Disney World Buses Go Green

[Rayray]

I am not sure which one Disney tested but the hybrid buses developed by GM were boasting a 60% better fuel economy. There were also substantial reductions in hydrocarbon, CO, particulate and nitrogen oxide emissions.

Thanks for the stat. I wonder if those stats factor in age and wear of the vehicle. Some hybrid cars are getting a bad rep for that.

BTW, those of you hoping for biodiesel or E85 busses, don't count on it. It's not quite where it should be yet. At 50 gallons of fuel per acre of corn, We might need the entire country to plant corn in their front yard.

 

[Rayray]

:sohappy: I LOVE this post:sohappy:

I am a native SF Bay Area girl and you should see the things we have done and are doing here in California.

My DH and I have wondered for YEARS now why the buses and Autopia were not green vehicles. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE that they are starting with the buses. Maybe Autopia can be next? They can pipe through speakers on the individual cars the noises the cars make now so you don't lose that effect.

BTW solar works even if it is cloudy and rainy out . . . we have seen it and it does not faulter. The UV rays still come through those clouds. Your meter actually runs backwards from the energy you receive.

Sure, it will gather energy, but it is very little. Plus, in an industrial sense, the very large amounts of power consumption cannot be met easily with photovoltaic cells. Research is imroving the efficiency, however.

Sorry, but nuclear is where its at in this day and age.

 

[erasure fan1]

If they cost too much for you it costs too much for everyone! I meant you need to research Solar in general. There is no way the panels on UoE can power the AC, lights, and the ride vehicles. Not even close. They put them in as a gimmick to inspire thought. NOT because they are practical. Glad I could help inform you

Sorry It sounded like you wanted me to research if the ride had solar or not. I guess for as much as you hear about solar, I wouldnt have thought it to be so non practical.

 

[mk12a]

Back to the topic...yes there was a hybrid Gillig bus on property a couple of months ago for testing. The Gillig company (GM) sent it to Disney to see how they liked it. Some of you may have seen it, it was black and of course had all kinds of advertising on the side touting the fact that it was a hybrid. I do know that they couldn't test it at the Magic Kingdom because it was too tall to fit under the monorail beam in the north loop. This particular model bus is really tall, exactly like the newer Lynx buses, with the aerodynamic body kit. I haven't heard any results from the testing, but it would take many, many years before all of the buses would be replaced. The oldest buses we have now were made in 1988 and are still on the road. With a fleet of 300+ buses and the Gillig's costing $300K - $400K apiece, it would be hard to replace the whole fleet quickly. But you gotta start somewhere. I am all for hybrid technology, I drive a Civic hybrid myself.

 

[Texas84]

 

[disneykid23]

From Screamscape:



Wonder how long this will take? It seems like a step in the right direction for the increasingly eco-conscious company.

We are already using Ultra Low Sufer fuel and they are looking at buying Hybrid buses not sure how many yet since they are twice the price of a regular bus. But they are looking at the emmisions of every bus. Twice a year every bus gets its emmisions tested to see how the fuel is doing.

 

[dixiegirl]

They better figure out a way to pump diesel scents thru the exhaust if they go green! The smell of the diesel exhaust is something that always reminds me of Disney oddly enough =p

Not at all odd!!!! My 3 year old not to long ago told her aunt as a public transportaion bus went by that it smelt like disney...Yeah my sister-in-law didnt get it at first , later my 6 year explained about the smell to her, needless to say as both my hubby and I already knew, my sister -in-law said to us "your kids are soooo brainwashed"!!!! So odd, no not at allyou should read the thread about disney smells, its comical at what makes us (disneynuts) think of disney!!!!



40 more days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mick G.]

I also find that the smell of diesel fumes reminds me of WDW. It probably goes back to waiting for the Amtrak Floridian at Union Station in Nashville, and was reinforced by many hours working at the TTC and Epcot monorail stations. Come to think of it, most of the "olfactory ambiance" at TTC comes from the tour buses and hotel buses idling in the big parking lot to the east of the station, and Epcot catches the fumes from the trams. So diesel fumes won't be completely a thing of the past, at least not yet.

Having worked for Disney, I'm fairly confident that the main motivation for new buses is cost. If new buses use 60% less fuel, that would save the mouse many thousands of dollars. The good PR is just a happy by-product. And from the guest perspective, new buses are bound to be an improvement over the current fleet.

 

[emmersandjack]

Thanks for the stat. I wonder if those stats factor in age and wear of the vehicle. Some hybrid cars are getting a bad rep for that.

BTW, those of you hoping for biodiesel or E85 busses, don't count on it. It's not quite where it should be yet. At 50 gallons of fuel per acre of corn, We might need the entire country to plant corn in their front yard.

