Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Small News From The Theme Park Industry

Liseberg has today been demanded by the Gothenburg City Council (their owner) to cut their power consumption by 5%. They have published a three scenario process in case further cuts will be necessary. Today we are on scenario 1. Let's hope that's also where we will stay.

Liseberg's three scenarios
Scenario 1

Where we are today.

* Reduced the time when the Christmas tree and mood lights are lit by twelve percent on both open and closed days.

* Turn off the park completely on closed days, with the exception of led lights and work lights.

* Carry out targeted efforts in our restaurants, because commercial kitchens in particular consume a lot of energy.

* Extra focus on shops where measures to optimize the indoor climate are introduced.

* The information campaign "Energitjuvjakten" to get everyone to contribute what they can, both in the office, in workshops and at home.

Scenario 2

Companies are obliged to actively save energy. It can be by partially shutting down/pausing parts of your business, or putting energy-sucking activities in the evenings/nights.

For Liseberg, this could mean:

* Individual restaurants or shops are closed on certain days or times.

* Some attractions are closed on certain days or times. During Christmas, six of the ten most energy-consuming attractions are closed.

* Closed on selected days during Christmas at Liseberg, when the number of guests is not that great.

Scenario 3

Companies that do not carry out socially critical activities, like Liseberg, need to close in whole or in part.

For Liseberg, this could mean:

* Everything that cannot be considered as safety-related lighting is turned off.

* The park is only kept open when there is a "power outlet" available, for example in the evenings. Alternatively, a total shutdown of the park.

Source: Andreas Andersen, CEO Liseberg. From GP.
 
Christian said:
Liseberg has today been demanded by the Gothenburg City Council (their owner) to cut their power consumption by 5%. They have published a three scenario process in case further cuts will be necessary. Today we are on scenario 1. Let's hope that's also where we will stay.

Liseberg's three scenarios
Scenario 1

Where we are today.

* Reduced the time when the Christmas tree and mood lights are lit by twelve percent on both open and closed days.

* Turn off the park completely on closed days, with the exception of led lights and work lights.

* Carry out targeted efforts in our restaurants, because commercial kitchens in particular consume a lot of energy.

* Extra focus on shops where measures to optimize the indoor climate are introduced.

* The information campaign "Energitjuvjakten" to get everyone to contribute what they can, both in the office, in workshops and at home.

Scenario 2

Companies are obliged to actively save energy. It can be by partially shutting down/pausing parts of your business, or putting energy-sucking activities in the evenings/nights.

For Liseberg, this could mean:

* Individual restaurants or shops are closed on certain days or times.

* Some attractions are closed on certain days or times. During Christmas, six of the ten most energy-consuming attractions are closed.

* Closed on selected days during Christmas at Liseberg, when the number of guests is not that great.

Scenario 3

Companies that do not carry out socially critical activities, like Liseberg, need to close in whole or in part.

For Liseberg, this could mean:

* Everything that cannot be considered as safety-related lighting is turned off.

* The park is only kept open when there is a "power outlet" available, for example in the evenings. Alternatively, a total shutdown of the park.

Source: Andreas Andersen, CEO Liseberg. From GP.
Click to expand...
Turning the Christmas lights down/off doesn't seem quite so "weird" now, does it...? ;)

Running a park must be hard, as these sort of energy consumption measures aren't super easy when you're trying to provide a good guest experience. The Nordic Countries are usually pretty good at this sort of thing, so I'm sure the park already has some nifty ideas. Hopefully they can manage it without having to do big swathes of shutdowns.
 
Hixee said:
Turning the Christmas lights down/off doesn't seem quite so "weird" now, does it...? ;)

Running a park must be hard, as these sort of energy consumption measures aren't super easy when you're trying to provide a good guest experience. The Nordic Countries are usually pretty good at this sort of thing, so I'm sure the park already has some nifty ideas. Hopefully they can manage it without having to do big swathes of shutdowns.
Click to expand...

It will be the first time in the park's 100 year history when it will go completely dark. That will be exiting to see.

Financially, I still think it's a weird decision. Liseberg has a fixed price electricity contract and will anyways be getting 0.5 SEK for every kWh they consume as compensation from the government. This kWh compensation was announced yesterday and is valid for every kWh consumed regardless of cost. I don't know exactly how much Liseberg pay per kWh from their fixed price contract but it might even be possible that it's less than 0.5 SEK / kWh. With the compensation it's possible that Liseberg's power is pretty much free. In a large heavily industrial city like Gothenburg, Liseberg's electricity consumption is negligible. If the owner has their demands, it's of course a different story, that I understand.
 
Last edited:
Christian said:
It will be the first time in the park's 100 year history when it will go completely dark. That will be exiting to see.

