May not be the last we see of the Osborne lights...

[rteetz]

What better source than the DIS to make the point:


Also, as I had previously mentioned, the nuclear plant never came back on line as WDW had expected. Do you think WDW is happy about paying higher prices for power? The math is clear. As a large corporate customer WDW has the option to buy power from various sources on the grid. And they look for the lowest price they can get. Guess who provides the cheapest power? Can you say "coal fired plants"? Can you say "conservation"? I knew you could!

But if this was in 2010 why didn't Disney stop doing the lights before now? I truly believe the lights going away are not because of this conservation of energy thing that you think.

 

[LeeAndRobin]

What better source than the DIS to make the point:


Also, as I had previously mentioned, the nuclear plant never came back on line as WDW had expected. Do you think WDW is happy about paying higher prices for power? The math is clear. As a large corporate customer WDW has the option to buy power from various sources on the grid. And they look for the lowest price they can get. Guess who provides the cheapest power? Can you say "coal fired plants"? Can you say "conservation"? I knew you could!

Yes, but if you carefully read the article you posted, Disney was making up the shortfall for ECONOMIC reasons, NOT for reasons of being more green. Also, their power budget is stated as $100,000,000 in the article. $700,000 is a whopping 0.7% increase. That's right, an increase of 7 *tenths* of a percent, which could easily be saved by the methods they mention.

The lights going away have nothing to do with this nuclear plant shutdown nor "greenness", as much as you would like to think it does. The cost of running the Osbourne lights every year for 2.5 months is so far to the right of the decimal place as to be lost in the noise of the WDW power budget.

 

[OKW Lover]

You've got to remember that the power plants that serve WDW are at Crystal River. Since the nuclear plant shut down, the power coming from Crystal River is all coal fired and is very dirty. They haven't even yet begun to build a gas fired power plant at Crystal River.

I'd be interested in hearing how you learned this. Crystal River is but one generation site in the state. In addition to generating some of its own power, Reedy Creek can also purchase power from other generators. Overall in FL, a substantial (i.e. over 50%) source of electricity is fired by natural gas, while coal provides less that 25% according to this source.

 

[OKW Lover]

The math is clear. As a large corporate customer WDW has the option to buy power from various sources on the grid. And they look for the lowest price they can get. Guess who provides the cheapest power? Can you say "coal fired plants"?

Coal fired plants do not necessarily provide the cheapest power. Power generation in FL (and every other location with a regional electric grid, i.e. the entire US) is dispatched based on the unit that can provide the lowest cost to generate the next MW. In FL, you'll find that over 50% of electric production is gas fired.

 

[Disney Von Drake]

Yes, but if you carefully read the article you posted, Disney was making up the shortfall for ECONOMIC reasons, NOT for reasons of being more green. Also, their power budget is stated as $100,000,000 in the article. $700,000 is a whopping 0.7% increase. That's right, an increase of 7 *tenths* of a percent, which could easily be saved by the methods they mention.

The lights going away have nothing to do with this nuclear plant shutdown nor "greenness", as much as you would like to think it does. The cost of running the Osbourne lights every year for 2.5 months is so far to the right of the decimal place as to be lost in the noise of the WDW power budget.

I realize it's more convenient to skip over parts that don't agree with your notions. For the sake of clarity I'll again post the solution. And for your edification the word "conservation" refers to "greenness":

"...Reedy Creek says it is opting instead to plug the gap through a combination of surplus power from its own generator facility, conservation and additional purchases through existing contracts with other utilities, such as TECO Energy of Tampa."

 

[k5jm]

Disney also the ability to generate it's own power with a gas fired power plant with 55,000 megawatts of net capacity on property and has a Natural Gas "City Gate" that is fed from Mobile, AL over a Florida Gas Pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[Disney Von Drake]

Coal fired plants do not necessarily provide the cheapest power. Power generation in FL (and every other location with a regional electric grid, i.e. the entire US) is dispatched based on the unit that can provide the lowest cost to generate the next MW. In FL, you'll find that over 50% of electric production is gas fired.

Yes indeed you are correct. Coal fired plants do not always provide the cheapest power. A lot depends upon the price of natural gas. But don't forget that power transmission is regional as well. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that WDW is not getting power from California. It costs money to transmit power and there are losses along the transmission lines. Therefore for the sake of both efficiency and cost, WDW buys their power from regional power companies.

The three primary sources of electricity for WDW are Stanton Energy Center, Big Bend Power Station (TECO of Tampa) and Crystal River. These plants are within a reasonable distance of WDW for efficient power transmission. All of these plants have about the same capacity in the 2,000 MW range and use coal fired plants. Although Stanton Energy Center does have a 6 MW solar farm. And Reedy Creek runs its own power plant (natural gas) that provides about 25% of the power used by WDW. The other 75% is purchased off the grid.

What this boils down to is that WDW doesn't really want anyone to know that the monorails or the Osborne Lights are powered primarily by coal fired power. It tends to ruin the "magic". So they rely upon a combination of buying surplus power from their own generator, conservation measures and making wise purchases of additional power from other utilities.

