50 MW Solar Farm at WDW

[jade1]

I wouldn’t mind it if my car was parked in the “shade” under some solar panels.

Have there been any large solar installations above parking areas?

Great idea. I suppose resurfacing could be an issue. But if they are high enough in the air could work.

 

[jade1]

This one will be 270 acres. I get WDW has plenty of land, but that would make a dent. Here's the perspective, Magic Kingdom is 107 acres, EPCOT is 300 acres, DHS is 135 acres, and Animal Kingdom is a massive 580 acres. About 4 of these massive solar installations would equal the total size of all 4 parks. The Solar Mickey is 22 acres I believe, so they are planning to have solar panels covering an area the size of EPCOT as it is.

Reedy Creek Improvement District is about 38 square miles (that may be an old number. It's likely Disney has sold off some fraction of that). That equals 24,320 acres. Putting 10 of these installations out there would cover more than 10% of the total land. I don't know how much of the rest of Reedy Creek is developed, but keep in mind Fort Wilderness is 750 acres by itself. The various lakes eat up a huge amount of space. Art and Pop are over 200 acres together if you count Hourglass Lake (I think, can't quite remember).

In other words, there is still a lot of land, but places to hide almost 3000 acres, or about 5 square miles, of solar farm probably wouldn't be real easy to find. Solar is a huge up and coming technology. But it still requires a massive amount of land to really make a difference.

Kinda what I was originally wondering thanks. That's a lot of available space though.

 

[jknezek]

I wouldn’t mind it if my car was parked in the “shade” under some solar panels.

Have there been any large solar installations above parking areas?

Yes. There are many. But they are an added expense to build. The panels themselves are moderately heavy at the scale we are talking, so they aren't just simple brace and build, especially on swamp land. Plus the higher you put them, the more vulnerable they are to hurricane winds, and the harder they can be to maintenance (yes they need maintenance. Bird droppings significantly reduce efficiency, as does just plain old dust, at a minimum they need regular cleaning to maintain efficiency).

How big is the T&TC? Well, there are 12,156 parking spots (thanks Wikipedia). Typical parking spots are 9x18. So 1,969,272 sq feet plus the roadways, which might be another 40% of the parking lot size. So let's say 2.8MMsqft. That's 63.5 acres, roughly. So the T&TC would be less than 3 Solar Mickeys, or less than 13MWs of max generation. A nice gain, but more of an experimental size than a real useful addition like the one just announced.

EPCOT has 11,391 parking spots, so in the same general area as the T&TC. DHS has 6500, but that probably doesn't include the current expansion. I can't find a number for AK quickly, but I'm guessing around 9000. So using the same logic you could get total from those parking lots of close to 200 acres. In 4 solar farms spread out across WDW, you'd get less than the one 50MW spot they plan to build plus you'd have the added expense of building the roof for the cars or the floor for the panels. It's probably not real efficient.

Would be nice though. Especially in the summer months.

 

[hakepb]

But at other locations, they have to replace vegetation with solar. (They have to heavily manage the ground or else it becomes overgrown and unserviceable)
It seems to be an odd “reduce environmental impact” by clearing part of the natural environment.
It’s more work converting a parking lot, but at least it improves the environment without razing part of the natural landscape.

 

[jknezek]

But at other locations, they have to replace vegetation with solar. (They have to heavily manage the ground or else it becomes overgrown and unserviceable)
It seems to be an odd “reduce environmental impact” by clearing part of the natural environment.
It’s more work converting a parking lot, but at least it improves the environment without razing part of the natural landscape.

A man with a weedwacker is cheap labor, even on an ongoing basis. A foreman building a reinforced platform to cover 60 acres of swampland, even once, is a big cap expenditure. I don't disagree with you on the environment, but I'm not entirely sure this is driven by environmental concerns. That may be the headlines, but I think this is primarily about money. Disney formed this partnership with FPL (or whatever they call themselves these days in the Orlando area) and I'm sure they got the better end of the deal. FPL wanted the association with Disney and I'm sure they paid for it.

 

[LeeAndRobin]

One article I saw on this (which was basically just the press release) was a bit disingenuous. It quoted the solar farm as producing 210,000 MWh/year. It's a 50 MWac plant (meaning it delivers 50 MW of AC power to the grid at peak output). If you do the math:

( 210000 MWh/yr) / (50 MWh) / (365 days/yr) = 11.5 h/day.

In other words, they are quoting the output based on running at peak output for 11.5 hours a day, each and every day, all year long. Solar plants never, I repeat never, run at peak for 11.5 hours a day, even with dual-axis tracking (this one is only single-axis). Why? Peak output is only achieved for a brief time around local noon on the longest day of the year (when the sun is highest in the sky) because the sunlight goes through the least amount of atmosphere then. Any other time of day or year, output is lower. There is no indication in the article that the 50 MW number is an average output, so it is assumed to be the peak output based on the standards I am familiar with.

