Solar power farm coming to Disney

[MrPromey]

Rats, each time I see this thread come back up, I hope we'll hear from @PhotoDave219 again.

Do we know what happened with him?

 

[MrPromey]

It also says "up to."

Impressive in some ways but not so much in others. It shows the big limitation of solar - space efficiency. It is taking 270 acres to accomplish this. To supply 100% during peak sun would take almost 1100 acres. To supply 100% of all power at wdw would take 3-4 times that.

There's nothing "bad" about wdw using land they have to increase their use of renewable energy. It just shows that solar isn't practical to replace a large percentage of total energy generation because it takes so much space.

It looks like someone didn't pay enough attention to Ellen's Energy Adventure over the years.

 

[Monorail_Red_77]

Of course, the cynic in me - I have to wonder how much is altruism and environmental responsibility - and how much is saving serious coin on the electric bill... Though solar makes perfect sense for WDW, given all the Florida sunshine. Why haven't they started sooner?

Back when they build WDW and MK (Phase 1) I have a book with a picture of solar panels on the power generation plant that is still located behind MK. Though now the solar panels are no longer on it. This is the power plant that provides power to the monorails, etc.

 

[WondersOfLife]

Well, in the mean time, let's just pick another category.

 

[GoofGoof]

I wonder if that figure includes land acquisition? That can be a huge part of the cost.

Most of the Utility scale solar projects built in CA are on government land in the desert. The gov’t is leasing the land to the developer for free. Back a few years ago the government was also offering government backed loans For development. These are massive projects and some use a different technology which uses mirrors to focus sunlight on a tower that boils water and spins a turbin.

Here’s one of the largest ones. Almost 400 MWs and cost over $2B to build even with free land.

 

[GoofGoof]

It also says "up to."

Impressive in some ways but not so much in others. It shows the big limitation of solar - space efficiency. It is taking 270 acres to accomplish this. To supply 100% during peak sun would take almost 1100 acres. To supply 100% of all power at wdw would take 3-4 times that.

There's nothing "bad" about wdw using land they have to increase their use of renewable energy. It just shows that solar isn't practical to replace a large percentage of total energy generation because it takes so much space.

There’s plenty of space on top of roofs, on top of parking lots or even on protected lands like wetlands. The variability in production makes it nearly impossible to switch to 100% solar but there’s no reason it can’t replace a large percentage of fossil fueled power.

 

[Lensman]

It also says "up to."

Impressive in some ways but not so much in others. It shows the big limitation of solar - space efficiency. It is taking 270 acres to accomplish this. To supply 100% during peak sun would take almost 1100 acres. To supply 100% of all power at wdw would take 3-4 times that.

There's nothing "bad" about wdw using land they have to increase their use of renewable energy. It just shows that solar isn't practical to replace a large percentage of total energy generation because it takes so much space.

1100 acres sounds like a lot! What percentage of WDW land is that?

I know the Epcot parking lot is 141 acres. Hmm. Maybe it's not so much after all. You could get about half of needed space if you built as much utility scale solar photovoltaic as we currently have parking lots for the parks!

Wait! I found the total size of Disney owned land at WDW is about 25,000 acres. Not sure how much of that is protected habitat.

And as someone else pointed out, they could put them on the roofs of a lot of the show buildings. Google's Project Sunroof says that the potential generating capacity of building roofs in Bay Lake, FL is 80 MW. That's probably the upper limit so Disney would do better to sign power buy agreements and have other companies build utility scale solar for them. And they'd do best to size the array to their lowest power usage during the day during their lowest power usage part of the year, so they don't have to build the infrastructure to export excess power. 25% might be the right long-term number since it might be 100% of their shoulder season 11 am usage, but I guess it could go up to 50%. Anything more might get complicated.

 

[DisneyCane]

There’s plenty of space on top of roofs, on top of parking lots or even on protected lands like wetlands. The variability in production makes it nearly impossible to switch to 100% solar but there’s no reason it can’t replace a large percentage of fossil fueled power.

How can you put solar panels on protected wetlands? It would kill all the vegetation that makes the wetland a wetland. In a wetland, the plants are a huge part of it.

Since a huge motivation of solar power is reducing "global warming," I wonder if anybody has looked at the amount of additional heat emitted by a dark colored solar panel vs. the grass/plants/whatever was on the land before. Could utility scale solar arrays built over currently non-developed land actually do the opposite of the goal? I don't know, I'm just asking.

I would think that solar-thermal plants would be much better in that regard because they are directing and using the heat to make power. Photovoltaic panels use the light to create the power but are absorbing energy that they can't turn into power and turning it into useless heat.

