Solar power farm coming to Disney

[GoofGoof]

@Nubs70 has it right here, The net metering agreements in my state are heavily biased against the solar interconnect. Basically they pay you the LOWEST retail rate and in exchange charge you the highest retail rate, So battery systems are fairly popular in the solar community at least in my state (which has a legacy of corrupt practices in power sales and regulation) in many instances its cheaper to fire up a natural gas powered home generator than buy from the 'grid'.

So in many of the larger solar systems you have panels/batts/genset combos.

I'm not sure I follow. In all of the cases I've seen the meters are setup so that the run forward and backward. At times when you are drawing power they run forward (like a traditional meter), at times when you are dumping power on the grid they run backward. It results in a net power taken/given that you then pay for at your retail rate. I've never seen an arrangement where there are different retail rates being applied. You would need a smart meter that could keep track of the times of the day when power flows in/out. That technology exists, but I've never seen it in practice. In several states the incumbent utilities are fighting for additional charges for residential solar customers.

 

[GoofGoof]

No no.... Lincoln Financial Field & ASU didn't eliminate any parking for their projects.

master Yoda has the point, too much risk of clueless tourists hitting the supports.

Plus as much as I love the idea, Disney only would do it if someone else paid for it. That's their business model.

These types of projects are often owned by a third party like the projects at the Linc and ASU. It's better for both sides. The developer and owner gets a contract with a steady cash stream over a fixed number of years which allows them to get project financing and becomes almost like an annuity for them with "guaranteed" returns. The customer gets their green power but has no responsibility to do anything as far as operating or maintaining the system. Win/win for both sides.

 

[PhotoDave219]

These types of projects are often owned by a third party like the projects at the Linc and ASU. It's better for both sides. The developer and owner gets a contract with a steady cash stream over a fixed number of years which allows them to get project financing and becomes almost like an annuity for them with "guaranteed" returns. The customer gets their green power but has no responsibility to do anything as far as operating or maintaining the system. Win/win for both sides.

I'd love to know what the long-term plans are with Duke Energy and this Solar project. There's plenty of room to build a few more on property.

 

[Tom]

I'd love to know what the long-term plans are with Duke Energy and this Solar project. There's plenty of room to build a few more on property.

I predict this will be the tip of the iceberg.

 

[GoofGoof]

I'd love to know what the long-term plans are with Duke Energy and this Solar project. There's plenty of room to build a few more on property.

I predict this will be the tip of the iceberg.

Agreed. I think there's some potential to mix in solar on rooftops as well as over parking lots in the future too.

 

[BuzzKillington]

This is nothing but a complete farce given the amount of electricity created. I bet that if you dig deep enough, you will find the government behind the building of this solar power farm as part of Agenda 21's brainwashing of our youth. I can just hear it now, "Look little Johnny, that is where Walt Disney World gets its electricity from!"

 

[EpcoTim]

This is nothing but a complete farce given the amount of electricity created. I bet that if you dig deep enough, you will find the government behind the building of this solar power farm as part of Agenda 21's brainwashing of our youth. I can just hear it now, "Look little Johnny, that is where Walt Disney World gets its electricity from!"

Yeah, that's the ticket.

 

[GymLeaderPhil]

Can't wait till they harness the energy from all the hot air blown out from the folks at the Disney Parks Blog. Maybe hook them up to a hamster wheel while we're at it?

 

[ford91exploder]

I'm not sure I follow. In all of the cases I've seen the meters are setup so that the run forward and backward. At times when you are drawing power they run forward (like a traditional meter), at times when you are dumping power on the grid they run backward. It results in a net power taken/given that you then pay for at your retail rate. I've never seen an arrangement where there are different retail rates being applied. You would need a smart meter that could keep track of the times of the day when power flows in/out. That technology exists, but I've never seen it in practice. In several states the incumbent utilities are fighting for additional charges for residential solar customers.

They do use 'smart' meters which are read electronically up here for grid tie applications, The old school electromechanical meters are long gone here although I do have one which I have turned into a lamp in my office.

You have no idea how bad it is up here.

