News Walt Disney World to boost its solar power capacity with two new 75MW solar facilities in 2023

MrPromey

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
FerretAfros said:
Like you said in your earlier post, it’s cheaper and easier to have dedicated facilities for each use.

If solar panels are being built on their own, their supports don’t need to be tall enough for a vehicle to fit under, or strong enough to withstand a vehicle impact. Building structures don’t need to be modified to support the additional roof load. Maintenance of the solar panels doesn’t have to be coordinated with the operations of a theme park, and maintenance of the park facilities doesn’t have to be coordinated with the solar company. It’s just easier and cheaper for everybody.

This is a business decision, to monetize land that wouldn’t otherwise provide any direct value (though there is plenty to be said for the value provided by the visual and physical separation of the various parts of WDW, when compared to Disney’s other resorts). While I don’t necessarily agree with that logic, I certainly understand it.

But to announce it on Earth Day, as some sort of environmentally friendly initiative, is a little disingenuous when it results in unnecessary deforestation of natural areas. Having separate facilities only furthers the sprawl that got us into this mess in the first place, from destroying natural habitats, to disrupting stormwater runoff, to additional transportation costs and emissions to reach far-flung areas.

Jiminy Cricket can remind us to reduce, reuse, and recycle, but that only does so much good if Disney has already paved over the land. It’s exactly what the ironically self-unaware Circle of Life movie at the Land pavilion preached to its audiences, with the destruction of natural wetlands to build a vacation resort causing environmental impacts that the narrow-focused developer didn’t foresee.

Granted, we still don’t know for sure yet where these new solar panels are going, and they may very well be placed above existing impermeable surfaces around the resort. But if recent experience is any indicator, they’re going to take the easiest approach to make a quick buck, whether that is what’s best for the environment or not
Click to expand...

Ah, okay. We're in 100% agreement - they justify it with the saving (or earning) of green that matters to them which of course, isn't the kind you find in nature. :/
 
D

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
FerretAfros said:
For what it's worth, DLP is currently in the process of installing solar panels on top of its main parking lot


Logistically, if a large-scale solar installation above theme park parking can be a worthwhile investment with France's dreary weather, there's no reason it couldn't also be successful in the Sunshine State. The rows of cars in the MK and Epcot lots are already favorably aligned for long spans of south-facing panels; the existing layouts at DAK and Studios are slightly trickier with their north-south rows,

Additionally, HKDL uses several of its flat rooftops within the park and backstage for solar panels. Other than the former Universe of Energy (which may or may not have solar incorporated into its new design), I don't believe any WDW structures have solar roofs. There are no shortage of flat-roofed buildings at each of the parks, hotels, and other support facilities that could easily accommodate solar panels without infringing on guest sightlines.

I know that WDW has the "blessing of size" to allow whatever they want, but there's really no justification for clear-cutting a forest to install a solar farm.
Click to expand...

Does DLP have the land available to clear and use as a dedicated solar power plant like WDW? If the only option is over the parking lot than there isn't a cost/benefit analysis like WDW.
 
FerretAfros

FerretAfros

Well-Known Member
DisneyCane said:
Does DLP have the land available to clear and use as a dedicated solar power plant like WDW? If the only option is over the parking lot than there isn't a cost/benefit analysis like WDW.
Click to expand...
From a quick eyeball guesstimate, only about half of the land within Disneyland Resort Paris has been developed, including areas that are reserved for expansion of the two existing parks.

In the image below, the main parking lot is at the top center, with Disneyland Parc to the left of it, and Walt Disney Studios Pac below that. Disney Village and the hotels are the remainder of the development in the top portion. The bottom portion within the ring road is Val d'Europe, which is a master-planned community with a huge shopping mall and budget-friendly hotel options, sort of a French equivalent of Celebration. The remainder of the land remains undeveloped; prior to Disney taking control of it in the late 80's, it was agricultural land (mostly beet farms).

capture.jpg

DLRP also includes some land outside the ring road for golf courses, Davy Crockett Ranch, and Villages Nature; I'm not sure the exact extents, but I believe most of it is already developed.

