Rob Plays: _"So even the smallest facility would generate over four times more power than Disney would actually need."_ Disney Imagineers: *Well boys, you heard him. Time to expand four-fold!!!*
@@iamunamed5800 If that is 2420 MWt an hr then the total output would be 2.1M MW over a year - which is just about perfect (with a little headroom for those hot August days)
@jeff Webb Since the video only addressed average loads, I went with a 150MW reactor. Taking the inherent unbalance of load throughout the year into account, the 580MW of R. E. Ginna would be closer to what you want to ensure all power required was produced locally.
Hi Kim, I subscribe to you and for April Fool's, I hung uportraits ofof your father and grandfather as well as some handwritten propaganda. Salute the dear leader!
As far as i know you can make Reactors as small or big (almost) as you want. Sure all the politics still costs a lot, but the facility could be smaller if they didn't need that much.
On the other hand, Disney would have an energy surplus if they built even a small plant and they could make money back by selling power back to the state. Or SeaWorld lol
Excellent writing, research and presentation as always. One quibble though. The plants at 0:48, 3:47, 4:50 and 4:55 are all coal-fired, not nuclear. It's easy to tell because they have smokestacks which nuclear plants lack. The funnel-shaped cooling towers commonly associated with nuclear plants are equally important for coal. The difference is that nuclear plants will have a spherical containment structure where coal plants have tall smokestacks.
Well, it doesn't have to be spherical. It can really be any shape, some are cylindrical, some are square, some are cylindrical with a dome on top, and so on.
Interestingly, they are developments in smaller reactors called, SMRs or small modular reactor. These units are designed to produced anywhere from 50 MW to 300 MW, so Disney still has an option to build a small reactor to power its parks at a fraction to the amount of land solar panels would need to produce the same amount of energy.
@@notdeaded1416 Well technically we can. China is making miniature Suns as they call it, and a kid with $15,000 managed to achieve fusion for several seconds using a machine he produced in his old playroom.
You're not wrong, but you're not right either. Nuclear power involves heating up water with the heat generated from nuclear decay that turns to steam that turns turbines to generate power. Solar power involves light energizing photovoltaic cells to produce electricity.
There are small and modular reactors (SMR) that have an output between 6 and 1000 MW. For example, a SMART type PWR SMR has an output of 100MW or a PBMR-400 that has an output of 165MW. This would be a perfect amount of energy for Disneyworld and since these reactor types are very cheap and safe, they could make a lot of sense for an use like this.
They could still do it if they wanted to. With the abundance of natural gas from fracking operations, I don't think they would ever see the project pay for itself. I can see them in an out of view piece of the property building a small natural gas-fired boiler to meet the power demands and possibly sell power back. However, with the new deal with Duke Energy, I don't see that happening. I don't know for certain, but I see the new solar farm as Disney's way of saying look what we can do if you don't give us better rates.
Great video as always, Rob! I have a question/video suggestion. How do the parks deal with things like fire drills and escape routes? Surely they must have some way of testing these things, but to the best of my knowledge they don't evacuate guests for drills or anything. Anyway, thanks again!
@@dcprodd5997 That's really interesting because those kinds of drills are mandatory at some other places. Of course, I guess Disney gets to make it's own rules sometimes.
Rob, great job as usual. As someone who has worked in the industry for many years, I do have one problem with your video. Most of the stock footage you showed of power plants were not nuclear plants. Cooling towers are not unique to nuclear plants. The tall smoke stacks and piles of ash or materials to reduce acid emissions. Smaller modular reactors that are proposed today that are much safer than traditional plants wouldn't actually be a bad fit for Disney. I agree that it would have been impossible to ever get a license for a plant especially after Three Mile Island. It does show how much clout the company had with the state to build the parks though. I often wonder if there was a few Disney executives having a few drinks and joking about what crazy things they could get through the Florida state legislature;-)
Thanks! Yeah unfortunately the pickings were pretty slim with the stock footage library I subscribe to, so I ended up having to settle for whatever they offered. It's a common thorn for me when it comes to Disney projects that never happened, since it creates this footage vacuum that becomes harder to fill.
