West Side Parking Garage construction

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
Given the amount of land Disney has, they would be much better served setting up a large solar farm somewhere out of the way vs taking up parking spaces with it.

No, I mean put the solar panels over the parking spots.

NRG Solar does it. Like this photo at Arizona State University.

content_img_asu_parking.jpg


Put those over the parking areas ... and if you dont want to go all in, make it premium parking and charge extra for a shady spot.
 

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
No, I mean put the solar panels over the parking spots.

NRG Solar does it. Like this photo at Arizona State University.

content_img_asu_parking.jpg


Put those over the parking areas ... and if you dont want to go all in, make it premium parking and charge extra for a shady spot.
The advice still remains the same. If they were hurting for land these would be great, but a dedicated solar farm would take up less space per panel (no need for gaps for cars to drive through) less support material (they can be 2' off the ground vs 8') and less chance for "guest interaction" (eg Mr Wilson attempting to park his 16' tall rented RV under one.)

Bottom line...solar farm would be much more bang for the buck.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
The advice still remains the same. If they were hurting for land these would be great, but a dedicated solar farm would take up less space per panel (no need for gaps for cars to drive through) less support material (they can be 2' off the ground vs 8') and less chance for "guest interaction" (eg Mr Wilson attempting to park his 16' tall rented RV under one.)

Bottom line...solar farm would be much more bang for the buck.

I think it would be a great way to introduce people to using solar to charge/top off electrics and hybrids. So it is sort of like the UoE gimmick but with a more real world application. Plus it adds much needed shade.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
The advice still remains the same. If they were hurting for land these would be great, but a dedicated solar farm would take up less space per panel (no need for gaps for cars to drive through) less support material (they can be 2' off the ground vs 8') and less chance for "guest interaction" (eg Mr Wilson attempting to park his 16' tall rented RV under one.)

Bottom line...solar farm would be much more bang for the buck.
Over the parking lot provides pretty good bang for your buck, maybe more than in a seperate area. Here's why: In order to build a large solar farm on unused land they would need to level all of the trees and foliage plus worry about building water drainage and build roadways for maintenance work. With the parking lots the land is already prepped and ready for use. Just install the supports and the panels. The other huge benefit to using the parking lots is they provide free advertising. A company like NRG will come in and construct and own the panels and just sell Disney the power. It's much more attractive to the other company to have the panels where thousands of guests a day will see them.

They have these at the Linc (Philadelphia Eagles Stadium) and you can tailgate including grilling under them. If Eagles fans aren't breaking the panels then they should be fine at Disney;).
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
The advice still remains the same. If they were hurting for land these would be great, but a dedicated solar farm would take up less space per panel (no need for gaps for cars to drive through) less support material (they can be 2' off the ground vs 8') and less chance for "guest interaction" (eg Mr Wilson attempting to park his 16' tall rented RV under one.)

Bottom line...solar farm would be much more bang for the buck.

Solar farms made by clearing land are incredibly bad "bang for the buck." The ONLY time solar panels make any sense at all is if they are used in applications like on the roof or covered parking like shown.

Solar panels are insanely inefficient per unit area. A good estimate that I have seen is that in Albuquerque, an acre sized solar panel farm would produce an average of 48.5 kW. That's in an area with more sunshine than Florida. The large solar thermal plants in the desert don't do much better in practice.

Contrary to the PR, the technology to extract energy from the sun is nowhere close to what is needed to be economically or environmentally viable. Using the example above (which is pretty much best case) and accounting for the sun only being up around 12 hours a day, we can roughly say that an acre of land produces 24.25 kW hrs. The state of Florida consumes approximately 16,000 GWh per year. That means it would take about 660 million acres of solar farm to power the state of Florida. Unfortunately, Florida has less than 35 million acres total.

It makes absolutely ZERO sense to clear land and use it for a solar farm. As much as we'd all like a magic solution to energy issues, solar isn't it. It just takes too much area. Wind and hydroelectric are the only somewhat viable "green energies" and both of them have downsides. Wind only makes sense in certain areas and comes with hideous looking structures that kill birds. Hydroelectric requires dams which alter ecosystems.
 

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
Solar farms made by clearing land are incredibly bad "bang for the buck." The ONLY time solar panels make any sense at all is if they are used in applications like on the roof or covered parking like shown.

Solar panels are insanely inefficient per unit area. A good estimate that I have seen is that in Albuquerque, an acre sized solar panel farm would produce an average of 48.5 kW. That's in an area with more sunshine than Florida. The large solar thermal plants in the desert don't do much better in practice.

Contrary to the PR, the technology to extract energy from the sun is nowhere close to what is needed to be economically or environmentally viable. Using the example above (which is pretty much best case) and accounting for the sun only being up around 12 hours a day, we can roughly say that an acre of land produces 24.25 kW hrs. The state of Florida consumes approximately 16,000 GWh per year. That means it would take about 660 million acres of solar farm to power the state of Florida. Unfortunately, Florida has less than 35 million acres total.

It makes absolutely ZERO sense to clear land and use it for a solar farm. As much as we'd all like a magic solution to energy issues, solar isn't it. It just takes too much area. Wind and hydroelectric are the only somewhat viable "green energies" and both of them have downsides. Wind only makes sense in certain areas and comes with hideous looking structures that kill birds. Hydroelectric requires dams which alter ecosystems.
I said nothing to the economic viability of current solar technology. My only critique was the price per panel when installing them on the ground in a field vs an elevated roof in a parking lot. In that case, field is less expensive than parking lot.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Solar farms made by clearing land are incredibly bad "bang for the buck." The ONLY time solar panels make any sense at all is if they are used in applications like on the roof or covered parking like shown.