Financially, I still think it's a weird decision. Liseberg has a fixed price electricity contract and will anyways be getting 0.5 SEK for every kwh they consume as compensation from the government. This kwh compensation was announced yesterday and is valid for every kwh consumed regardless of cost. I don't know exactly how much Liseberg pay per kwh from their fixed price contract but it might even be possible that it's less than 0.5 SEK / Kwh. With the compensation it's possible that Liseberg's power is pretty much free. In a large heavily industrial city like Gothenburg, Liseberg's electricity consumption is negligible. If the owner has their demands it's of course a different story, that I understand.
Click to expand...
The original article was hidden behind a paywall, so I don't know what it says in detail (plus it was in Swedish, so I'd have been at the mercy of Translate anyway :p ), but did it actually that the driver for them was cost? My suspicion is that they were looking at reducing energy consumption as they'd been given some early warnings by the city/utility. The cost thing may be some editorialising on behalf of the news outlet.

Agreed, on cost alone it don't make a huge amount of sense, but if every major consumer in the cities cuts back by [at least] 5% that can start to become a significant.
 
Hixee said:
The original article was hidden behind a paywall, so I don't know what it says in detail (plus it was in Swedish, so I'd have been at the mercy of Translate anyway :p ), but did it actually that the driver for them was cost? My suspicion is that they were looking at reducing energy consumption as they'd been given some early warnings by the city/utility. The cost thing may be some editorialising on behalf of the news outlet.

Agreed, on cost alone it don't make a huge amount of sense, but if every major consumer in the cities cuts back by [at least] 5% that can start to become a significant.
Click to expand...

The original article gave "image" and "morality" as the excuse for starting to plan for cuts. The argument was that, people across the road might be struggling to pay their large electrical bills and they look out and see Liseberg shining like a beacon of light, when the park is actually closed. It also clearly mentioned that motivations are not financial due to Liseberg's fixed price contract.

The new article: https://www.gp.se/ekonomi/lisebergs-besked-då-släcker-vi-ned-parken-helt-1.84253749

This new article mentions the owner's demands to cut power. The city council is an absolutely massive power user, every street light, tram, electrical bus, electrical ferry, many schools, care homes, clinics, offices and malls are all owned by them. Firstly, they don't have the massive electricity increases budgeted (they don't share Liseberg's fixed price contract) and secondly them cutting 5% across the board might actually be the difference between a power cut or not. If there isn't enough power in the grid, certain geographical areas will need to be periodically cut.
 
Christian said:
The original article gave "image" and "morality" as the excuse for starting to plan for cuts. The argument was that, people across the road might be struggling to pay their large electrical bills and they look out and see Liseberg shining like a beacon of light, when the park is actually closed. It also clearly mentioned that motivations are not financial due to Liseberg's fixed price contract.

The new article: https://www.gp.se/ekonomi/lisebergs-besked-då-släcker-vi-ned-parken-helt-1.84253749

This new article mentions the owner's demands to cut power. The city council is an absolutely massive power user, every street light, tram, electrical bus, electrical ferry, many schools, care homes, clinics, offices and malls are all owned by them. Firstly, they don't have the massive electricity increases budgeted (they don't share Liseberg's fixed price contract) and secondly them cutting 5% across the board might actually be the difference between a power cut or not. If there isn't enough power in the grid, certain geographical areas will need to be periodically cut.
Click to expand...
Exactly - this basically comes back to what I'd said before - all the big consumers chip in together to keep the city-wide infrastructure going.
 
Fårup sommerlands ceo have announced the following for 2023: ''We are investing in a new children's area, where we will have a large carousel, and a new playground will also be established at Fønix. We are experiencing a great interest in the event-based experiences, most recently Lysfald, and therefore we will also look into how we can develop the park in this area, says Niels Jørgen Jensen''.
 
Swat said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1586702488484331522
Click to expand...
New chain required is the rumour... Last time a towers ride needed a new chain it was delivered and installed by the next weekend if I remember correctly. There's a company that specialises in lift chains for all coaster types not a million miles away from Towers, in Manchester. No idea if they are a Merlin supplier, but they do also happen to use images of Towers coasters in their promotional material. :)
 
I just hope it hasn’t reduced the actual fireworks show… Drone shows were great at first, but they’ve been around for a while now. It’d be very disappointing if they reduced the actual fireworks to pay for it.

The lasers in 2019 were great though, and did not make the fireworks feel sub par, so I have every faith. 🤞
 
davidm said:
Cast-off Thorpe Park attraction finds its way to Salford...



www.bbc.co.uk

ITV to recreate I'm A Celebrity jungle for theme park in Salford

A new I'm A Celeb visitor attraction will open next year - but without the bug-eating tasks.
www.bbc.co.uk

(OK, not really; there was a recent announcement of some sort of ScruffyDog/ITV related thing at Salford Quays ; LINK HERE and HERE - obviously this is that)
Click to expand...

...and just like that, it was gone.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

I'm A Celebrity Jungle Challenge attraction closes down 15 months after opening

The Salford Quays based attraction is based on the hit ITV show which returns to our screens this weekend
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top