Nuclear Plant Shutdown Saps Some of Disney World’s Power

[WDWKOOK]

FEATURED, JASON GARCIA, NEWS — BY JASON GARCIA ON MARCH 25, 2010 AT 8:50 AM

Problems at a nuclear power plant on Florida’s Gulf coast have created a bit of a headache for Walt Disney World.

Progress Energy’s nuclear plant in Crystal River has been shut down since late last year, after workers in the midst of a maintenance project discovered a crack in the containment wall that surrounds the facility’s reactor building

That has in turn left Disney World’s semi-autonomous government, the Reedy Creek Improvement District, scrambling. About 10 percent of the district’s power is generated at the nuclear plant, which is about 100 miles northwest of Disney World.

Reedy Creek utility officials say they expect the prolonged shutdown, which they have been told is likely to last until July, will cost the district between $500,000 and $700,000 out of an annual power-buying budget of about $100 million. Though Progress says it has offered to sell customers energy from its other (more expensive) generation sources to make up for the nuclear shortfall, 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.

 

[DC7800]

an annual power-buying budget of about $100 million

Walt Disney World (Reedy Creek) spends $100 million a year on power? Wow. That's a big electric bill. Wonder what the financial numbers would like look if in reality Disney had actually built and operated its own on-property nuclear power plant?

 

[OKW Lover]

Walt Disney World (Reedy Creek) spends $100 million a year on power? Wow. That's a big electric bill. Wonder what the financial numbers would like look if in reality Disney had actually built and operated its own on-property nuclear power plant?

They use a lot of power. But even so, a nuclear power plant is much larger than would be needed for their load. Given the need for a buffer zone and security considerations, it would take a large part of the WDW property and then you've got the issue of access to enough cooling water. Despite all the water around WDW, there really isn't enough to adequately cool a large power plant (nuclear or conventional).

More likely would be having Reedy Creek build several more combined cycle gas turbine plants like they have behind the MK. That plant has a capacity of ~50MW, but seems to be used mostly for hot and chilled water for the MK and area hotels rather than actual generation. I had looked at Reedy Creek's data a year or so ago and the generation actually supplied less than 10% of their need. Apparently the cost to buy power from the grid is cheaper than the (old) unit costs to produce it.

 

[marius97]

Guess WDW should have built their own nuclear power plant like they have the authority to.

 

[WDWKOOK]

I wonder what "Plugging the gap through conservation and use of surplus power" really means. What is "surplus" power and what conservation aren't they already practicing that would make a real difference?

I also wonder why only 10% of RC's power comes from the closed plant. Why aren't they using more nuclear power than just 10%? What comprises the other 90%?

Just curious

 

[ChrisFL]

if they did I wonder what it would look like? hmm

 

[cm8]

Interesting.................hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[OKW Lover]

I wonder what "Plugging the gap through conservation and use of surplus power" really means. What is "surplus" power and what conservation aren't they already practicing that would make a real difference?

I also wonder why only 10% of RC's power comes from the closed plant. Why aren't they using more nuclear power than just 10%? What comprises the other 90%?

Just curious

Some good questions here that require a bit more in-depth understanding of how the bulk power system works. First a disclaimer; although I work for a public utility, my company does not operate in FL and I have no inside knowledge of the FL power market in general or Reedy Creek operations in particular.

Basically, "surplus" power is power thats available on the local power pool, or from one of the FL power companies who's plant is not running at full capacity. Conservation is, of course, things like turning out un-needed lights, changing to more energy-efficient lighting and machinery, and switching "discretionary" loads to times when power is cheaper.

A company like Reedy Creek will typically contract (via competitive bid no doubt) for its power requirements with nearby generators. Nearby meaning somewhere within the region, ie, the state and neighboring states. The contract could be for output from particular power plants ie, the nuclear unit that is currently down, or just a "slice of the system" contract which means a share of whatever power plants are running at the time.

The utility then needs to "dispatch" power by using the least expensive units first (ie a base loaded nuclear power plant) and adding successive layers of more more expensive power as their load (need for power) grows during the day. At peak times, the cost for the next KWH of power can be many times the cost of the cheapest power.

Why not more conservation? Because conservation costs money. A company (in this case Disney, not the utility) will do as much conservation as makes sense. Spend $1 million in new, more efficient, equipment to save $50K in power costs per year? Probably not because the payback is too long. Spend $1 million on equipment that will save $500k per year? Probably so.

And before anybody brings up solar power or wind power, please realize that neither is free power. There are sizable capital costs that are needed to build solar or wind facilities, but the actual KWH of generation from those plants can not be counted on and in-fact these sources will have a very low availability factor. If the wind blows only 25% of the time, then the cost of power from that unit has to be 4 times the depreciation and O&M costs in order to cover expenses. That means this alternative power is actually fairly expensive.

Probably more than you wanted to know...

 

[WDWKOOK]

Some good questions here that require a bit more in-depth understanding of how the bulk power system works. First a disclaimer; although I work for a public utility, my company does not operate in FL and I have no inside knowledge of the FL power market in general or Reedy Creek operations in particular.

Basically, "surplus" power is power thats available on the local power pool, or from one of the FL power companies who's plant is not running at full capacity. Conservation is, of course, things like turning out un-needed lights, changing to more energy-efficient lighting and machinery, and switching "discretionary" loads to times when power is cheaper.