I would be really surprised if they net even half of the stated output.

Before people interested in advancing green energy are going to be able to be taken seriously, they really need to learn to do basic math. I'm all for green energy, but you can't pretend that it doesn't pollute (making solar cells is not a particularly "clean" or power-efficient industry), that it is somehow "free", or that it currently doesn't cost a *lot* more per kWh than tradition sources.

 

[hertamaniac]

Battery banks have degradation properties over time. Then, cycle life, based on current and voltage decay become paramount in the true costs of a solar farm. Some battery banks (i.e. solar farms) are limited in the amount of current they can accept at peak times. However, the C-rate of the battery bank is only part of the equation as $/Whr/cycle/life is a much more accurate annual interrogation of the investment.

Then you can parse the high-frequency capable system to assist with regulation-D style signals vs. traditional, slower contribution systems via solar storage. Of course, the markets have historically paid a higher premium for those systems that can assist to maintain, or be closest to, the 60MHz standard in the U.S. And this is the market that flywheels and others have/are investigation.

But, sharing consultant type information is self-defeating.

 

[OKW Lover]

I just wonder if some/all of the output will be directly grid tied and/or stored in an energy bank.

There is nothing in the story to indicate that batteries (or other storage mechanisms) are part of the project. So, it will be tied directly to either RCID's local grid or Florida's statewide grid.

I imagine Disney will then receive credit for energy produced ...with so much power I wonder what kind of offset that will be.

Disney will benefit by not buying that power from its supplier (or generating it themselves) so the amount of savings depends on the cost to produce those 50MW (ignoring the absolutely accurate proviso that @jknezek mentions below). The solar generation is displacing the most expensive power at the instant it is produced. That's because a statewide grid dispatches generation in order of efficiency (with a few other factors thrown in) thus the more expensive to run units define the avoided cost that solar generation provides.

An old rule of thumb was 1MW could power 1000 houses. I later learned not all MWs are created equal, some apparently are harder to generate and solar falls in that category, so a MW of solar power supposedly powers between 100 and 300 houses depending on weather, percent of sunshine, and a pile of other factors.

Actually solar MW's are the same as any other MW. The difference is that you're talking name plate ratings as opposed to actual generation.

the upshot is this field could generate more than 1/3 of WDW's average demand, or it could be only about 1/12th depending on the efficiency of the solar generation.

Agree that this is a huge project and will certainly reduce Disney's cost of electricity. Of course the power generated by the solar system isn't free. There is a cost to operate and maintain the system and RCID needs to recover its cost with a reasonable return over some defined life.

I tend to agree in that it will, in some portion, provide peak shavings and help flatten the duck curve. But, I also can see them sizing the system as a larger UPS in the event of fluctuations, etc.

The system doesn't appear to provide any storage ability so its really not able to smooth power fluctuations. Without storage electricity is immediately used when it is produced.

You can find annual reports for the electric (and other utility) systems on Reedy Creek Improvement District's website - the most recent one is for 2015. Based on the figures in the 2015 annual report, peak demand per month in 2015 was averaging around 170-180MW. Hard to say whether that number is higher or lower now, but it should be in the same ballpark. If so, a 50MW solar farm could put a large dent in the amount of power needed from outside electric providers. Based on the same report, RCUC only generates about 20-30% of the electricity used in the district - with the remaining amount of electric power (70-80%) purchased through numerous lease agreements with other power companies in Florida.

RCID decides to run its own generation by comparing the cost of a produced MW to the cost of a purchased MW.

That's where an energy storage system could assist if it is designed/sized as part of this solar farm.

Of course the cost of that energy storage system would have to be included in the calculation.

No doubt, but it sounds like the day time production will be used up very quickly.

Actually, its used instantaneously.

I would love to see them utilize the roofs of their buildings for solar. I get that it's not very efficient and having to reinforce roofs and updating electrical would make this unfeasible at best,

Agree. Reinforcing roofs and making the panels strong enough to withstand hurricane force winds becomes even more important if you start siting them near guests. The proposed solar farm will be placed far away from the parks and don't need similar considerations.

I wouldn’t mind it if my car was parked in the “shade” under some solar panels.

Those solar panels do not levitate. You need to build support structures as @jknezek correctly states below. Also, those supports are now another hard spot for the random distracted guest to run into with their car.