 

[rteetz]

What this boils down to is that WDW doesn't really want anyone to know that the monorails or the Osborne Lights are powered primarily by coal fired power. It tends to ruin the "magic". So they rely upon a combination of buying surplus power from their own generator, conservation measures and making wise purchases of additional power from other utilities

How can you compare the monorails to Osborne lights? The monorails run 365 days a year pretty much. The light show is for 2-3 months of the year and is only done from dark until park closure. I would like to see some proof as to why you think the sole reason the lights are going away is because of the energy needed to power them.

 

[k5jm]

I call foul on the the whole "green" reason. Have you met the latest thing to fill up the landfills. They are called Magic Bands. Disney's biggest power expense other than big electric motors like on Soarin' is HVAC.

 

[Disney Von Drake]

How can you compare the monorails to Osborne lights? The monorails run 365 days a year pretty much. The light show is for 2-3 months of the year and is only done from dark until park closure. I would like to see some proof as to why you think the sole reason the lights are going away is because of the energy needed to power them.

WDW gets its power from Reedy Creek Energy Services and they have budgetary constraints that they must meet. They do not have an unlimited budget for power (or anything else). As I mentioned before, they use a combination of methods to stay within their budget. Also, if they can save money and provide the needed services under budget then all the better.

But each element of electrical use is monitored (from the monorail down to the smallest resort room night light) and analyzed to determine the most efficient and cost effective operation. Aside from the cost of electricity to operate the Osborne Lights they also have the related maintenance, upkeep and storage expenses. The lights must be brought out of storage each year, tested and then repaired as needed. The lights then must be installed and monitored. The lights must then be taken down and stored until next season.

It would seem clear that the Osborne Lights just didn't continue to be a good return on investment and WDW decided to get rid of them. If they felt the lights were a great attraction and making them tons of money they'd still be there. I'm sure it was an empirical decision.

I call foul on the the whole "green" reason. Have you met the latest thing to fill up the landfills. They are called Magic Bands. Disney's biggest power expense other than big electric motors like on Soarin' is HVAC.

The WDW HVAC system is primarily powered by natural gas. They use a chilled water system with a 40,000 ton capacity to meet their air conditioning demands. They also use a high temperature water system (average temperature 350 degrees F) to provide building heat and their hot water needs. The system is far more efficient than standard HVAC systems. The efficiency of this system is testament to both their environmental dedication as well as their desire to save money.

Concerning the MagicBands, it's a shame that they are not biodegradable. It's my understanding that the bands can be reused for up to three years. I also wonder if they can be recycled? This time of year it seems that old MagicBands could be used to make Christmas tree ornaments.

 

[k5jm]

The WDW HVAC system is primarily powered by natural gas. They use a chilled water system with a 40,000 ton capacity to meet their air conditioning demands. They also use a high temperature water system (average temperature 350 degrees F) to provide building heat and their hot water needs. The system is far more efficient than standard HVAC systems. The efficiency of this system is testament to both their environmental dedication as well as their desire to save money.

WDW may have very efficient HVAC systems, but the amount of square footage to be cooled/heated is tremendous. You also have to double the sq footage for Magic Kingdom (and to some extent EPCOT) because of the Utilidoors. I still believe HVAC is still probably the 2nd biggest energy cost to running WDW.

 

[ajbtv2]

Concerning the MagicBands, it's a shame that they are not biodegradable. It's my understanding that the bands can be reused for up to three years. I also wonder if they can be recycled? This time of year it seems that old MagicBands could be used to make Christmas tree ornaments.

The MagicBands are 100% recyclable. If you drop off MagicBands at Guest Services, they will be recycled.

 

[Eoghann]

Do I smell troll?

 

[OKW Lover]

The three primary sources of electricity for WDW are Stanton Energy Center, Big Bend Power Station (TECO of Tampa) and Crystal River. These plants are within a reasonable distance of WDW for efficient power transmission. All of these plants have about the same capacity in the 2,000 MW range and use coal fired plants. Although Stanton Energy Center does have a 6 MW solar farm. And Reedy Creek runs its own power plant (natural gas) that provides about 25% of the power used by WDW. The other 75% is purchased off the grid.

I think you might be thinking that the power used by WDW is based simply on proximity of the generation to the source. That's not really how power flows in the grid though. Its also not really what economic settlement (i.e., who pays for what power generation) works. Its most likely that Disney has a power contract with Duke or FPL for some "slice of system" power. A bit of research at www.FERC.gov should shed some light on that. I'll have to look further when I have some time. Anyway, for a slice of system contract, Disney (Reedy Creek) would be buying essentially a whole bag full of power generated on the supplier's system, not the power from any particular plant.

 

[OKW Lover]

WDW gets its power from Reedy Creek Energy Services and they have budgetary constraints that they must meet. They do not have an unlimited budget for power (or anything else).

Like any other utility in the country, the cost of power that Reedy Creek buys for its customers is paid for by those customers. Its up to the customer to control their own usage and thus the cost.

