Solar power farm coming to Disney

englanddg

One Little Spark...
Note what is behind it all...financing.

Buy something you can't afford, to save money you don't have, by doing something that is "good for the earth"...oh, and here's a tax credit to make it "affordable" until it tears a hole in your roof because your roof wasn't designed for the torque or weight.

See...

This is why you should consult an engineer, not a dude who can order stuff from granger and assemble it.
 

englanddg

One Little Spark...
We are way off topic now, sorry bout that.

I think the new solar farm is a joke...myself.

It will save Disney very little, and will be savings/spending neutral.

It will buy them some good press.

That said, this is the same company that has a film that makes fun of itself (well, theme parks) in its own theme parks.

 

GeneralKnowledge

Well-Known Member
Note what is behind it all...financing.

Buy something you can't afford, to save money you don't have, by doing something that is "good for the earth"...oh, and here's a tax credit to make it "affordable" until it tears a hole in your roof because your roof wasn't designed for the torque or weight.

See...

This is why you should consult an engineer, not a dude who can order stuff from granger and assemble it.

Side note: in my experience, most municipalities require a structural engineer to evaluate a roof before they will permit a solar system to be installed upon it. This didn't used to be the norm but today is pretty commonplace.
 

GeneralKnowledge

Well-Known Member
Fusion carries with it it's own risks, even theoretically. And, politically, it's far too often confused with fission, the big bad "nuclear".

The first expansion of clean nuclear in decades just recently (on the scale of those projects as of the past few decades) got approved here in GA to add a new reactor to Votgle. There's a lot of shared knowledge between that plant and the DoD operation at Savannah River Site, and I think that may have had something to do with it.

The scratch of the Yucca project due to various reasons (much of which had to do with the safety of transporting waste across state lines) really has put a dampner on US nuclear development.

And, while Fusion is largely a different beast, it is still associated with Fission in the mind of the mass consumer.

Solar and Wind distributed grids hold a lot of promise, but also a lot of investment and upkeep for nominal relative output. They work in some geographies (for example, wind is a massive part of the TX energy grid, which makes sense, they have lots of flatlands to make it work)...

Hydro and coastal are my two personal favorites, for the exact reasons you described. They are the most predictable, when it comes to converting natural kinetic energy to electrical. But, due to other political pressures, they have fallen out of favor.

Sadly (or rather I should say accurately) natural gas and coal (or "clean coal" as they now call it, though that just refers to anthracite, which they've burned for decades because it's high BTU yield, low waste, not because it's "cleaner"...per se...) are the cheapest we have to keep the grid flowing.

And, that's what it's about. Flow.

I don't think the fact that fusion and fission can be confused will hold it back too much. In reality, modern fission (of which we have very little installed capacity) is the best short term option for reducing our dependence on hydrocarbons. Let's build some new nuclear fission plants and run them for 50 years then hopefully by the time we need to replace them we will have fusion figured out.

I agree with you that hydro is wonderful. Unfortunately as I understand it from Bill Nye and Ellen, most of the good sites are already taken.
 

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
OK - I'm curious.....

Does anyone know what the LEGAL DEFINITION is for "what can be built on Conservation or Wetland?" We know roads, hotels, and a number of other things are forbidden. But is absolutely EVERYTHING forbidden? By name? By type? I don't know.

This could be a very CLEVER move by Disney... we have the Holy Hand Grenade of "SOLAR", fighting it out with the Holy Hand Grenade of "CONSERVATION LAND". Brilliant - get Green warring with Green :).

This COULD be a very effective way for Disney to make practical use of a lot of property that they simply can NOT build on. I wish I understood if all, or only defined, building was forbidden on "Conservation Land".
First, "conservation land" and "wetlands" are different things.

The short version is conservation land is simply land where the owner gives up certain rights to it usually for a tax break. Typically, it is a pledge not to build on the land, but activities such as farming are at times allowed. There is typically nothing all that environmentally unique or structurally deficient about conversation land. In most cases it is just land someone will never use for a variety of reasons and having it designated as conservation land gains the owner certain financial benefits. That status of course can always be altered through a legal process.

Property classified as "wetlands" are environmentally unique in that they act as a filter for ground water going into the aquifer and they provide unique habitats for many species of both plants and animals. As a general rule building, filling or altering them is not allowed.

To my knowledge, a nice concise, iron clad list of what can and can not be done on land designated on wetlands does not exist.

There is however a permit and approval process for building on them or altering them. From my limited experience, the process to do this is very expensive and often requires extensive studies, environmental impact assessments, etc. To be successful, a land owner typically ends up having to buy land somewhere else and have it designated as wetlands or by contributing money to a wetlands special fund to get a permit for any kind of large scale construction.

For building without the aforementioned purchasing of land or writing a check, it usually boils down to them only allowing you to have a very limited amount of foundations and a slightly less limited amount of land covered, vegetation removal and/or back fill. It practical terms, a home owner can usually get a permit to build a small elevated walk way and boat dock and that is about it.
 
Last edited:

ABQ

Well-Known Member
So, add 15-20%? 72-75mw?
Maybe, but you can some of the increased usage in the past 15 years due to new resort construction can be mitigated by all the shuttered attractions, can't they? Thinking mostly Hollywood Studios, Innoventions, did WoL shut down in the past decade and a half, or was that earlier?