I agree that Disney should look into an SMR license before they’re being commercially produced and stricter legislation is applied to industries. A single 37-assembly core like the NuScale design currently going through approval is rated at 160MWt/60MWe. This would provide enough electricity to cover baseload power (required all the time, even when solar is unavailable) as well as provide ample process steam heat for any application they may need (something difficult to achieve without fossil fuels or a nuclear steam system). There is also the option of them selling any excess power to the grid when solar is in high supply, as it would would increase profit margin.
I think I read about this years ago that they "could" do this. I had a science teacher when I was in high school and said Disney in Florida could set their own building codes. The teacher in disbelief, disputed me. LOL I'm please that Disney went with the options they chose. It's still impressive that 2 of the 4 major resorts can be powered in such a way. I personally have wanted to live "off the grid" since I was a teenager. Great video as always Rob!
Solar makes sense for somewhere like Disney World. It's in Florida, a high insolation part of the world, it has a large amount of empty land to play with, and it doesn't use that much energy at night. It probably wouldn't need that much storage to become mostly energy independent. If the park was much further north, received less sunlight, had limited space like Disneyland, or operated 24/7 then it would be a different story.
Disney World is still connected to the grid--the solar plants just sell power to the grid. Disney doesn't have to worry about the intermittency; they just sell the power when they can and buy power when they need it. Long-term, as the fraction of energy from intermittent renewable sources gets higher, putting them on the grid will require some sort of grid-scale energy-storage solution. But some kinds of demand do track the supply--air conditioning vs. solar power, for instance, both of which are going to be going hardest when the sun is out. And Disney World certainly has a lot of air conditioning.
Thanks for doing the indepth awesome vids. I always feel informed. Can I make a request? I've been trying to find a vid about the Swan and Dolphins resort. I mean they are so jarringly out of place and want learn Disney thinking behind them.
Thanks! I have an older video (in an older format) that talks about the origins of those hotels and why they look the way they do: ua-cam.com/video/hc7Y5c4sHjM/v-deo.html
If the new solar location can power two parks, then it’s just cheaper and safer to build a duplicate for the other two parks. The solar Mickey could power several resorts, and if not, just build a 3rd solar farm. It would supply enough energy for probably everything, and the entire property would be self sustaining.
Angelo Boltini you should be able to store it so that you’ll have power at night or during storms. Some systems are set up where the electric company stores it for you, so that you’re not storing it, they are. You send the extra watts you don’t use during the day, then you buy it back during the night.
UmmYeahOk Storage of electricity is one of the biggest challenges facing solar technology, there really aren’t any good solutions. The ones that exist are expensive and require using environmentally unfriendly materials that need to be replaced every 5-10 years.
It's a bit older now, but a while back I did a video that offers a defense of IPCOT, or the general insertion of IP into the parts of the parks that used to lack them: ua-cam.com/video/BJg5q3Nf7W8/v-deo.html
I don’t know if you have already but have you considered doing a video on Disneyland’s Tomorrowland. Just about its overall state and potentially how to fix it especially when looking at inoventions and what not
So even the smallest facility would produce 4x the energy needed right? It would be too expensive and over the top. But what if they wanted to expand? They could expand four fold and keep using the same reactor. OR they could sell the energy back to the state or government.
@@connorschultz380 Meltdowns are rare and only one has been deadly or dangerous to a degree worth noting. Nuclear is the safest and cleanest power source by watt.
