50 MW Solar Farm at WDW

[OKW Lover]

I don't think a person could easily say that it would cover 2 parks completely for a year because that's not easy to quantify on several levels.

• There is a difference between MW and MWH. A MW is simply a momentary measure of demand, whereas a MWH is the accumulation of that demand for a period (1 hour) of time.
• So, an attraction or a park using 25 MW at its peak might actually consume 15 MWH over a 24 hour period.
• Similarly, a 50 MW solar farm might produce that at its optimal point in time receiving full direct sun (no clouds/rain) but over a 24 hour period might actually produce only 25 MWH.
• Electricity can not be stored unless you have huge batteries which this installation apparently does not have. So you would have to have coincident peaks of use and production, which may not be realistic.
• RCID's 2017 peak load was ~190 MW. That covers much more than just the theme parks. Its also the resorts, water parks, DS, WWoS, lighting, etc. We don't know just how much a "park" actually uses.

Sorry to bring more questions than answers here. My utility background is showing.

 

[jade1]

I don't think a person could easily say that it would cover 2 parks completely for a year because that's not easy to quantify on several levels.

• There is a difference between MW and MWH. A MW is simply a momentary measure of demand, whereas a MWH is the accumulation of that demand for a period (1 hour) of time.
• So, an attraction or a park using 25 MW at its peak might actually consume 15 MWH over a 24 hour period.
• Similarly, a 50 MW solar farm might produce that at its optimal point in time receiving full direct sun (no clouds/rain) but over a 24 hour period might actually produce only 25 MWH.
• Electricity can not be stored unless you have huge batteries which this installation apparently does not have. So you would have to have coincident peaks of use and production, which may not be realistic.
• RCID's 2017 peak load was ~190 MW. That covers much more than just the theme parks. Its also the resorts, water parks, DS, WWoS, lighting, etc. We don't know just how much a "park" actually uses.

Sorry to bring more questions than answers here. My utility background is showing.

Interesting.

I mean I hope they are correct, and build even more actually.

But they are the ones saying:

This facility is expected to generate enough power from the sun to operate two of our four theme parks in Central Florida annually.

https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/b...ing-clean-energy-to-walt-disney-world-resort/

We’ve got some big news to share from the Sunshine State today. Built in collaboration with the Reedy Creek Improvement District and Origis Energy USA, a massive new 270-acre, 50-megawatt solar facility is officially online and providing renewable clean energy to Walt Disney World Resort!

This facility is expected to generate enough power from the sun to operate two of our four theme parks in Central Florida annually. It will also significantly reduce net greenhouse gas emissions, joining the numerous efforts The Walt Disney Company has launched to deliver its 2020 goal of reducing emissions by 50% compared to 2012.

 

[OKW Lover]

One more variable. Which two parks would they be talking about? I would think that Epcot would be a huge consumer of electricity. DHS perhaps less so.

 

[OSUZorba]

Yea did they say it will cover 2 parks completely each full year?

That seems a tad hard to believe, but awesome if so.

The 5MW farm can power Splash Mt for a year, yet a 50MW can power 2 entire parks for a year?

Wouldn't 2 parks use more than 10 Splash Mt's?

The wattage is data plate wattage, not what it'll actually produce all the time. I don't think the Mickey farm is sun following, while the new one is. That means the new farm can produce high output most of the day, while the Mickey Farm will drop off at times the sun isn't directly in line with the panels. I'm guessing the two parks are AK and DHS, not MK and EP, too.

 

[OSUZorba]

I don't think a person could easily say that it would cover 2 parks completely for a year because that's not easy to quantify on several levels.

• There is a difference between MW and MWH. A MW is simply a momentary measure of demand, whereas a MWH is the accumulation of that demand for a period (1 hour) of time.
• So, an attraction or a park using 25 MW at its peak might actually consume 15 MWH over a 24 hour period.
• Similarly, a 50 MW solar farm might produce that at its optimal point in time receiving full direct sun (no clouds/rain) but over a 24 hour period might actually produce only 25 MWH.
• Electricity can not be stored unless you have huge batteries which this installation apparently does not have. So you would have to have coincident peaks of use and production, which may not be realistic.
• RCID's 2017 peak load was ~190 MW. That covers much more than just the theme parks. Its also the resorts, water parks, DS, WWoS, lighting, etc. We don't know just how much a "park" actually uses.

Sorry to bring more questions than answers here. My utility background is showing.

I'm guessing they are saying the total energy produced (MWHs) is equivalent to the total energy usage of two of the parks.

In reality in the middle of the day it'd probably be able to power 3 or maybe all 4 of them, but at night obviously it won't power anything.

 

[hertamaniac]

Electricity can not be stored unless you have huge batteries which this installation apparently does not have.

Flywheels have been used to store and discharge energy at high ramp rates during intermittency on solar/wind applications.

The amount of energy which can be stored in a flywheel is a function of the square of the RPM making higher rotational speeds desirable. For utility-scale storage, such a WDW, a ‘flywheel farm’ approach can be used to store megawatts of electricity for applications needing minutes of discharge duration. This would be a complementary system, not a replacement, for the azimuth tracking PV farm(s).

I think this is where WDW next-generation renewable farm is going as the flywheels have little degradation on cycle life like batteries. They also are not subjected to the heat rejection that batteries would face in central Florida. They can charge/discharge in seconds at full depth of discharge (whereas batteries would need to be oversized to offset the losses of cycle life).

It's not a one solution fits all applications with regards to energy storage. For example, I targeted applications where our high-rate batteries had a strategic advantage knowing we would not be competitive with solar farms requiring higher energy for longer duration discharges. Instead, we were superior in charging faster than any other battery technology at that time. Combining our ability to do fast charge and perform a slow discharge to a less expensive battery container, maximized the cost model. This is part of the reason I worked with FESC (Florida Energy Storage Consortium) and was a presenter at Florida Power and Light to see if various battery technologies could work cohesive, in the Florida heat, to cover a range of applications with renewables.

There is also compressed air energy storage although the water table in Florida might make this challenging due to the caverns required.

 

[NotUrsula]

Please forgive me if it's been mentioned already, but Legoland Florida does have panels mounted on their Preferred parking area. It covers 600 spaces.

Also, Tampa Electric is using (leased!) Katahdin sheep to keep the grass mowed on their Big Bend solar farm site: https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/...to-mow-grass-in-expanding-solar-energy-fields

If you like solar farms and sheep, there is even a "Lamb Cam" for your viewing pleasure: https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/tecolambcam?source=feed_text&epa=HASHTAG (apparently the flocks are producing LOTS of lambs at the solar farms.)