I sometimes am easily influenced by corporate liberal mags like rolling stone-I know that this is not exactly the most reliable source for anything political or environmental. That point notwithstanding, there was an interesting article in last months issue called the ethanol scam.
(please don't crucify me for this because I am not an expert, just food for thought) One of the statistics they point out is that filling the tank of an SUV with pure ethanol would require more than 450lbs. of corn.
While I know that the Rolling Stone is not the end all be all of informational sources, I am glad I got to read this article because it does call me to question more of what I am told about alternative fuels...I am glad that someone else has read information contradicting the practicality of ethanol.

Also, here in Michigan the Ford Rouge Plant has green grass roof, this helps in reducing cooling costs and other stuff too. I wonder if Disney has thought of anything like this.

if anyone is interesting in some of the things they have done here is the link I found
http://www.ford.com/en/goodWorks/environment/cleanerManufacturing/rougeRenovation.htm
just interesting info....

 

[SDav10495]

They should switch to brain power!

*Bu-dum ching!*

But seriously folks ...keep up the thoughtful discussion.

 

[lilmizpixie3]

That is really exciting news to me, eco-friendly is the way to be

 

[nyscene911]

I am not sure which one Disney tested but the hybrid buses developed by GM were boasting a 60% better fuel economy. There were also substantial reductions in hydrocarbon, CO, particulate and nitrogen oxide emissions.

Just to add some more info on future large hybrids: Ford, UPS, the EPA, and some division of Eaton are working on a hydraulic hybrid delivery truck that is supposed to increase efficiency by more than 100%. I'd be willing to guess that same tech, when perfected, couldbe adapted for buses.Its not really related here, but now submarine developers are designing their powerplants to not power the turbines directly, but to turn generators to store energy in batteries to power the turbine motors. That allow the fuel engines to runat their peak (read most efficient) RPM at all times, which would also be a cool thing to look into for future hybrid buses, as it could save considerable fuel as well.(Se the stuff we learn in school actually CAN be useful, even if its only in a Disney forum)
edit: sorry for spelling-fromatting errors, I'm posting from my cell phone

 

[Rayray]

I sometimes am easily influenced by corporate liberal mags like rolling stone-I know that this is not exactly the most reliable source for anything political or environmental. That point notwithstanding, there was an interesting article in last months issue called the ethanol scam.
(please don't crucify me for this because I am not an expert, just food for thought) One of the statistics they point out is that filling the tank of an SUV with pure ethanol would require more than 450lbs. of corn.
While I know that the Rolling Stone is not the end all be all of informational sources, I am glad I got to read this article because it does call me to question more of what I am told about alternative fuels...I am glad that someone else has read information contradicting the practicality of ethanol.

Also, here in Michigan the Ford Rouge Plant has green grass roof, this helps in reducing cooling costs and other stuff too. I wonder if Disney has thought of anything like this.

if anyone is interesting in some of the things they have done here is the link I found
http://www.ford.com/en/goodWorks/environment/cleanerManufacturing/rougeRenovation.htm
just interesting info....

You have heard right about the E-85. It would be a great option, but its just not feasible, right now. More research is needed.

Hopefully, more efficient engines will battle this statistic. Higher efficiency equals a lower demand for fuel. In fact, lots of research is being done in that field right now. One concept (which isn't exactly working at the moment) is the six stroke engine, adding a fifth and sixth stroke on another piston powered by expanding steam heated from the regular pistons.

 

[NOLADisneyFan]

I personally do not believe all of the global warming hype. I think if the mouse switches over to these allegedly "eco-friendly" buses, its going to cost it more in the long run...much higher prices to purchase, higher cost of upkeep, shorter working life...any "fuel economy" savings will be worthless.

The mouse ought to just save its money and extend the monorail!...c'mon you knew it was a matter of time before someone said it!

For those of you that believe that WDW using green buses is great...I say wonderful! If that's what it takes to keep you coming back again and again, spending your money, then its cool with me.

 

[nyscene911]

I personally do not believe all of the global warming hype. I think if the mouse switches over to these allegedly "eco-friendly" buses, its going to cost it more in the long run...much higher prices to purchase, higher cost of upkeep, shorter working life...any "fuel economy" savings will be worthless.

The mouse ought to just save its money and extend the monorail!...c'mon you knew it was a matter of time before someone said it!

For those of you that believe that WDW using green buses is great...I say wonderful! If that's what it takes to keep you coming back again and again, spending your money, then its cool with me.

I believe manmade global warming is overblown as well, but it doesn't hurt to be environmentally conscious, and find ways to use less oil. Because even though global warming may slow or stop, oil isn't going to get any cheaper the way China's and India's economies are growing. And new buses are expensive no matter what, so spending the extra on these really shouldn't represent that much of an initial economic loss to WDW.