 

[DisneyCane]

This is nothing but a complete farce given the amount of electricity created. I bet that if you dig deep enough, you will find the government behind the building of this solar power farm as part of Agenda 21's brainwashing of our youth. I can just hear it now, "Look little Johnny, that is where Walt Disney World gets its electricity from!"

Exactly. Solar makes very little economic sense if there aren't tax breaks involved. I'm sure that Disney does not pay nearly the residential retail rate for electricity, especially the northeast rates that have been discussed here. The general public sees a solar farm and WAY overestimates the amount of electricity it is producing.

Solar cells just aren't efficient enough to make any sense from a land use perspective. Windmills are hideous but they produce a lot more electricity for the space they actually occupy. A wind farm doesn't have to be dedicated land.

On one of the financial channels they were interviewing the CEO of Southern Company (a utility company in the south) and discussing some solar projects. He was asked about how they work out financially. His reply was "with the tax breaks, they are cost competitive."

 

[GeneralKnowledge]

Exactly. Solar makes very little economic sense if there aren't tax breaks involved. I'm sure that Disney does not pay nearly the residential retail rate for electricity, especially the northeast rates that have been discussed here. The general public sees a solar farm and WAY overestimates the amount of electricity it is producing.

Solar cells just aren't efficient enough to make any sense from a land use perspective. Windmills are hideous but they produce a lot more electricity for the space they actually occupy. A wind farm doesn't have to be dedicated land.

On one of the financial channels they were interviewing the CEO of Southern Company (a utility company in the south) and discussing some solar projects. He was asked about how they work out financially. His reply was "with the tax breaks, they are cost competitive."

This is very true. Duke energy will received a tax credit in the amount of 30% of the cost of the project. I'm not sure what Florida's state incentives are but there may well be something from them as well. You can check state and federal renewable energy programs here: http://www.dsireusa.org

 

[BuzzKillington]

Alternative energy such as solar and windmill are hideously inefficient and many of the posters on here are obviously misinformed of this FACT. Instead of you sheeple supporting this joke of a "green agenda" which costs you and I billions in tax dollars each year, you should be calling for more research in clean coal (which this country has unlimited supplies of) and nuclear fission which are much more productive and cost-effective.

 

[danlb_2000]

It is called a forum where open discussions of different ideas and beliefs are conducted. Just because my ideas and beliefs are different from yours, does not make me a troll.

Alternative energy such as solar and windmill are hideously inefficient and many of the posters on here are obviously misinformed of this FACT. Instead of you sheeple supporting this joke of a "green agenda" which costs you and I billions in tax dollars each year, you should be calling for more research in clean coal (which this country has unlimited supplies of) and nuclear fission which are much more productive and cost-effective.

No fossil fuel is unlimited, eventually "alternative energy" will be our only choice.

 

[Progress.City]

I have one: Why?

Two words :

Why-not!?

 

[Nubs70]

Two words :

Why-not!?

Now that is a fine analytical response.

 

[Progress.City]

What Disney should really do is install this technology that generates electricity as people walk over it. I forgot the name but it's real and it's actually being deployed in some places. With the number of people who walk through Disney's parks, it has the potential of generating a considerable amount of electricity without being seen or taking up space or being heard or emitting gases. Just install these under every walkway at WDW. Start with the busy ones.

 

[Nubs70]

So there are 2 possibilities:

1. Induced magnetic field.
Install large "stator" magnets and require patrons to carry "rotor" magnets. The movement of the magnets against each other will induce an electrical current.

Downsides of a system of this nature is it may kill anyone with a pacemaker. Another issue is that patron movement will be restricted to one direction of flow. 2 persons moving in opposite direction in the same stator field will cancel each other.

2. Piezoelectric imbedded walkways.
This would require replacing existing walkways with platforms suspended on piezoelectric crystals.

Downside of this system is that all patrons must step in sync with each other. Walking out of sync will counter act the pumping action.

 

[GoofGoof]

It is called a forum where open discussions of different ideas and beliefs are conducted. Just because my ideas and beliefs are different from yours, does not make me a troll.