A company like Reedy Creek will typically contract (via competitive bid no doubt) for its power requirements with nearby generators. Nearby meaning somewhere within the region, ie, the state and neighboring states. The contract could be for output from particular power plants ie, the nuclear unit that is currently down, or just a "slice of the system" contract which means a share of whatever power plants are running at the time.

The utility then needs to "dispatch" power by using the least expensive units first (ie a base loaded nuclear power plant) and adding successive layers of more more expensive power as their load (need for power) grows during the day. At peak times, the cost for the next KWH of power can be many times the cost of the cheapest power.

Why not more conservation? Because conservation costs money. A company (in this case Disney, not the utility) will do as much conservation as makes sense. Spend $1 million in new, more efficient, equipment to save $50K in power costs per year? Probably not because the payback is too long. Spend $1 million on equipment that will save $500k per year? Probably so.

And before anybody brings up solar power or wind power, please realize that neither is free power. There are sizable capital costs that are needed to build solar or wind facilities, but the actual KWH of generation from those plants can not be counted on and in-fact these sources will have a very low availability factor. If the wind blows only 25% of the time, then the cost of power from that unit has to be 4 times the depreciation and O&M costs in order to cover expenses. That means this alternative power is actually fairly expensive.

Probably more than you wanted to know...

Not more than I wanted to know - thank you!

You're right, many people tend to think that wind and solar are practically free and readily available, when in fact, as you point out, they are costly and very unreliable sources of energy in most parts of the country and IMHO, not true "alternative" energy sources for most.

I'm still not quite sure what more conservation they could do to help make-up for that 10%; you'd think they were already doing it. I wonder if their "gap-filling" will lead to their needing less publicly purchased power come July when the plant is back up?

 

[DC7800]

Probably more than you wanted to know...

On the contrary, I too find it quite interesting.

 

[seashoreCM]

The "surplus" power could also be gotten from Disney's (Reedy Creek's) own generators if these were not previously running at full capacity.

If the cost of their own generated power is greater than the purchased power allotment from the closed nuclear plant, then Disney will go back to the publicly purchased power when Progress' nuclear plant goes back on line.

When Disney's power plant is running at just the capacity needed to produce needed steam, hot water, etc. any electricity produced at the same time has a very low cost, accounting wise. The same plant with electrical production jacked up has the additional kilowatt hours of electricity assigned a higher cost because there is no use for the added heat the plant gives off.

Why only 10% of Disney's power needs comes from the nuclear plant?

1. So as not to put all the eggs in one basket, that is, not having to scramble around as much for alternate power if any one plant goes down.

2. Other customers (which may include cities) may have spoken for the rest of the nuclear plant's output first.

 

[Snowgod]

Germany has been heavily investing in the "unreliable" forms of energy and they generate more alternative energy than any other country (article). Florida gets more sunlight than Germany and if Disney covered their buildings with solar panels. they could easily generate 10% or more of their power. yes it would cost them money but it is an investment that has very little maintenance and a 20-25 minimum lifespan. Winds blow across Florida every day and at 50-100 feet above the ground it blows constantly. While WDW may not be the perfect place for a wind farm, the coast of Florida certainly is. The current cost of large solar purchases is about a dollar a watt. That's not very expensive.

 

[zulemara]

Maybe this is why they shut off the lights on the arches around property at night :-( always makes me sad. WDW never shuts down!

 

[Golf4food]

WDW never shuts down!

This is part of the issue - people probably think WDW can shut most things down after the parks close, but that isn't the case - they do maintenance, updates, plants and flowers are cared for and changed, the parks are cleaned, etc. all at night so as not to disrupt the views and experiences for the guests. So while most of us have electric needs mainly during the day WDW has needs practically 24/7/365.

 

[irishdadx4]

running Test Track for 20 hours or more a day...when the park is only open to the public 12 hours, on average

Mike

 

[Disco]

if Disney covered their buildings with solar panels. they could easily generate 10% or more of their power. yes it would cost them money but it is an investment that has very little maintenance and a 20-25 minimum lifespan. Winds blow across Florida every day and at 50-100 feet above the ground it blows constantly. While WDW may not be the perfect place for a wind farm, the coast of Florida certainly is. The current cost of large solar purchases is about a dollar a watt. That's not very expensive.

LOL solar panels are one of the most expensive forms of energy generation possible. At "only" a dollar a watt (I'm assuming you mean KWH) my monthly electric costs at home would go from my current average of $120 a month to about $865!. Also a solar panel's efficiency degrades by 3%-5% a year making their half life somewhere around 10-15 years. That is well short of your 20-25 year minimum lifespan whatever that means. They are also one of the most environmentally damaging forms of energy production possible. They are made with many heavy metals, acids and other very nasty chemicals. You need a huge amount of them to produce any meaningful amount of energy and when you have to throw them away every 10-20 years imagine all those electronic dumps currently in China and times that by 10.
Wind turbines are actually close to being competitive price wise. Unfortunately Florida is not a good location to put up wind turbines. Every time a tropical storm or hurricane came through it would just destroy them.
I don't think Disney wants to almost double their annual energy bill to give the perception that 10% of their energy production is green.

 

[Joeguitar]

Probably more than you wanted to know...

Actually, it's exactly what I wanted to know! thank you very much