-in dosing) | | Best use | Snow guarantee, events, base patch | Earlier openings, marginal-hour recovery, durability | | Status | Commercial | Pre-commercial (EU pilots targeted 2026/27) |
An all-weather machine is a capital purchase that makes a fixed quantity of very expensive snow. An additive is an operating input that makes the snow you were already going to make reach further up the temperature scale. For a whole-mountain problem, the operating lever is the cheaper structure — and it works with any snow gun, so there is no rip-and-replace of the fleet you already paid for. If you also want the regulatory context for where a polymer additive can be deployed, see the country-by-country additive rules.
Where SL6733 sits, honestly
SL6733 is pre-commercial. EU lab pilots are targeted for the 2026/27 season and commercial deployment for 2027/28; the +3 °C wet-bulb advantage and the EBITDA figures are modelled targets to be confirmed in pilot. DeepSnow is the platform brand of SnowLabs Limited (Ireland); the Italian operating entity, DeepSnow Srl, is in formation. All-weather machines, by contrast, are a mature commercial category you can buy today. We say this plainly because the comparison only helps an operator if it is accurate about maturity as well as economics.
The bottom line
If the question is "how do I make snow at +10 °C on this one patch," buy the machine. If the question is "how do I stop losing hundreds of snowmaking hours across my mountain as the wet-bulb creeps up," the cheaper structure is chemistry on the guns you already own — an operating input that scales, not a capital box that does not. Most resorts, most of the time, are asking the second question.
If you operate a resort and want to evaluate the 2026/27 SL6733 pilot cohort against your own marginal-hour losses, request a pilot or send us a message. A real person answers every inbound.
Operator outcomes for SL6733 (+3 °C wet-bulb advantage, 300–500 recovered hours, $2.4–2.8M EBITDA uplift) are modelled and pre-commercial. Energy figures for all-weather machines and conventional guns are reported ranges from the sources linked above and vary widely with feed-water temperature, wet-bulb, and configuration.