Solar panels are insanely inefficient per unit area. A good estimate that I have seen is that in Albuquerque, an acre sized solar panel farm would produce an average of 48.5 kW. That's in an area with more sunshine than Florida. The large solar thermal plants in the desert don't do much better in practice.

Contrary to the PR, the technology to extract energy from the sun is nowhere close to what is needed to be economically or environmentally viable. Using the example above (which is pretty much best case) and accounting for the sun only being up around 12 hours a day, we can roughly say that an acre of land produces 24.25 kW hrs. The state of Florida consumes approximately 16,000 GWh per year. That means it would take about 660 million acres of solar farm to power the state of Florida. Unfortunately, Florida has less than 35 million acres total.

It makes absolutely ZERO sense to clear land and use it for a solar farm. As much as we'd all like a magic solution to energy issues, solar isn't it. It just takes too much area. Wind and hydroelectric are the only somewhat viable "green energies" and both of them have downsides. Wind only makes sense in certain areas and comes with hideous looking structures that kill birds. Hydroelectric requires dams which alter ecosystems.
Rooftop solar is cost competitive in a number of states already and within 2 to 3 years will be viable in up to 24 states. The cost of panels is dropping and the cost to install has dropped too. 2 years ago it took an average of 2 days to install a rooftop solar array. Today it takes a few hours. Don't get me wrong, the grid isn't going anywhere anytime real soon. Until battery technology catches up there is still the issue of the sun not shining at night.

The solar farms really only make economic sense in places like the Mohave desert where you can string together thousands of acres of otherwise empty land.
 

MOXOMUMD

Well-Known Member
Over the parking lot provides pretty good bang for your buck, maybe more than in a seperate area. Here's why: In order to build a large solar farm on unused land they would need to level all of the trees and foliage plus worry about building water drainage and build roadways for maintenance work. With the parking lots the land is already prepped and ready for use. Just install the supports and the panels. The other huge benefit to using the parking lots is they provide free advertising. A company like NRG will come in and construct and own the panels and just sell Disney the power. It's much more attractive to the other company to have the panels where thousands of guests a day will see them.

They have these at the Linc (Philadelphia Eagles Stadium) and you can tailgate including grilling under them. If Eagles fans aren't breaking the panels then they should be fine at Disney;).
Would the company (i.e. NRG) be responsible for the maintenance?
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Would the company (i.e. NRG) be responsible for the maintenance?
Yep. They own the panels. Disney would just sign a power purchase agreement where they would agree to buy the power produced at a fixed price per KW. Likely an option to purchase after the lease term (likely 20 to 30 years). If the option isn't exercised the seller is usually responsible for removing the equipment and returning the ground to some agreed upon state. Typically in these type of contracts the seller keeps the Renewable Energy Credits that are generated from the project which have a market value associated with them as well. It's a win/win for both sides. Good PR and exposure for both companies.
 

mm121

Well-Known Member
disney has so many roofs that panels could be put on where guests would never even see them, really no reason to put them in the middle of the parking lot
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
If guests want their car to be shaded that badly, they will have the choice to park in one of the parking garages.
Not at MK. That lot is prime for solar parking.
disney has so many roofs that panels could be put on where guests would never even see them, really no reason to put them in the middle of the parking lot
It's easier and cheaper to build over the parking lot. There is also a PR benefit to having the panels visible. You want guests to see how "green" you are. More importantly Disney gets a price break from the owner of the panels if they have the ancillary benefit of free advertising for the owner. If the panels are out of site you lose that value.
 

71jason

Well-Known Member
Just curious, has there been word one way or another on parking attendants in the garage? Will you be directed to a spot, or will it be a free-for-all?
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
Just curious, has there been word one way or another on parking attendants in the garage? Will you be directed to a spot, or will it be a free-for-all?

I think it will be a free for all. But DTD traffic trickles in and out all day and night so I do not think it is an issue. The only traffic control I see them utilizing is some sort of indication when the garage is full that directs cars to other lots.

Some have expressed concerns of back-ups on the access ramps but I really do not anticipate that because of the way traffic arrives throughout the day. I also do not think they will have a hyped grand re-opening. They will open in phases and that will help avoid any chance of guest demand overwhelming the system.

IMO.
 

Rob562

Well-Known Member
Just curious, has there been word one way or another on parking attendants in the garage? Will you be directed to a spot, or will it be a free-for-all?

There's no official word, but if they're smart they'll use an automated system similar to the one I outlined on Page 3 of this thread. Parking attendants are best for when you have a constant stream of cars to be parked in a large area where they will stay for a long length of time. For something like Downtown Disney the incoming traffic and length of time parking there is too sporadic for attendant direction to really be efficient.

-Rob
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
I think it will be a free for all. But DTD traffic trickles in and out all day and night so I do not think it is an issue. The only traffic control I see them utilizing is some sort of indication when the garage is full that directs cars to other lots.

Some have expressed concerns of back-ups on the access ramps but I really do not anticipate that because of the way traffic arrives throughout the day. I also do not think they will have a hyped grand re-opening. They will open in phases and that will help avoid any chance of guest demand overwhelming the system.

IMO.

This is Disney we are talking about, I think it's pretty likely they will have hyped grand re-opening, although it will probably happen well after most things have already re-opened.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom