You’re not thinking like a layperson consumer. Disney just can’t do this stuff, so they have to clear land. It’s the only way.Why would it be possible to mount a motor a few feet above the ground and not a few more feet above the ground?
You’re not thinking like a layperson consumer. Disney just can’t do this stuff, so they have to clear land. It’s the only way.Why would it be possible to mount a motor a few feet above the ground and not a few more feet above the ground?
I’m just waiting for someone to claim it’s because of Florida’s high water table.You’re not thinking like a layperson consumer. Disney just can’t do this stuff, so they have to clear land. It’s the only way.
EarthquakesI’m just waiting for someone to claim it’s because of Florida’s high water table.
No, but they are different and they are higher both increasing cost that has to be multiplied by thousands of pieces of steel.Wind loads aren’t that different ten feet up.
Just, no. The wind isn’t what makes it more expensive. It’s having to provide a clear span and being robust enough to take a hit. Working in phases and coordinating with ongoing parking and traffic. That’s what makes it more expensive, not the wind.No, but they are different and they are higher both increasing cost that has to be multiplied by thousands of pieces of steel.
I doubt it. I don't think I've seen any utility scale solar facility that does this in many years. I assume they determined that the added efficiency isn't worth the extra complexity, cost and maintenance. Maybe the tilt to change elevation but they don't change direction.I really thought I had heard that the Solar farm Disney has, well the panels follow the sun -- I doubt they could do this as a car shade -- so I imagine they get at least 30% more sun light than they would with a fixed panel.
The large farm they have looks as if it was placed on land that was already void of trees. I do not know if they are clearing land for the two new farms.
In clearcutting land Disney could actually be CONTRIBUTING to the problem since if they grew trees/bushes/flowers/bamboo on this land the additional growth would literally extract carbon from the air, instead, assuming there was some green there already, they are reducing the carbon that was already being eliminated. Instead, perhaps, they could be installing more charging stations, and gasless transportation options like skyliners and monorail and replace their noisy gas powered maintenance carts with electric ones (and replace the public stain of an attraction Grand Prix Raceway, with an electric powered toon town version that's at least themed to SOMETHING)
You’re not thinking like a layperson consumer. Disney just can’t do this stuff, so they have to clear land. It’s the only way.
There are a lot of green advocates and preservation / naturalist organizations that are already up in arms about nuclear energy very quickly throwing up nightmares referencing three mile island and Chernobyl. The question about spend fuel storage (hazardous waste) is thrown in for good measure. Currently spend fuel is stored on sight because of transport restrictions and no dump sight. No I do not see nuclear as the way to go, there is a place for it but not a predominant position.Nuclear is the way to go (as France does) If the government was serious they would bring together the experts in the nuclear field and design one type of plant and build regional nuclear power plants ---one design interchangeable parts.
Whatever you want to point to as the reason, putting solar panels over parking spaces in a parking lot cost more than putting them on an empty field. The additional cost makes the electricity generated by a parking lot installation more expensive than an open field installation. The only variable is the cost of the land vs. the parking lot that they already own.Just, no. The wind isn’t what makes it more expensive. It’s having to provide a clear span and being robust enough to take a hit. Working in phases and coordinating with ongoing parking and traffic. That’s what makes it more expensive, not the wind.
Lennar would like to have a word with you.I wonder how many animals and trees are permanently evicted from a thousand lush acres of Central Florida undeveloped land?
Chernobyl was an inherently one off poor design, three mile island was minor, Having worked in radiation control on nuclear sub overhauls I see it as a safe means of generating power. People seem to forget nuclear subs are docked up and down our coast.
"Nuclear power is the largest source of electricity in France, with a generation of 379.5 TWh, or 70.6% of the country's total electricity production of 537.7 TWh, the highest percentage in the world. Since June of 2020, it has 56 operable reactors totalling 61,370 MWe, one under construction (1630 MWe), and 14 shut down or in decommissioning (5,549 MWe)."
It's a shame the green energy nuts have put a strangle hold on nuclear power
Whatever you want to point to as the reason, putting solar panels over parking spaces in a parking lot cost more than putting them on an empty field. The additional cost makes the electricity generated by a parking lot installation more expensive than an open field installation. The only variable is the cost of the land vs. the parking lot that they already own.
Reedy Creek Improvement District is allowed to use nuclear power…Yeah, and there are safer ways to do nuclear, but the negative public opinion has held back companies from continuing to develop these methods.
Yeah, and there are safer ways to do nuclear, but the negative public opinion has held back companies from continuing to develop these methods.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.