They're contractually required to open a third park (though the date has been pushed off), but it's unclear exactly where that will be located. Presumably they wouldn't want to use new land for solar, if they're expecting to build something else on it in the near- to medium-future, which helps justify the additional cost of placing it above the parking. It's this opportunity cost of development that bothers me most about how Disney has added to their US resorts, particularly in recent years.

Sure, not all the land that is suitable for a solar farm would be suitable for a hotel tower or a rollercoaster, but that doesn't mean the land couldn't be used for something else that adds to the experience; why use that land exclusively for solar, if it can be combined with something else? Is it really worth spending over a billion dollars and reconfiguring major longstanding parts of Disneyland's infrastructure, to add a land with a massive footprint but only two new attractions and few possibilities for future additions? Is it worth losing a 45-minute long attraction for a 2-3 minute rollercoaster featuring an IP flavor-du-jour that may or may not even still be relevant by the time it opens? Is it worth losing a park's mission statement attraction for a fun diversion that could have easily been placed elsewhere? So many projects are being done for today's immediate needs, with little consideration for how the larger environment will operate 5, 10, and 15 years into the future.

I also expect that the political incentives and social expectations for how to incorporate solar vary greatly between France and Florida, along with the baseline energy costs that might make different solutions more palatable. Ultimately, it comes down to the desire to do things with an eye toward the future, whether that means the near-future possibilities for other development, or the long-term future environmental impacts of sprawling single-use facilities. In France, it would seem they've got it. In Florida...not so much.
 
jt04

jt04

Well-Known Member
JoeCamel said:
People can't park now, adding all the supports is asking for problems. Would be nice to have shade though
Click to expand...

www.energy.gov

NRC Approves First U.S. Small Modular Reactor Design

NRC staff approval puts NuScale Power SMR on track to receive full design certification by August 2021.
www.energy.gov www.energy.gov

This is for your future reference. The rendering is of a facility that would have ~12 individual reactors.

WDW wouldn't need near that many. And will then be 100% emission free. Because busses can run on hydrogen which nuclear plants can produce when they are bored. Or as some people say 'non-peak hours'. Because nuclear is 24/7/365 generally speaking. 🚌

In 20 years solar will have mostly been a transitional technology except for specific applications. IMO.

It's all about the Ergs or should I say BTUs since this is a British site.
 
Last edited:
cjkeating

cjkeating

Well-Known Member
FerretAfros said:
View attachment 551433
Click to expand...
The master plan has the third park (I personally feel like there is room for a 4th if they are WDSP 2.0 sized and/or a secondary Disney Village) in the large area on the right hand side of the map that is multiple green/yellow fields, additional hotels to go in the green field between Newport Bay/Sequoia and the third park plot. The small yellow field at the top right hand corner near Santa Fe is also a hotel plot. The rest of the land with the exception of the hotel plots that are well know about on the opposite side of the road to Newport Bay is mainly Val D'Europe land.
 
spock8113

spock8113

Well-Known Member
Parking lots and garages should be covered with panels. There are acres and acres of those. The panel trays provide shade for your car and create energy all at the same time. It's the "Sunshine State"!!!!!!DUH!
 
D

doctornick

Well-Known Member
JoeCamel said:
Lots of roofs too
Click to expand...

Should really consider putting them on any roofs that can be seen from the Skyliner or Monorail, etc. If you are going to have "poor show" of obvious roofs, at least spin it as a positive by looking green (can even incorporate it into their on board spiel)
 
JoeCamel

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
doctornick said:
Should really consider putting them on any roofs that can be seen from the Skyliner or Monorail, etc. If you are going to have "poor show" of obvious roofs, at least spin it as a positive by looking green (can even incorporate it into their on board spiel)
Click to expand...
That would be responsible but the added cost and complicated maintenance for the panels and HVAC in the buildings makes it a non starter for this company. EEA being the exception, I wonder if those will be real or Memorex?
 
jt04

jt04

Well-Known Member
JoeCamel said:
I can't tell if they really are putting panels back on the roof or just making it look like panels are up there
Click to expand...

Unless they are planning some sort of high cost, state of the art, and equally cool looking solar cells, it would be much better if they went with some GotG-esque space decor. 👽🌃

IMO
 

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

Back
Top Bottom