Horizons '83
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Maybe they are seeing some savings with the current solar farm so they are going all in, so to speak.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Solar power farm coming to Disney
- Thread starter PhotoDave219
- Start date
Unplugged
Well-Known Member
Is that the best they could do? Too cheap to make it an even 300 acres? 
That's a pretty impressive intention. I'm curious as to the drivers. That is, how does this play into their finances of savings/costs. You know Disney does nothing without the all mighty dollar as a driver these days.
That's a pretty impressive intention. I'm curious as to the drivers. That is, how does this play into their finances of savings/costs. You know Disney does nothing without the all mighty dollar as a driver these days.
Brainleech419
Well-Known Member
ITS A GREAT BIG BEAUTIFUL TOMORROW
but does anyone the efficiency of the panels at the current farm vs the new farm.
but does anyone the efficiency of the panels at the current farm vs the new farm.
Horizons '83
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Or any other For-Profit BusinessIs that the best they could do? Too cheap to make it an even 300 acres?
That's a pretty impressive intention. I'm curious as to the drivers. That is, how does this play into their finances of savings/costs. You know Disney does nothing without the all mighty dollar as a driver these days.
Walt d
Well-Known Member
Iv seen that big ear, thanks google earth. I think its cool that, reedy creek is still a company that we use. After all these years. I see the little building thats on Hotel Boulevard .
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
Probably closer to the highway and narrower.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Do you know what Reedy Creek is?
GoofGoof
Premium Member
There are 2 benefits to a project like this. The first and most obvious is that Disney can take credit for being a more green company. It’s a PR benefit without a direct financial gain.Is that the best they could do? Too cheap to make it an even 300 acres?
That's a pretty impressive intention. I'm curious as to the drivers. That is, how does this play into their finances of savings/costs. You know Disney does nothing without the all mighty dollar as a driver these days.
The second is they lock in the cost of a portion of their electricity needs for a period of years. This solar farm will be built, owned and operated by a 3rd party and Disney (through Reedy Creek) signed a power purchase agreement which probably requires them to pay the 3rd party a fixed price per megawatt hour over a period of 15 to 25 years. It’s a hedge of their future costs. If power prices go up the contract could be below market and actually be a nice financial benefit. If power prices drop the contract will continue to be even more above market but you still get the PR benefit. Depending on how the contract is written Disney could also have the rights to any future state mandated solar renewable energy credits. Right now there is no market for SRecs in FL but if the state introduces higher renewable energy standards in the future there could be a market. In a state like NJ when home solar first became a viable option the value of the SRecs alone almost paid for the cost of the systems installed.
Walt d
Well-Known Member
Yes i know what reedy creek is,
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Ok I wasn’t sure based on your previous post when you referred to it as a company disney uses.
TeriofTerror
Well-Known Member
I miss @PhotoDave219.
DocMcHulk
Well-Known Member
Doing some quick math here, please correct me if I am wrong, and I am making some assumptions.
According to a 2011 RCID annual report, they purchased 842,850 MWh of energy.
(EDIT: Their 2015 report reported 947,655 MWh of purchased energy.)
This solar farm is 50MH at peak performance.
50MW * .80 (efficiency) * 365 day * 7 hours/day = 102,200 WMh
This would account for about 1/8 of their "purchased power".
Last edited:
Based on the size it appears WDW may become the second all solar themepark behind the first one Great Adventure. That leaves Cedar Fair and Universal as the laggads
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Pretty close. RCID also owns some power generation so the total usage is a little more than just the purchased energy. Table 2.1 on page 33 lists the total annual energy usage as roughly 1.136 million MWHs. The news release said the new solar facility is expected to generated 120,000 MWHs a year so it’s roughly 10% of the total usage.
As far as I know FL still doesn’t have a renewable energy standard like most states but if they get around to passing one it could require a percentage of power purchased to be renewable. The average state is probably about 10% to 20% at some future date 5+ years out. CA wants 50% by 2050. This type of project gets RCID ahead of the game if/when the requirements are added.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Not quite there yet, but imagine all the solar panels you could add over the parking lots at MK. Then they really could go to 100% solar.
Great Adventure has the advantage of being in N.J. which has a pretty healthy SRec market and higher power prices to begin with. The economics are much better for the project.
mm121
Well-Known Member
are they able to build projects like this on land that is otherwise considered wetlands or non buildable? so as to not waste land that could be used for other things in the future?
GeneralKnowledge
Well-Known Member
You’re close. Running the system size through NREL’s PVWatts calculator, it will probably produce closer to 750,000 MWh per year
Aries1975
Well-Known Member
It would be terrific if Great Adventure put the solar panels over their parking lots also. It baffles me how anyone would think bulldozing hundreds of acres of pine forest could be a positive for the environment.
Yes, I understand the cost difference. And that SRecs are not what they were 10 years ago. And that Jackson is not technically in the pinelands.
In either case, Disney or Great Adventure, covering the parking lots would put the cars and 2/3 of the "ocean of asphalt" in the shade. How much more energy would be saved if when everyone returned to their cars on a hot summer evening, they did not have to blast the a/c?
WDW Monorail
Well-Known Member
I’m not a solar panel fan whatsoever but it appears that RCID has made smart decisions so far with locating the arrays.
In my practical experience with solar panels I’ve realized that in many cases they just cause wayyyy too many problems. I personally killed the design of a small array over a small parking lot because the supports are bound to be hit by vehicles and I hope that Disney never does anything similar with arrays over their large parking areas.
More recently for an ongoing design project I have, lack of planning with placing arrays on large office and maintance campus of one of our clients is causing me a real headache to try to squeeze in a new warehouse style structure and manage to get long wheel base vehicles to it. The simplest solution would be to remove a section of an array to facilitate ingress and egress of vehicles but the array was installed just a few years ago and the client would like to recoup some more of the capital cost before eliminating portions of the array. My company generally does not recommend installing panels on top of buildings either.
In my practical experience with solar panels I’ve realized that in many cases they just cause wayyyy too many problems. I personally killed the design of a small array over a small parking lot because the supports are bound to be hit by vehicles and I hope that Disney never does anything similar with arrays over their large parking areas.
More recently for an ongoing design project I have, lack of planning with placing arrays on large office and maintance campus of one of our clients is causing me a real headache to try to squeeze in a new warehouse style structure and manage to get long wheel base vehicles to it. The simplest solution would be to remove a section of an array to facilitate ingress and egress of vehicles but the array was installed just a few years ago and the client would like to recoup some more of the capital cost before eliminating portions of the array. My company generally does not recommend installing panels on top of buildings either.
The power per square foot is one of solar powers biggest problems. You currently really need a gigantic open field to make it viable.
While panels on roofs can work and other structures can work, the number of other issues with a roof install seems to increase exponentially.
Hopefully one day they can make a 6x6 panel that can power your average house.