Cherynoble and 3 mile island are the only nuclear.melt.downs.i know of. In the world. Now considering that yes if it.happems.it very bad but thing about all the air craft carriers and subrines and plants we have around the world an how long.they been going an running. An we still only have just 2.major incidents with nuclear power. Sorry sounds like nuclear.has better.safety track record tha. anything else. And let not forget.the aircraft.carriers.an subs are war ships I. active.warzones with constant use heavy use at thst have t really ha a major problem with them have we
Once the current ones have paid for themselves, it will probably launch a second facility with the savings. After three or four - they have zero net energy costs (excluding manpower and maintenance, of course). Solar is definitely a long term cost option. Lots of up front costs, marginal maintenance and then slow recoup of benefits. But once you have the functioning system, replication is much simpler. It's kind of like starting a domino chain, but the first domino is the size and weight of one of the Stonehenge triptychs. XD
I mean, not anymore as of decades ago, as I point out in the video. Federal nuclear regulations have long overridden whatever rights RCID had back when it was formed. The whole "Disney can build a Nuclear Power Plant" made for a cute article from time to time, but the reality is they would have plenty of red tape to cut through if they ever wanted to do it.
One would never think of Disney as a nuclear power. And I doubt they would want the controversy. In the 60s solar was too new and way too expensive for any practical use. Wind power couldn't produce enough power to justify the cost. Hydro was the only practical clean energy solution, but it has limitations.
I've always found EPCOT ironic. In order to prove what they thought could be achieved for cities with (presumably, eventually a governmental) central planning, they did everything they could to make themselves unburdened by the government's central planning.
"Experimental power" falls in the "what could possibly go wrong" category. Attention Disney guests, please pay no attention to the strange glow of green light coming from the other side of Lake Disney. Everything is under control. ;)
"The (solar) energy will not actually go to Disney’s theme parks, but rather into the local power grid. " - NY times. I've surfed next to San Onofre nuclear power plant in California and still only have two eyes. Safe, clean, efficient.
While you are investigating Disney, maybe you can figure out why they left a sloppy line in the rock work at Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Mine Train - imgur.com/N2gUoWl It's in every picture almost and doesn't look natural.
@@raiderking69 no there ain't, and non-natural geothermal plants are still prototypes and super expensive, they wouldn't come near to being smart building one.
Ferko really? It’s drilling down until it’s hot enough to run pipes down, send water down to become steam, trap steam in a pressure vessel, the pipe it I’ve turbines. That’s all the most effective power sources do is heat water to make steam. My way sounds a lot cheaper and more effective than solar.
Nuclear submarine/air craft carrier sized reactors would fit Disneys needs perfectly. And this type of reactor doesnt need refueling for decades. Not saying they should do nuclear. Infact going Solar/wind and using battery storage IMO is a much much much better idea for them.
I would never feel comfortable around a nuclear power plant. Being in the park or close by it to many ways of it melting down and melting everything around it. Glad they went with a safer alternative like Solar.
Can you imagine if the mouse was responsible for a nuclear melt down. There would be another abandoned nuclear apocalyptic theme park like Chernobyl. Don't think it's a good idea. Disney does not want to take that risk. I don't want cancer just because I went to Disney Land a few too many times.
You are exposed to more radiation living near a coal plant than a nuclear plant. Not to mention a brand new reactor would be safer than anything else on the planet. Do some research on nuclear safety.
Nuclear power ever since the Chernobyl disaster has fallen out of favor with most of the world. due to the high risks a nuclear power plant in poses. there's also the fact that nuclear power plants are offline more often and they are online, the only reason I know that is because when I was attending electrical trades program at Wayne Tech BOCES our instructor told us that he used to take students on field trips to the Nuclear power plant we're the kind of from the workers there that plant is offline more often than it was online. we allso had to do a special evacuation drill that would only occur if the nuclear power plant was to go into a meltdown. As some trained in the electrical trades as my understanding puts it, putting a nuclear power plant near Disney World would be a real bad idea because of the fact that is if the seid nuclear power plant were to go into a nuclear meltdown how would they Evacuate the park guests in time they wouldn't be able to.
This sounds based on much older tech than is now the current abilities nuclear power is capable of. Regulations have gotten insane for nuclear power but the newest technologies dealt with many of the old meltdown issues and waste problems.