Rooftop or parking lot systems wouldn't have this concern because the land is already developed. Of course, both of those systems are more expensive to install.

 

[larryz]

How can you put solar panels on protected wetlands? It would kill all the vegetation that makes the wetland a wetland. In a wetland, the plants are a huge part of it.

Since a huge motivation of solar power is reducing "global warming," I wonder if anybody has looked at the amount of additional heat emitted by a dark colored solar panel vs. the grass/plants/whatever was on the land before. Could utility scale solar arrays built over currently non-developed land actually do the opposite of the goal? I don't know, I'm just asking.

I would think that solar-thermal plants would be much better in that regard because they are directing and using the heat to make power. Photovoltaic panels use the light to create the power but are absorbing energy that they can't turn into power and turning it into useless heat.

Rooftop or parking lot systems wouldn't have this concern because the land is already developed. Of course, both of those systems are more expensive to install.

So what we need is solar panels with photovoltaic cells to produce electricity AND water channels running through them to absorb and transfer the excess heat...

 

[Skibum1970]

There’s plenty of space on top of roofs, on top of parking lots or even on protected lands like wetlands. The variability in production makes it nearly impossible to switch to 100% solar but there’s no reason it can’t replace a large percentage of fossil fueled power.

I completely agree. I mentioned before. Look up how Fed Ex built a new shipping facility that has solar on the roof. It works just fine and it uses what is otherwise wasted space. If every show building had solar or at least some, they could reduce a fair portion of their energy spend. Or at least that is the way it seems. And no, it isn't cheap but it shows our reliance on fossil fuels. Our energy infrastructure is built for fossil fuels and the fuels (particularly natural gas) are cheap enough that developing better wind/solar tech is undesirable for companies.

 

[GoofGoof]

How can you put solar panels on protected wetlands? It would kill all the vegetation that makes the wetland a wetland. In a wetland, the plants are a huge part of it.

Since a huge motivation of solar power is reducing "global warming," I wonder if anybody has looked at the amount of additional heat emitted by a dark colored solar panel vs. the grass/plants/whatever was on the land before. Could utility scale solar arrays built over currently non-developed land actually do the opposite of the goal? I don't know, I'm just asking.

I would think that solar-thermal plants would be much better in that regard because they are directing and using the heat to make power. Photovoltaic panels use the light to create the power but are absorbing energy that they can't turn into power and turning it into useless heat.

Rooftop or parking lot systems wouldn't have this concern because the land is already developed. Of course, both of those systems are more expensive to install.

It’s not ideal or cheap to build over environmental protected lands. Solar panels can have a negative impact but they wouldn’t kill all of the vegetation. There are projects in places like NJ and Vermont that I know of that were built on protected land which was deemed unsuitable for other development. There are ways to install the systems that have less impact on the environment, they just cost more and are generally only in states with aggressive renewables standards. Same environmental issues go for the desert. The big projects built on federally protected government land have very strict requirements to ensure the local ecosystem isn’t too disrupted. I know of one project that was delayed several years because of a desert turtle. They had to pay for a full time scientist on site during construction to ensure the turtles were OK.

Solar thermal plants have their own set of problems. Now that the cost of photovoltaic panels has come down so much they are also no longer economical. I know of a handful of projects that were originally planned to be solar thermal which were switched to photovoltaic before construction started.

 

[Lensman]

How can you put solar panels on protected wetlands? It would kill all the vegetation that makes the wetland a wetland. In a wetland, the plants are a huge part of it.

Since a huge motivation of solar power is reducing "global warming," I wonder if anybody has looked at the amount of additional heat emitted by a dark colored solar panel vs. the grass/plants/whatever was on the land before. Could utility scale solar arrays built over currently non-developed land actually do the opposite of the goal? I don't know, I'm just asking.

I would think that solar-thermal plants would be much better in that regard because they are directing and using the heat to make power. Photovoltaic panels use the light to create the power but are absorbing energy that they can't turn into power and turning it into useless heat.

Rooftop or parking lot systems wouldn't have this concern because the land is already developed. Of course, both of those systems are more expensive to install.

1. Not all of the undeveloped land at Disney is protected wetlands. And if it is protected, Disney has in the past purchased and converted land outside the park into protected wetlands.
2. The additional heat absorbed by the panels instead of being radiated back into space is negligible compared to the positive impact of not generating carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for decades or centuries, absorbing and retaining heat over that time. Also note that the heat that the panels generate also radiates back into space except for the heat that is reflected back into the atmosphere by carbon dioxide. It's maddening, right?
3. Wetlands are a potent generator of methane, which is 10 times more powerful a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.
4. As everyone knows, plants convert carbon dioxide into water and glucose through photosynthesis, but 50% of the carbon dioxide absorbed is converted back into CO2 during nighttime plant respiration. Another 40% is converted back into CO2 and methane in the decomposition process after the plant dies. At any rate, in wetlands, the methane generated actually makes the process a contributor to climate change. Note: I'm not proposing that we get rid of wetlands!