 

[Disney Von Drake]

WDW may have very efficient HVAC systems, but the amount of square footage to be cooled/heated is tremendous. You also have to double the sq footage for Magic Kingdom (and to some extent EPCOT) because of the Utilidoors. I still believe HVAC is still probably the 2nd biggest energy cost to running WDW.

Perhaps I'm not understanding your point. Let's assume HVAC is the largest energy expense at WDW. How does that impact the Osborne Lights not being worth their cost? Are you suggesting that it would be more cost effective for WDW to cut back on their HVAC system?

The MagicBands are 100% recyclable. If you drop off MagicBands at Guest Services, they will be recycled.

That's good to know. Thank you.

I think you might be thinking that the power used by WDW is based simply on proximity of the generation to the source. That's not really how power flows in the grid though. Its also not really what economic settlement (i.e., who pays for what power generation) works. Its most likely that Disney has a power contract with Duke or FPL for some "slice of system" power. A bit of research at www.FERC.gov should shed some light on that. I'll have to look further when I have some time. Anyway, for a slice of system contract, Disney (Reedy Creek) would be buying essentially a whole bag full of power generated on the supplier's system, not the power from any particular plant.

But the real point here is that energy conservation not only saves money for WDW but it also plays a role in WDW being a good corporate citizen as part of their green initiative.

Like any other utility in the country, the cost of power that Reedy Creek buys for its customers is paid for by those customers. Its up to the customer to control their own usage and thus the cost.

I couldn't agree more. WDW tries hard to make their operations as energy efficient as possible.

 

[rteetz]

It would seem clear that the Osborne Lights just didn't continue to be a good return on investment and WDW decided to get rid of them. If they felt the lights were a great attraction and making them tons of money they'd still be there. I'm sure it was an empirical decision.

So your telling me that the major construction projects in DHS have nothing to do with the lights going away? It's all because they cost to much to keep on? I really find that hard to believe. People are booking trips this year for the sole purpose of seeing this lights. The lights are a huge draw you can't tell me they aren't. DHS doesn't have many other offerings for the holidays other than the lights. There is no proof that the cost of the lights operating is the reason they are getting rid of them. If that was the reason they would've been gone long ago. DHS is getting a huge makeover that is reason they are going away.

 

[k5jm]

Perhaps I'm not understanding your point. Let's assume HVAC is the largest energy expense at WDW. How does that impact the Osborne Lights not being worth their cost? Are you suggesting that it would be more cost effective for WDW to cut back on their HVAC system?

The point is Osborne lights are not even a blip on the radar for power usage. The incandescent version of the lights drew 800,000 watts of power while the LED version only draws 106,510 watts. Now considering that Disney uses more that 55MW a day, The Osborne Lights are not even a variance in a ledger. The VP in Charge of DHS is smiling ear to ear right now because he has sooo much foot traffic in his park right now because of the Osborne lights. The $$$$ brought in from those folks in food and merchandise are more than covering the cost of the Osborne lights. And lets not forget that the whole thing is sponsored by Siemens.

Orlando Sentinel Article - During peak times -- notably mid-summer -- Reedy Creek provides about 120 megawatts of power to Walt Disney World and the hotels and other businesses on Disney property. Reedy Creek produces up to 55 megawatts from its own gas-turbine power plant at Disney World and purchases the rest from other power companies, including Progress Energy.

 

[Disney Von Drake]

So your telling me that the major construction projects in DHS have nothing to do with the lights going away? It's all because they cost to much to keep on? I really find that hard to believe. People are booking trips this year for the sole purpose of seeing this lights. The lights are a huge draw you can't tell me they aren't. DHS doesn't have many other offerings for the holidays other than the lights. There is no proof that the cost of the lights operating is the reason they are getting rid of them. If that was the reason they would've been gone long ago. DHS is getting a huge makeover that is reason they are going away.

The point is Osborne lights are not even a blip on the radar for power usage. The incandescent version of the lights drew 800,000 watts of power while the LED version only draws 106,510 watts. Now considering that Disney uses more that 55MW a day, The Osborne Lights are not even a variance in a ledger. The VP in Charge of DHS is smiling ear to ear right now because he has sooo much foot traffic in his park right now because of the Osborne lights. The $$$$ brought in from those folks in food and merchandise are more than covering the cost of the Osborne lights. And lets not forget that the whole thing is sponsored by Siemens.

You're both big fans of the lights and I can understand your need to defend the thing you love. I apologize for suggesting an explanation that conflicts with your notions of how and why the lights will be removed. But it doesn't change the fact that the Osborne Lights have been there too long and have become a pedestrian attraction. It's time to move on!

 

[k5jm]

You're both big fans of the lights and I can understand your need to defend the thing you love. I apologize for suggesting an explanation that conflicts with your notions of how and why the lights will be removed. But it doesn't change the fact that the Osborne Lights have been there too long and have become a pedestrian attraction. It's time to move on!

That is a generalization. I am speaking from a point of fact and not feeling. There are several of us in this thread who work/worked in some part of the power generation business and have a good breadth of knowledge on the subject and how the economics of power consumption can affect ROI on capital expenditures, like the Osborne lights.

Now it is time to...

...Move along