Six Flags Great Adventure Now Powered by Solar Energy

[Railer]

^^ The link don't work, they must of removed the article. I read about that small town against Solar though because they believe they will use all the Suns energy up lol.

[SFGadv123]

"Opponents of the project say it’s taking one step forward and two steps back, as it requires the removal of nearly 15,000 trees at the site, identified as irreplaceable and vital to the Pinelands habitat"

 

I do have to say that I agree with this statement. I would really love to see the park turn to renewable energy as this is the future of energy in America (hopefully). What they need to do is find a proposal which does not cut down so many trees so it can appeal to all, but that might very well not be feasible.

[Nitro1118]

Personally, I feel if it is their land, they should more or less be able to do what they want with it. It isn't like they are knocking down all of these trees to build a new parkibg lot or giant giga coaster. They are doing it for efficient, renewable energy, and as long as they are planting some new trees to compensate, they should be free to do what they want.

[Matt Kaiser]

Plus, this plan reduces pollution!

[Viper26]

Then it's best for Six Flags to build it anyway if it's energy efficient. The wildlife that lives near the park also live throughout the Pine Barrens and most of Southern New Jersey which extends all the way to Dennis Township and the Cape May Peninsula. Putting a solar farm wouldn't do too much damage to the Pine Barrens as the same wildlife in Six Flags Great Adventure's woods can be possibly found in other South Jersey towns too.

[jdc12192]

 

 

Six Flags Great Adventure's controversial solar project under fire

By Rob Spahr | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

JACKSON – Township residents and environmentalists packed the Municipal Building on Monday night in hopes of getting a solar energy project scrapped.

Six Flags Great Adventure is seeking approval from the township's Planning Board to construct a solar generation facility – consisting of solar panels, inverters, transformers and a substation – on approximately 66 acres of current woodlands between Reed Road, Perrineville Road and Six Flags Boulevard.

If approved, the project is expected to make the 510-acre theme park and safari entirely energy self-sufficient.

However, during the nearly five-hour meeting – which still was not long enough to accommodate all of the comments from the public – many of the project's opponents said Six Flags should find another location for its solar project.

"I've very much in favor of solar panels, but not at the expense of the nature that we're trying to save," township resident Linda McHale said.

Six Flags president John Fitzgerald previously said that putting the panels in the theme park's parking lot would be too close to the public and would put visitors at risk of injury or the equipment in danger of being damaged.

"Tens of thousands of visitors come to Six Flags every day and use the parking lot including many children and young adults," Fitzgerald said. "It would be imprudent to allow park visitors access to solar arrays set over such a large and widespread area."

But some residents argued that if places like Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia or Rutgers University could make parking lot solar arrays work, a mostly seasonal amusement park should also be able to accomplish its renewable energy goals without cutting down 15,000 trees.

"I can't help but think that Great Adventure is known for building all of these innovative rides and attractions, they're constantly building these new incredible coasters," township resident Debbie Hadley said.

"In my mind," she continued, "Great Adventure has some of the most creative and skilled engineers on this planet. And I can't figure out why they don't have the brainpower to figure out how to install solar panels on existing impervious structures. It seems that at their own hand, they have access to minds that can solve this problem and it should be a challenge Great Adventure should want to rise to."

Township resident Elaine Leighton said she was in favor of solar energy projects, but said there is a way that Great Adventure's solar aspirations could be a win-win for itself and Jackson Township.

"Removing those trees and allowing development in an area that is sensitive ... is not a good idea," Leighton said. "I would like you to consider putting solar panels in areas that are already cleared, already damaged and isn't going to harm anybody. That way we can have both."

During the lengthy public comment session, which is scheduled to continue on Feb. 29, there was only one Jackson resident who spoke in favor of the project: Joe Fiero, a member of the township's Economic Development Committee.

"The environmental benefits of this project far exceed the environmental costs," Fiero said. "(Great Adventure's) desire to be the first theme park to be run by renewable energy should bring accolades, not critical response."

Source

[truepolak90]

I understand that 15,000 trees is a lot, but that is really only like 1 or 2 % of the entire Pine Barrons. Now when they want to build a new Gas Station or fast food resturant then its absolutely no problem cutting down trees and clearing the land to build stuff on the road. The main road that Six Flags is on has doubled in developement compared to 30 years ago. The environmentalists are going to drag this until Six Flags gives up. I really wish that they would allow just this one project. This could also benefit the town in so many ways not just the park.

[SFGadv123]

I agree with them by saying how places like Rutgers and Lincoln Financial Field have been able to put solar arrays in their parking lots and it works great. Not sure I see John's argument saying it is dangerous to the people. I realize that the parking lot wouldn't be enough for the entire plan. Although maybe they could put some in the parking lot and some in the woods so instead of cutting 15,000 trees they only cut down, say 7,500 or something. I would be very happy if they were to do that.

[Matt Kaiser]

I agree with them by saying how places like Rutgers and Lincoln Financial Field have been able to put solar arrays in their parking lots and it works great. Not sure I see John's argument saying it is dangerous to the people. I realize that the parking lot wouldn't be enough for the entire plan. Although maybe they could put some in the parking lot and some in the woods so instead of cutting 15,000 trees they only cut down, say 7,500 or something. I would be very happy if they were to do that.