Alternative energy such as solar and windmill are hideously inefficient and many of the posters on here are obviously misinformed of this FACT. Instead of you sheeple supporting this joke of a "green agenda" which costs you and I billions in tax dollars each year, you should be calling for more research in clean coal (which this country has unlimited supplies of) and nuclear fission which are much more productive and cost-effective.

You are entitled to an opinion and this should be a discussion, but you are doing the same thing by saying that the people who disagree with you are obviously misinformed. I have no idea what your background is, but I've spent over a decade working in the energy industry specifically for a company that owns both traditional fossil fuel generation as well as wind and solar generation. Since I am on both sides of the equation I'm much less biased than someone who is only working for a fossil fuel company or a green energy company. I may not know everything about the specific laws in every state, but I can assure you I'm not "obviously misinformed". I'm basing my statements in this thread on intimate knowledge of very similar projects and working in the actual industry, not a bunch of buzz words and political catch phrases. I don't work for Duke so I haven't seen this particular contract, but I've seen many similar contracts and in most cases they are structured to be pretty good deals for the customer over the long run. As far as efficiency, wind doesn't work in central Florida. It only works in areas with a lot of wind. Solar works pretty well...it's sunny there a lot. As far as tax breaks, solar and wind don't get any more tax breaks than have been around for for oil and natural gas companies for years. Google master limited partnership or tax breaks for oil companies. The other benefit is these projects are often times owned by an independent company or part of the non-regulated side of a utility so they don't rely on rate payers if there are cost overruns like a typical utility project. The risk is on the company not the rate payers. Talk to @ford91exploder about stranded costs from utilities spending money poorly.

Clean coal is kinda dead at this point. It pains me to say it because I really thought for a while it had a lot of promise. There was some encouraging progress made on plasma gasification a few years back but they were never able to take a sample project and get it up to commercial size and keep the economics in place. My company actually had a contract with the NY power authority to sell the output of a plant after converting an existing traditional coal plant to a "clean coal" plant. By the time the project was reading to break ground we couldn't get the economics to work and the project died. Now that nat gas is under $3 per mmbtu and near unlimited supply from all the fracking going on, it's hard to justify converting plants into anything other than nat gas plants. Nobody is going to lend you money to build clean coal. A short sited and limited view point, but you have to convince a bank to lend you money for these types of projects or they are dead in the water.

One area for coal that has some promise is in a process where you extract the CO2 from a coal plant's emissions and pipe it to a spent oil field where it is used for oil recovery. When a traditional oil field stops producing oil easily there is usually still a lot of oil left in the ground it just needs some help coming out. For years companies pumped water into an oil well under high pressure to get excess oil out. Even after using oil there is still residual oil that's hard to get out. It was discovered that CO2 works better than water and can get even more of the stranded oil out. The only problem was getting large concentrations of CO2. If you have a coal burning power plant in say Texas that is relatively close to a spent oil field you build a pipeline and pump it in. The system allows the CO2 to be recycled at the oil field and used multiple times. Once all of the oil is extracted the well is capped permanently trapping the CO2 underground. It's basically carbon capture and sequestration with a twist. The oil produced offsets the cost of the system and you end up with a coal plant with very low CO2 emissions. This had a lot more promise when crude was over $100 a barrel but the economics still work...barely.

Nuclear isn't much better off than clean coal at this point. The obvious risks and issues with storing spent fuel are one thing, but the bigger problem is again the nat gas prices being under $3 per mmbtu. Anyone living in Illinois should know this too well. Exelon is trying to get rate payers in the state to pay well above market prices for the output of several smaller nuclear plants there in order to keep them open. It's not very easy to justify the expense of new nuclear projects. I know this again from first hand experience.

 

[Mike730]

"Clean" Coal....

LOL

 

[BuzzKillington]

"Clean" Coal....

LOL

Laugh all you want but coal-fired power plants are the primary source of energy for many countries and you can bet your bottom dollar that China and India aren't going to covert to solar or wind EVER. We all know that this solar powered "venture" by Disney is nothing but government subsidized propaganda and if we as a people are serious about reducing air pollution (which is what this is all about), allowing our government to waste our tax dollars on solar and wind is not the answer. Renewable energy is not cost-effective and will never be a viable alternative to fossil fuel and if it were, the Chinese would be all over it.