I'm just being snarky.
 

GeneralKnowledge

Well-Known Member
Ok, to take the thread back on topic.... :confused:

Will Disney be leasing the land that this will be built on to Duke Energy?

I obviously can't speak for this specific arrangement, but typically in these scenarios there isn't a land lease involved. Certainly not a paid land lease. Disney is allowing Duke to build the plant on their land in exchange for a reduced rate on the electricity the plant generates. Disney has signed an agreement stating that they will purchase all of the power generated by the plant for the next 15 years. If they're paying $0.10/kWh for their electricity right now, they will most likely have negotiated a price with Duke for somewhere around $0.05-$0.075/kWh. Duke fronts the money for construction and operation while Disney fronts the land and its a win win for both.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
Ok, how much actual power can a solar plant that size actually produce? Nuclear power that size could probably power the whole resort, but solar? Hopefully this is more than just a nice "we're green" photo op.

A nuclear plant (not that you would put one in Disney World), would produce hundreds of times more energy. The new reactors they are building at Turkey Point will produce 1117MW each. This solar farm will be 5MW.

Pretty much it is just a nice "we're green" photo op. I guess it's a little ironic to remove 20 acres of trees in order to "be green."

Solar, at the right price for the panels, would make some sense installed on rooftops or over parking lots (where they would shade cars and produce electricity). Clearing land just for a solar farm is stupid. It is a terrible use of land because the solar power generation process is so inefficient on a power per acre basis.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
First, "conservation land" and "wetlands" are different things.

The short version is conservation land is simply land where the owner gives up certain rights to it usually for a tax break. Typically, it is a pledge not to build on the land, but activities such as farming are at times allowed. There is typically nothing all that environmentally unique or structurally deficient about conversation land. In most cases it is just land someone will never use for a variety of reasons and having it designated as conservation land gains the owner certain financial benefits. That status of course can always be altered through a legal process.

Property classified as "wetlands" are environmentally unique in that they act as a filter for ground water going into the aquifer and they provide unique habitats for many species of both plants and animals. As a general rule building, filling or altering them is not allowed.

To my knowledge, a nice concise, iron clad list of what can and can not be done on land designated on wetlands does not exist.

There is however a permit and approval process for building on them or altering them. From my limited experience, the process to do this is very expensive and often requires extensive studies, environmental impact assessments, etc. To be successful, a land owner typically ends up having to buy land somewhere else and have it designated as wetlands or by contributing money to a wetlands special fund to get a permit for any kind of large scale construction.

For building without the aforementioned purchasing of land or writing a check, it usually boils down to them only allowing you to have a very limited amount of foundations and a slightly less limited amount of land covered, vegetation removal and/or back fill. It practical terms, a home owner can usually get a permit to build a small elevated walk way and boat dock and that is about it.

Good summary. The Wilderness Lodge project is a good example of where they are going to build on wetlands. You can see on the South Florida Water Management site the extensive documentation that had to be done for the permitting process. Back when the RCID water management plans were first made Disney was given a certain acreage of wetlands they were allowed to impact. They still have not used all this acreage and have also requested more in a permit last year that would be offset by a new land purchase.
 
Last edited:
I remember reading on another website a couple of years ago one of the Imagineers was writing a thread about solar panels in the parks parking lots so the idea has been looked at not sure if will even go anywhere but has been looked at.
 

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
I remember reading on another website a couple of years ago one of the Imagineers was writing a thread about solar panels in the parks parking lots so the idea has been looked at not sure if will even go anywhere but has been looked at.
I have zero doubt it has been looked at. Going green in any way is very good PR and marketing and the more out in the open it is the better. Throwing up thousands of solar panels in the parking lot of one of the most popular theme parks in the world would generate a huge media buzz.

The rub is, the parking lot idea is not the best way to make a solar farm when you have thousands of acres of land available and you are serious about generating as much power as possible.
 

GeneralKnowledge

Well-Known Member
I have zero doubt it has been looked at. Going green in any way is very good PR and marketing and the more out in the open it is the better. Throwing up thousands of solar panels in the parking lot of one of the most popular theme parks in the world would generate a huge media buzz.

The rub is, the parking lot idea is not the best way to make a solar farm when you have thousands of acres of land available and you are serious about generating as much power as possible.

This is true. Oftentimes the additional cost and reduced spatial efficiency of parking lot systems are overlooked for the added intrinsic value from putting a system in clear view of customers plus the shade provided for parking. If Disney were doing this simply for PR they probably would have looked harder at a parking lot system. As someone mentioned they could have charged a premium for shaded parking. Hell, they could have used it as a justification for increasing the parking fee by $1 and funded the entire project with that extra revenue.

The decision to do a system on open land alludes to the fact that they are always looking at the bottom line and that this was more of a $ decision than PR, which we all know is what TDO is really paying attention to.
 

Cmdr_Crimson

Well-Known Member
I have zero doubt it has been looked at. Going green in any way is very good PR and marketing and the more out in the open it is the better. Throwing up thousands of solar panels in the parking lot of one of the most popular theme parks in the world would generate a huge media buzz.

Only thing I remember was that Solar Powered Myst Spraying bench that was by Innoventions East a few years ago..It was the only other thing came out using solar panels besides UoE's Roof
epsolarbenchdemo.jpg
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom