I might get flamed for this, but oh well. After thinking some more about the new initiatives, I realized that while it is certainly a step in the right direction, I question their motives. Follow me, if you choose, for a moment. There has been lots of talk recently about the decline in quality, increase in cost-savings, management route the executives have taken over the past few years. (or more, or less, or not at all, depending on your opinion) There have been calls of Wal-Mart-ization of the parks, spearheaded by Jay Rasulo and Bob Iger. Now, if the rumors and innuendo's are to be believed, their singular goal is to try and generate the greatest profit margins possible, mainly by increasing cost savings, and finding the least expensive ways to run the business. This has been likened to Wal-Mart, and the way in which they run their business (rightly or wrongly). I'm not attempting to debate whether or not the above is true. What I find ironic, is that Wal-Mart began "green" initiatives a few years ago in all their new and remodeled stores. Automatic lights, sun lights, solar panels, white roofs, low-water restrooms and breakrooms, among other steps. Now, the reason for them doing this should be obvious to anyone who has a slight understanding of Wal-Mart and business. Wal-Mart, as most people know, do everything with one goal in mind...profits. Wal-Mart did not do any of the above for goodwill with customers, or to be a "green" company, or to lead large businesses into a new "green" economy. These may have all been side effects of what they did, but their goal is to make money. They realized, smartly I might add, that by going "green" the cost savings over the long-haul are far greater than the initial investment.
While it their motives are ultimately unimportant, if the ends are positive, I find it ironic that while there is a perceived Wal-Mart-ization happening at WDW that is "bad", this could be a Wal-Mart-izing that could be "good." But in my opinion, it could be a sign of yet more efforts to find "cost-savings" within park operations, as opposed to finding ways to increase brand loyalty, market share, and overall quality. 2 kissing lincolns.
And as far as the nuclear/non-nuclear debate. It can be a helpful supplement, but the fact that mining and disposal of toxic materials takes place, makes me hope for increased efficiencies in renewable energy sources.
And I have a question if anyone has an answer. Roughly, how much energy does WDW use in a given day, or year? For example, a new solar farm in Arizona is generating approx. .147 MW per acre. If we can figure out WDW's energy needs, we could reasonably predict the size of land that would be needed to generate enough energy. Also, if they were to put PV panels on the roofs of buildings, parking structures, attractions, etc., the area of land needed would be further reduced.
Sorry for nuclear proponents, but solar is by far the way to go for the future. 100 square miles would be all this country needs.
*Steps down*
EDIT: Battery technology is what holds back solar as far as "cloudy" days and nightime.