Nuclear power has gone out of favor due to scaremongering. The only accidents people can remember where Chernoyble( A old Soviet plant run by morons) and Fukushima(One of the oldest plants in the world and was built right in the way of a tsunami) Nuclear energy could save the world if people stopped being irrationally scared of it.
Owen Major pretty much no one knows that there was a nuclear power station at the epicentre of the earthquake that took out Fukushima. It was modern so they were able to detect the earthquake and shut it down safely.
@@TheOwenMajor Agreed, too much fear mongering surrounding Nuclear. Yes, Chernobyl was bad, but it was the Soviet Union back in the 70s. Nuclear has become exponentially safer since then, and the French have actually started figuring out repurposing radioactive waste. I believe that Nuclear is being held back mostly by all the fear mongering and scare tactics surrounding it, partly from a lack of understanding (especially with the bomb) and partly politics. If the public better understood Nuclear, I do believe it would be the way of the future.
Talk about a bad idea from a cost and environmental perspective. I highly doubt that Disney would pursue such an expensive and time consuming process anyways. Better to further invest in new and renewable energy sources like solar power.
Contrary to what most people think, Westinghouse PWRs (such as the R.E. Ginna facility mentioned in the video), are one of the safest and most efficient energy generation systems ever created by mankind. They are only surpassed in capacity factor by CANDU reactors, which currently are not licensed for use in the US. These types of plants have far more uptime per year than any other green energy source we currently have.
Rob Plays: _"So even the smallest facility would generate over four times more power than Disney would actually need."_
Disney Imagineers: *Well boys, you heard him. Time to expand four-fold!!!*
The Disney Nuclear Option sounds like something out of a political-fantasy novel where Disney declares itself a sovereign nation and goes to war.
And twenty years from now Disney sends actual iron man suits to subjugate the world
I’d read that.
Here is my obligatory weekly comment about how you take something I would never think about with Disney and make its interesting. Good video Rob.
Completely agree! Great job again Rob!
The reactor from a Virginia-class submarine would be about right to power Disney World. Interesting.
Yeah. The TVA is actually making a reactor which might fit this bill but small reactors for commercial use are still pretty experimental
@jeff Webb 2420 MWt I'm assuming in megawatt hours
@@iamunamed5800 If that is 2420 MWt an hr then the total output would be 2.1M MW over a year - which is just about perfect (with a little headroom for those hot August days)
@jeff Webb Since the video only addressed average loads, I went with a 150MW reactor. Taking the inherent unbalance of load throughout the year into account, the 580MW of R. E. Ginna would be closer to what you want to ensure all power required was produced locally.
Did somebody say _nukes_ ?
Kim Jong-un maybe you should get off UA-cam and feed your people
@@BodhiBodesSchuyler He's feeding them UA-cam, Dave Skylark.
jacoblgames he would never do that lol
@@alexscholl150 Of course he would. They wouldn't get the full experience, but UA-cam is still UA-cam.
Hi Kim, I subscribe to you and for April Fool's, I hung uportraits ofof your father and grandfather as well as some handwritten propaganda. Salute the dear leader!
As far as i know you can make Reactors as small or big (almost) as you want. Sure all the politics still costs a lot, but the facility could be smaller if they didn't need that much.
On the other hand, Disney would have an energy surplus if they built even a small plant and they could make money back by selling power back to the state. Or SeaWorld lol
And they can run on their own grid if the power does out
Disney really missed an opportunity here... can you imagine a nuke plant with big "Mickey ears" for cooling towers?
Excellent writing, research and presentation as always. One quibble though. The plants at 0:48, 3:47, 4:50 and 4:55 are all coal-fired, not nuclear. It's easy to tell because they have smokestacks which nuclear plants lack. The funnel-shaped cooling towers commonly associated with nuclear plants are equally important for coal. The difference is that nuclear plants will have a spherical containment structure where coal plants have tall smokestacks.
Well, it doesn't have to be spherical. It can really be any shape, some are cylindrical, some are square, some are cylindrical with a dome on top, and so on.
Well done and I enjoy your research on the subject matter that you tackle!