So what we need is solar panels with photovoltaic cells to produce electricity AND water channels running through them to absorb and transfer the excess heat...

Although it's negligible, moving the heat around isn't going to help matters. It's like explaining to my sibling why it doesn't make sense to buy a portable air conditioner if we're not going to vent it to the outside. The room is *not* going to cool down!

 

[Lensman]

I completely agree. I mentioned before. Look up how Fed Ex built a new shipping facility that has solar on the roof. It works just fine and it uses what is otherwise wasted space. If every show building had solar or at least some, they could reduce a fair portion of their energy spend. Or at least that is the way it seems. And no, it isn't cheap but it shows our reliance on fossil fuels. Our energy infrastructure is built for fossil fuels and the fuels (particularly natural gas) are cheap enough that developing better wind/solar tech is undesirable for companies.

I think the difference is that at Disney's scale of purchasing power, it makes more financial sense for them to build utility scale solar instead of commercial scale solar. I don't know their thought process, but it makes sense if they are purchasing megawatts of power and have the land.

Here is an illustration contrasting the levelized cost of electricity between residential, commercial, and utility-scale solar. Utility-scale solar is about half the cost of commercial-scale solar:

https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/2020-utility-scale-solar-goal-achieved

 

[ford91exploder]

So what we need is solar panels with photovoltaic cells to produce electricity AND water channels running through them to absorb and transfer the excess heat...

Actually not so far off, One problem with solar is that once the junction temperature exceeds a certain point panels become less efficient and efficiency continues to drop with temperature rise (the crossover temp varies depending on panel technology).

So water cooling the panels actually could be helpful especially if the heated water can be used elsewhere on site.

 

[ford91exploder]

Solar on a large scale has not been economically viable for very long. Many would argue that it is still not as there are other options that produce much more power with a much smaller footprint.

10 years ago a 2x4 panel produced 50-80 watts, Today that same panel size produces 300-500 watts of power.

Now there are even PV roofing tiles. In 3-5 years i think all new buildings will have PV as part of initial construction

Remember water and electricity were at one time revolutionary additions to housing

Once they became standardized and inexpensive they became part of every building just as PV will

 

[ford91exploder]

1100 acres sounds like a lot! What percentage of WDW land is that?

I know the Epcot parking lot is 141 acres. Hmm. Maybe it's not so much after all. You could get about half of needed space if you built as much utility scale solar photovoltaic as we currently have parking lots for the parks!

Wait! I found the total size of Disney owned land at WDW is about 25,000 acres. Not sure how much of that is protected habitat.

And as someone else pointed out, they could put them on the roofs of a lot of the show buildings. Google's Project Sunroof says that the potential generating capacity of building roofs in Bay Lake, FL is 80 MW. That's probably the upper limit so Disney would do better to sign power buy agreements and have other companies build utility scale solar for them. And they'd do best to size the array to their lowest power usage during the day during their lowest power usage part of the year, so they don't have to build the infrastructure to export excess power. 25% might be the right long-term number since it might be 100% of their shoulder season 11 am usage, but I guess it could go up to 50%. Anything more might get complicated.

You could as many places have done put PV OVER the parking lots so the cars are shaded (saving energy) and not needing additional land for PV

 

[ford91exploder]

Do we know what happened with him?

He moved to DC

 

[Skibum1970]

You could as many places have done put PV OVER the parking lots so the cars are shaded (saving energy) and not needing additional land for PV

I've seen this a lot in Ohio, even at factories. And we're not even the sunshine state.

 

[larryz]

Although it's negligible, moving the heat around isn't going to help matters. It's like explaining to my sibling why it doesn't make sense to buy a portable air conditioner if we're not going to vent it to the outside. The room is *not* going to cool down!

The point is not so much to cool the panels as to provide hot water from the heat. And it can be used to warm pools, supplement water heaters, or pre-wash dishes.

 

[GlacierGlacier]

Most of the Utility scale solar projects built in CA are on government land in the desert. The gov’t is leasing the land to the developer for free. Back a few years ago the government was also offering government backed loans For development. These are massive projects and some use a different technology which uses mirrors to focus sunlight on a tower that boils water and spins a turbin.

Here’s one of the largest ones. Almost 400 MWs and cost over $2B to build even with free land.

View attachment 279327

Even better, that model runs by melting sodium with the sun's heat. It still generates power at night because that takes a long time to cool.