But they are an added expense to build. The panels themselves are moderately heavy at the scale we are talking, so they aren't just simple brace and build, especially on swamp land. Plus the higher you put them, the more vulnerable they are to hurricane winds, and the harder they can be to maintenance (yes they need maintenance. Bird droppings significantly reduce efficiency, as does just plain old dust, at a minimum they need regular cleaning to maintain efficiency).

Very good points. As noted above, solar power is not free.

 

[hertamaniac]

There is nothing to indicate that energy storage is not a part of this new solar farm. To that end, smoothing the duck curve is the most likely usage of this system with direct connection(s), but insinuating it is used instantaneously is presumptuous based on this article.

MW's are not equivalent as distribution and charge rates of acceptance are where the ISO's and RTO's pay separately based on that metric; this is part of the FERC orders.

 

[hertamaniac]

But at other locations, they have to replace vegetation with solar. (They have to heavily manage the ground or else it becomes overgrown and unserviceable)
It seems to be an odd “reduce environmental impact” by clearing part of the natural environment.
It’s more work converting a parking lot, but at least it improves the environment without razing part of the natural landscape.

Agreed and the support infrastructure can be protected from "most likely" incidents by column reinforcements, etc.

 

[Spyral]

They could potentially charge more for "premium parking" though if did over a parking lot. At my son's elementary school, the covered spots under the solar panels always go the quickest.

Course here in AZ, any spots with shade are coveted in the summer.

 

[OKW Lover]

Not much activity on this thread recently. Read a news story somewhere that the panels have arrived at the location near 429. I drove down that section of road in the past week and didn't see any evidence of them or other site work.

 

[DanBoris]

Here is the location of the new solar farm. The black area are where the panels will go. They are basically squeezing them in between the storm water control basins. This is a great idea since this is not really usable land.

 

[circus4u]

I wouldn’t mind it if my car was parked in the “shade” under some solar panels.

Have there been any large solar installations above parking areas?

In Arizona, many of the schools from elementary through high school have solar panels over parking. Several grocery stores also have them. The Frito Lay plant has parking covered by solar panels. The Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson has parking covered with solar panels. Seems more and more are cropping up all over the place. I believe there is even a Walmart in a very small town here that had them. Solar is big out here.

 

[OKW Lover]

Thanks for the schematic @DanBoris! That's where I understood they were going. I'll keep my eyes out for any activity. We normally drive that stretch of road 1-2 times a week.

 

[hertamaniac]

Drove by that stretch yesterday and did see some land clearing happening (after looking at Flamingo Crossings update). I expect we should be able to see the panels from 429 when complete.

 

[HuskieJohn]

Oh good...so they are going to cut down all those trees to put up some solar panels...

 

[seashoreCM]

When dealing with such large solar arrays (over 10 megawatts) there has to be provision for almost instantaneosly switching to backup power. A thunderstorm passing over the solar arrays could cut the power output essentially to zero in less than a minute. Batteries would probably be too expensive to provide more than about an hour or two of backup power

There must still be enough traditional (coal, gas, nuclear) power plants sufficient to provide the entire need. For an operation as large as Disney, any power plants it (Reedy Creek) owns would be considered part of the grid. During the short time the batteries are able to step in, additional generating units in generating stations statewide need to be switched in to make up for the loss of solar power, and then switched out again when the clouds move away and the solar arrays get full sun again.

For scattered storms, different solar arrays statewide wil go in and out of the shade at different times and modern switching circuits select which generating units to switch in and out as needed. (The switching also adds and removes generators and uses historical data to track overall statewide demand such as more air conditioning during the day, more lights at night.)

For those of you with a little photographic knowledge, heavy overcast yields about an eighth of the daylight intensity compared with bright sun. So solar panel output could be expected to drop to an eighth of the full kilowatt output.

 

[hertamaniac]

Batteries may not be too expensive dependent upon the tariff structure(s) employed by FERC. For example, a battery technology that skews towards pulse power delivery, with a high C-rate charge/discharge, are able to present a profit model for compliance to regulation D signals. Regulation A/C are conventional signals and even lower C-rate batteries can comply to some degree. Regulation D has, historically, compensated higher rates than A/C compliance.

Participating in the FERC 755 order (pay for performance via MW mileage) is challenging, yet rewards charge rate acceptance technologies.

Smart solar panels are able to pivot/rotate, based on photon input (via bit arrays), to maximize panel acceptance. I do wonder if they will utilize this technology on this farm.

 

[OKW Lover]

Drove by that stretch yesterday and did see some land clearing happening (after looking at Flamingo Crossings update). I expect we should be able to see the panels from 429 when complete.

Drove that route yesterday (5/12) and didn't see anything (land clearing, construction vehicles, etc) visible from 429.