Interestingly, they are developments in smaller reactors called, SMRs or small modular reactor. These units are designed to produced anywhere from 50 MW to 300 MW, so Disney still has an option to build a small reactor to power its parks at a fraction to the amount of land solar panels would need to produce the same amount of energy.
Rob, you are killing the game. Big ups!
That thing you said about the past looking to the future almost made me cry!
Solar power is Nuclear power from far away change my mind.
About a billion times less efficient. Electric powered cars are fossil fuel powered cars from far away. Change my mind.
The sun uses fusion. Nuclear power uses fission.
Not yet, we can’t make fusion power commercially, only in bombs.
@@notdeaded1416 Well technically we can. China is making miniature Suns as they call it, and a kid with $15,000 managed to achieve fusion for several seconds using a machine he produced in his old playroom.
You're not wrong, but you're not right either. Nuclear power involves heating up water with the heat generated from nuclear decay that turns to steam that turns turbines to generate power. Solar power involves light energizing photovoltaic cells to produce electricity.
sigh..the future we all didn't know we were looking forward to
There are small and modular reactors (SMR) that have an output between 6 and 1000 MW. For example, a SMART type PWR SMR has an output of 100MW or a PBMR-400 that has an output of 165MW. This would be a perfect amount of energy for Disneyworld and since these reactor types are very cheap and safe, they could make a lot of sense for an use like this.
They could still do it if they wanted to. With the abundance of natural gas from fracking operations, I don't think they would ever see the project pay for itself. I can see them in an out of view piece of the property building a small natural gas-fired boiler to meet the power demands and possibly sell power back. However, with the new deal with Duke Energy, I don't see that happening. I don't know for certain, but I see the new solar farm as Disney's way of saying look what we can do if you don't give us better rates.
Great video as always, Rob! I have a question/video suggestion. How do the parks deal with things like fire drills and escape routes? Surely they must have some way of testing these things, but to the best of my knowledge they don't evacuate guests for drills or anything. Anyway, thanks again!
Satchmo1991Music during my 8-month CP, we never really trained for those types of emergency’s, aside from knowing where those special exits are
@@dcprodd5997 That's really interesting because those kinds of drills are mandatory at some other places. Of course, I guess Disney gets to make it's own rules sometimes.
Satchmo1991Music to be completely honest, Disney is in a dangerously scary game of “ It’ll never happen to us”
Thanks for another great video Rob. Interesting stuff.
Rob, great job as usual. As someone who has worked in the industry for many years, I do have one problem with your video.
Most of the stock footage you showed of power plants were not nuclear plants. Cooling towers are not unique to nuclear plants. The tall smoke stacks and piles of ash or materials to reduce acid emissions.
Smaller modular reactors that are proposed today that are much safer than traditional plants wouldn't actually be a bad fit for Disney.
I agree that it would have been impossible to ever get a license for a plant especially after Three Mile Island. It does show how much clout the company had with the state to build the parks though. I often wonder if there was a few Disney executives having a few drinks and joking about what crazy things they could get through the Florida state legislature;-)
Thanks! Yeah unfortunately the pickings were pretty slim with the stock footage library I subscribe to, so I ended up having to settle for whatever they offered. It's a common thorn for me when it comes to Disney projects that never happened, since it creates this footage vacuum that becomes harder to fill.
@@MidwaytoMainStreet Thanks for the reply. Love the TTA podcast
I agree that Disney should look into an SMR license before they’re being commercially produced and stricter legislation is applied to industries. A single 37-assembly core like the NuScale design currently going through approval is rated at 160MWt/60MWe. This would provide enough electricity to cover baseload power (required all the time, even when solar is unavailable) as well as provide ample process steam heat for any application they may need (something difficult to achieve without fossil fuels or a nuclear steam system). There is also the option of them selling any excess power to the grid when solar is in high supply, as it would would increase profit margin.
