Skip to main content

Sustainable power: The case of Disney World


Disney World in Florida acquired political resonance late in 2023 and early 2024 when many people (some sensible folks among them) thought the host state's governor, Ron DeSantis a plausible candidate for President of the United States.

DeSantis was against Disney in a very loud and litigious way. This is odd because a state's governor usually takes a rather positive view of that state's largest employer.

But DeSantis needed an example of what he called the "woke corporations" of the United States. Ideally one that he could kick around a bit as Governor of Florida. Disney served as such.  Perhaps because it gives generous health insurance benefits to its employees and their domestic partners, whether or not the partners are lawful spouses, and whether or not they are of the same sex as the employees. Gasp.  Horrors. 

Contemplating this recently, I became curious about Disney World's energy consumption and carbon footprint. Does the power involved merely come from the Florida grid?  Or is some portion of it self-generated?  If the latter: how renewable and carbon-emitted are the companies own plants? 

From what little I know so far: the park has significant power generation capacity, NOT left on standby in case of emergencies but contributing alongside the grid's contribution to the lights and action of the park. Of this separate contribution, some is solar and some is natural gas. 

More formally speaking, the Walt Disney Co,. has a wholly owned subsidiary, Reedy Creek Energy Services, which owns the energy system of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District west of Orlando. Some of its power is purchased from the public power grid, some not. 

I expect go give a more detailed report at a later day.  

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more