 

[mrerk]

From the Imagineering Field Guide to Epcot:

"The roof of the attraction is covered with two acres of photovoltaic cells, providing 15% of the power needed to run the attraction inside. There are 80,000 cells, providing a peak output of about 70,000 watts of direct current, which is then converted to alternating current for use inside."

 

[mickhyperion]

These kinds of discussions used to be what Tomorrowland was all about. Alternative transportation and energy sources. Monorails and Peoplemovers. Decades later all we have are cartoon characters. Point the finger where you will.

 

[unkadug]

Hopefully the trend will continue and they will remove the Indy "Speedway" as they pollute as much as a bus! Ack! Uh oh....:lookaroun

And just think what they could do with that chunk of real estate when added to the former sub lagoon land!!!

ah yes, this was brought up today on another thread http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showpost.php?p=2406235&postcount=48

• The heat is caused by global warming
• The cold is caused by global warming.
• The floods are caused by global warming
• The drought is caused by global warming.

What an enigma!

 

[WDWGuide]

• The heat is caused by global warming
• The cold is caused by global warming.
• The floods are caused by global warming
• The drought is caused by global warming.

What an enigma!

It's a bit frustrating to us who do research in this field to have the products of our hard work misreported and/or used for either left or right-wing propaganda purposes, which is where so much of the confusion and disbelief voiced by the public (much of it expressed in this thread) comes from. Without context, much of our research comes across as contradictory, when most of it really isn't.
All we do is take the best information available to us and piece those data together to create concepts, models and frameworks (scientific theories) that as closely approximate the "truth" as the information and our understanding of it permits. The climate system is incredibly complex, and simple, linear explanations or "common sense" rarely capture the sometimes paradoxical ways in which the system works.
The underlying process of climate change research is the same as in all scientific work, and while certainly not flawless, it usually works quite well because it is inherently skeptical - obvious errors are usually identified quickly, and most others caught eventually.

To respond to your post in particular: It is in most cases impossible to identify climate change (of which global warming is just a somewhat unfortunately-named component) as causing any individual weather event. Any time you hear this, you should be very skeptical - it indicates that the person who claims so doesn't understand the basic difference between climate and weather (or, more likely, some scientist got misquoted in some newspaper article).

What climate change does do is change the frequency at which extreme weather events are expected to occur. Climate change is also anything but uniform in space or time - some regions cool, many warm. Some get dryer, some wetter. Hey, it even makes perfect sense that you can get more rain in an area and yet more droughts at the same time. Or warmer temperatures and more snowfall.

To anyone who is interested in the subject, I would recommend reading this
list of FAQs as an introduction. The IPCC, which released it, is a fairly good source of information, if usually a bit on the conservative/skeptical side because they report (in part) to the UN and their member governments.

With this, I will get off the podium, leave this thread and :zipit: . :wave:

 

[unkadug]

It's a bit frustrating to us who do research in this field to have the products of our hard work misreported and/or used for either left or right-wing propaganda purposes, which is where so much of the confusion and disbelief voiced by the public (much of it expressed in this thread) comes from. Without context, much of our research comes across as contradictory, when most of it really isn't.
All we do is take the best information available to us and piece those data together to create concepts, models and frameworks (scientific theories) that as closely approximate the "truth" as the information and our understanding of it permits. The climate system is incredibly complex, and simple, linear explanations or "common sense" rarely capture the sometimes paradoxical ways in which the system works.
The underlying process of climate change research is the same as in all scientific work, and while certainly not flawless, it usually works quite well because it is inherently skeptical - obvious errors are usually identified quickly, and most others caught eventually.

To respond to your post in particular: It is in most cases impossible to identify climate change (of which global warming is just a somewhat unfortunately-named component) as causing any individual weather event. Any time you hear this, you should be very skeptical - it indicates that the person who claims so doesn't understand the basic difference between climate and weather (or, more likely, some scientist got misquoted in some newspaper article).

What climate change does do is change the frequency at which extreme weather events are expected to occur. Climate change is also anything but uniform in space or time - some regions cool, many warm. Some get dryer, some wetter. Hey, it even makes perfect sense that you can get more rain in an area and yet more droughts at the same time. Or warmer temperatures and more snowfall.

To anyone who is interested in the subject, I would recommend reading this
list of FAQs as an introduction. The IPCC, which released it, is a fairly good source of information, if usually a bit on the conservative/skeptical side because they report (in part) to the UN and their member governments.

With this, I will get off the podium, leave this thread and :zipit: . :wave:

I apologize for way over-simplifying the examples.

You make an excellent, informative, enlightening response post. :wave:

Thank you