Who remembers Rob's minecraft lets play on howcast gaming? That was the first minecraft series I ever watched
I think I read about this years ago that they "could" do this. I had a science teacher when I was in high school and said Disney in Florida could set their own building codes. The teacher in disbelief, disputed me. LOL I'm please that Disney went with the options they chose. It's still impressive that 2 of the 4 major resorts can be powered in such a way. I personally have wanted to live "off the grid" since I was a teenager. Great video as always Rob!
the solars in form of the micky head is cute xD
Solar makes sense for somewhere like Disney World. It's in Florida, a high insolation part of the world, it has a large amount of empty land to play with, and it doesn't use that much energy at night. It probably wouldn't need that much storage to become mostly energy independent. If the park was much further north, received less sunlight, had limited space like Disneyland, or operated 24/7 then it would be a different story.
Please do a video on golden oaks
A nuke plant powering WDW would produce enough power for 16 parks instead of four.
it depends on what kind of nuclear power plant you use and how big it is.
Imagine Chernobyl but at Disney
Just like Long Island the “evacuation plan” would never make it through approvals.
How effective will those solar panels be? Wouldn't the frequent cloud cover put a damper on them?
Disney World is still connected to the grid--the solar plants just sell power to the grid. Disney doesn't have to worry about the intermittency; they just sell the power when they can and buy power when they need it.
Long-term, as the fraction of energy from intermittent renewable sources gets higher, putting them on the grid will require some sort of grid-scale energy-storage solution. But some kinds of demand do track the supply--air conditioning vs. solar power, for instance, both of which are going to be going hardest when the sun is out. And Disney World certainly has a lot of air conditioning.
It would't look nice to have one there anyway.
Another great, well-researched video!
One key point of distinction: "The (solar) energy will not actually go to Disney’s theme parks, but rather into the local power grid. " - NY times.
Wouldn't it be better to use battery storage and add more solar?
robert hamilton It’s not that simple.
Thanks for doing the indepth awesome vids. I always feel informed. Can I make a request? I've been trying to find a vid about the Swan and Dolphins resort. I mean they are so jarringly out of place and want learn Disney thinking behind them.
Thanks! I have an older video (in an older format) that talks about the origins of those hotels and why they look the way they do: ua-cam.com/video/hc7Y5c4sHjM/v-deo.html
4:15 AYYYY That’s in my hometown!!
If the new solar location can power two parks, then it’s just cheaper and safer to build a duplicate for the other two parks. The solar Mickey could power several resorts, and if not, just build a 3rd solar farm. It would supply enough energy for probably everything, and the entire property would be self sustaining.
Solar isn't dependable enough to be a full source of energy. That's why it'll always need either fossil fuels or nuclear to support it.
Angelo Boltini you should be able to store it so that you’ll have power at night or during storms. Some systems are set up where the electric company stores it for you, so that you’re not storing it, they are. You send the extra watts you don’t use during the day, then you buy it back during the night.
UmmYeahOk Storage of electricity is one of the biggest challenges facing solar technology, there really aren’t any good solutions. The ones that exist are expensive and require using environmentally unfriendly materials that need to be replaced every 5-10 years.
Great video rob!
Could you do a video on your opinion of Disney adding new ip’s to classic attractions such as maelstrom that turned into frozen?
It's a bit older now, but a while back I did a video that offers a defense of IPCOT, or the general insertion of IP into the parts of the parks that used to lack them: ua-cam.com/video/BJg5q3Nf7W8/v-deo.html
Cool thanks
I don’t know if you have already but have you considered doing a video on Disneyland’s Tomorrowland. Just about its overall state and potentially how to fix it especially when looking at inoventions and what not
Thanks for the amazing content you provide for us!
Thanks for watching it!
Upstate NY!
Disney soon to be the Brawndo of this dimension. Disney soon to have what plants crave!
3:02 Shippingport Atomic Power Station
Disney was real life Howard stark. What
So even the smallest facility would produce 4x the energy needed right? It would be too expensive and over the top. But what if they wanted to expand? They could expand four fold and keep using the same reactor. OR they could sell the energy back to the state or government.
Nuclear energy is only controversial due to politics getting in the way of progress.
And the times they melt down... that wasn't in America to my knowledge but, it's not really political so, it's not really the only reason.
@@connorschultz380 Meltdowns are rare and only one has been deadly or dangerous to a degree worth noting. Nuclear is the safest and cleanest power source by watt.
@@ZontarDow ~~your the one who said only not me~~
As Connor pointed out that is a silly oversimplification of the issue.
Cherynoble and 3 mile island are the only nuclear.melt.downs.i know of. In the world. Now considering that yes if it.happems.it very bad but thing about all the air craft carriers and subrines and plants we have around the world an how long.they been going an running. An we still only have just 2.major incidents with nuclear power. Sorry sounds like nuclear.has better.safety track record tha. anything else. And let not forget.the aircraft.carriers.an subs are war ships I. active.warzones with constant use heavy use at thst have t really ha a major problem with them have we
i feel like just getting more solar panels would be great i mean will cost less in the long term
Once the current ones have paid for themselves, it will probably launch a second facility with the savings. After three or four - they have zero net energy costs (excluding manpower and maintenance, of course). Solar is definitely a long term cost option. Lots of up front costs, marginal maintenance and then slow recoup of benefits. But once you have the functioning system, replication is much simpler. It's kind of like starting a domino chain, but the first domino is the size and weight of one of the Stonehenge triptychs. XD
So, does this mean Disney will be a real life nukacola world?
Not anymore as of yesterday.
I mean, not anymore as of decades ago, as I point out in the video. Federal nuclear regulations have long overridden whatever rights RCID had back when it was formed. The whole "Disney can build a Nuclear Power Plant" made for a cute article from time to time, but the reality is they would have plenty of red tape to cut through if they ever wanted to do it.
@@MidwaytoMainStreet Now there is even more red tape!
One would never think of Disney as a nuclear power. And I doubt they would want the controversy. In the 60s solar was too new and way too expensive for any practical use. Wind power couldn't produce enough power to justify the cost. Hydro was the only practical clean energy solution, but it has limitations.
But the McNuclear Program is for recreational purposes only
I've always found EPCOT ironic. In order to prove what they thought could be achieved for cities with (presumably, eventually a governmental) central planning, they did everything they could to make themselves unburdened by the government's central planning.
"Experimental power" falls in the "what could possibly go wrong" category. Attention Disney guests, please pay no attention to the strange glow of green light coming from the other side of Lake Disney. Everything is under control. ;)
"The (solar) energy will not actually go to Disney’s theme parks, but rather into the local power grid. " - NY times. I've surfed next to San Onofre nuclear power plant in California and still only have two eyes. Safe, clean, efficient.
Disney probably figured out they could make more money leasing the power to the local grid then using the power to reduce cost at the parks.
While you are investigating Disney, maybe you can figure out why they left a sloppy line in the rock work at Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Mine Train - imgur.com/N2gUoWl It's in every picture almost and doesn't look natural.
The state of Florida do you Walt Disney Corporation the ability to use nuclear power and make the generated on prep
People are concerned about nuclear power but it has came to be much more safe and don’t solar panels burn birds
Nice
Oh I just love Disney :)
I would be in support of Mickey shaped nuclear bombs.
Fort Wilderness
my first first view keep up the good vids
Any interest in doing a VIP tour at Disney for Galaxys Edge? Trying to get a group of 10 together. Let me know if you are interested.
If Disney was smart, they'd go with a geothermal energy plant.
Florida water tables would make that impossible I would think
Dan Sulin maybe. But if there was oil down there, they’d be drilling. But in its favor, there are few fault lines underneath Florida.
It doesn't work everywhere, and it wasn't well understood back then
@@raiderking69 no there ain't, and non-natural geothermal plants are still prototypes and super expensive, they wouldn't come near to being smart building one.
Ferko really? It’s drilling down until it’s hot enough to run pipes down, send water down to become steam, trap steam in a pressure vessel, the pipe it I’ve turbines. That’s all the most effective power sources do is heat water to make steam. My way sounds a lot cheaper and more effective than solar.
Nuclear submarine/air craft carrier sized reactors would fit Disneys needs perfectly. And this type of reactor doesnt need refueling for decades. Not saying they should do nuclear. Infact going Solar/wind and using battery storage IMO is a much much much better idea for them.
I would never feel comfortable around a nuclear power plant.
Being in the park or close by it to many ways of it melting down and melting everything around it.
Glad they went with a safer alternative like Solar.
Look we found the 8 year old who thinks Fallout 4 is realistic.
Modern generation nuclear reactors don't meltdown and can use most of the waste created as additional fuel.
Can you imagine if the mouse was responsible for a nuclear melt down. There would be another abandoned nuclear apocalyptic theme park like Chernobyl. Don't think it's a good idea. Disney does not want to take that risk. I don't want cancer just because I went to Disney Land a few too many times.
You are exposed to more radiation living near a coal plant than a nuclear plant. Not to mention a brand new reactor would be safer than anything else on the planet. Do some research on nuclear safety.
I will never go to Walt Disney World ever again.
Because they never used the option to build a nuclear power plant?
Fine until you have a nuclear accident and 'The Happiest Place on Earth' becomes 'The Deadliest Place on Earth' :S
Nuclear power ever since the Chernobyl disaster has fallen out of favor with most of the world. due to the high risks a nuclear power plant in poses. there's also the fact that nuclear power plants are offline more often and they are online, the only reason I know that is because when I was attending electrical trades program at Wayne Tech BOCES our instructor told us that he used to take students on field trips to the Nuclear power plant we're the kind of from the workers there that plant is offline more often than it was online. we allso had to do a special evacuation drill that would only occur if the nuclear power plant was to go into a meltdown.
As some trained in the electrical trades as my understanding puts it, putting a nuclear power plant near Disney World would be a real bad idea because of the fact that is if the seid nuclear power plant were to go into a nuclear meltdown how would they Evacuate the park guests in time they wouldn't be able to.
This sounds based on much older tech than is now the current abilities nuclear power is capable of. Regulations have gotten insane for nuclear power but the newest technologies dealt with many of the old meltdown issues and waste problems.
Nuclear power has gone out of favor due to scaremongering.
The only accidents people can remember where Chernoyble( A old Soviet plant run by morons) and Fukushima(One of the oldest plants in the world and was built right in the way of a tsunami)
Nuclear energy could save the world if people stopped being irrationally scared of it.
Owen Major pretty much no one knows that there was a nuclear power station at the epicentre of the earthquake that took out Fukushima. It was modern so they were able to detect the earthquake and shut it down safely.
@@TheOwenMajor Agreed, too much fear mongering surrounding Nuclear. Yes, Chernobyl was bad, but it was the Soviet Union back in the 70s. Nuclear has become exponentially safer since then, and the French have actually started figuring out repurposing radioactive waste. I believe that Nuclear is being held back mostly by all the fear mongering and scare tactics surrounding it, partly from a lack of understanding (especially with the bomb) and partly politics. If the public better understood Nuclear, I do believe it would be the way of the future.
Chernobyl was 100% preventable.
Talk about a bad idea from a cost and environmental perspective. I highly doubt that Disney would pursue such an expensive and time consuming process anyways. Better to further invest in new and renewable energy sources like solar power.
Nuclear is the cleanest power source, and would not run out of possible fuels to use for much longer than fossil fuels ever could.
Disney's 'Our Friend the Atom' ua-cam.com/video/Rv714CgHP9E/v-deo.html
Contrary to what most people think, Westinghouse PWRs (such as the R.E. Ginna facility mentioned in the video), are one of the safest and most efficient energy generation systems ever created by mankind. They are only surpassed in capacity factor by CANDU reactors, which currently are not licensed for use in the US. These types of plants have far more uptime per year than any other green energy source we currently have.