 

Lincoln Financial Field has a decent amount of panels, and they only generate 3 MW of power. Six Flags needs 21.9 MW, seven times the amount. They aren't comparable. And this isn't just SF being stubborn about putting panels in parking lots, they actually cost a significant amount more. SF has already compromised by agreeing to install panels over the employee lot for a significant cost increase.

[SFGadv123]

After doing a little research, I found that at Rutgers, their solar parking lot is 28 acres. The Six Flags main parking lot and employee parking lot together is approximately 60 acres, so about double the size of Rutgers. Now you say that they need 21.9 MW of power generated. The Rutgers parking lot generates 8 MW. So, having said that, it can be concluded that putting solar panels in the parking lot of Six Flags can generate about 16 MW. Also, HH's parking lot is about 16 acres. That could generate about another 4-5 MW.

 

Now, I doubt they would also consider installing in HH parking lot, so that still does not reach the goal, but that would significantly reduce the amount of land needed to be cleared for the project.

 

Now of course, that will cost a lot of money. This was back in September so who knows if this is still possible, but even if it is, it would no longer be 90 acres, but it was said that "The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Green Acres program wants to buy the 90-acre property to prevent the clear-cutting. With that extra money, Six Flags can afford to install the solar on their parking lot."

 

It's also worth mentioning that solar panels in the parking lot are beneficial to the visitors as well, as it will protect cars from the rain and also from the sun (we all know how gross cars get on hot days from the sun).

Edited February 8, 2016 by SFGadv123

[Matt Kaiser]

It's also a detriment to visitors as it decreases visibility, thus increasing the chance for theft and accidents.

 

Also: http://www.greatadventurehistory.com/Forums/index.php?showtopic=4383&p=67789

[Railer]

I'd prob stop going all together if they ever did it over the Lot's, and so would alot of Guest's. It would look horrible, theft's would rise incredibly, and people would be sueing constantly making up injuries from being under them. The Park will NEVER build them over the Lot's. Alot more than we know is riding on the Property being Energy Independent, they will get it built on their Land where they choose. It's going to come down to who runs out of money 1st, and Six Flags will not quit on this project. A completely Energy Independent Resort is worth fighting for, and they are. A bigger plan is at play in this, and it hinges on this being built.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Railer

[SFGadv123]

In my opinion, I would not mind the solar panels over the lot. It would not look terrible. To me, it is just giving guests a good impression of the park that they run completely on renewable energy. I know not everyone thinks that way, but that is how I would think. I would much rather hear about it going over the parking lot and destroying 15,000 trees. And again, it provides shade and protection to the cars, I do not see how theft is really a big issue.

[CoasterKrazy]

I think the last thing Six Flags wants to do is build solar panels over the lot. They're gonna fight and fight until they get what they want and that's to build them on the plot of land they wanted to in the first place.

[Railer]

The Enviromental Group's Money will run out, it's all mostly from donation's. They are going up against a Billion Dollar Chain of Theme Park's, and the longer it goes, the more likely Six Flags will win. Being drawn out, month after month is exactly what the Park want's (if they can't get the approval they want now) they have deeper pocket's, and that's all it comes down to in the end.

[Matt Kaiser]

In my opinion, I would not mind the solar panels over the lot. It would not look terrible. To me, it is just giving guests a good impression of the park that they run completely on renewable energy. I know not everyone thinks that way, but that is how I would think. I would much rather hear about it going over the parking lot and destroying 15,000 trees. And again, it provides shade and protection to the cars, I do not see how theft is really a big issue.

Theft is already an issue, there were a few reports of it this past summer. Heck, someone stole a car and crashed it a few towns away!

http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2015/08/teen_critical_after_crashing_car_stolen_from_great_adventure_cops_say.html

 

I will agree the panels look cool. I park under the Rutgers panels every day.

[SFGadv123]

Theft is already an issue, there were a few reports of it this past summer. Heck, someone stole a car and crashed it a few towns away!

http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2015/08/teen_critical_after_crashing_car_stolen_from_great_adventure_cops_say.html

 

I will agree the panels look cool. I park under the Rutgers panels every day.

The question though is would theft increase from adding solar panels? Doubt it. I have not seen any evidence that shows an increase in theft to parking lots with solar panels.

 

Here is a site that points out all the benefits that come with solar panels in parking lots. It does point out of course that the only problem is cost. Yeah, putting solar panels over the lot would cost more and likely require them to repave it. But I would like them to actually say how much more it would cost to put it in the lot and exactly how it can be dangerous for the gusts, because right now I see it as a doable project, but then again I don't have any formal education in this field.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/28/the-best-idea-in-a-long-time-covering-parking-lots-with-solar-panels/

Edited February 10, 2016 by SFGadv123

[DANofNJ]

The panels in the SFGadv parking lot does not work. The park uses it as a staging area for disasters in the area. it was used for superstorm sandy.

[Matt Kaiser]

The question though is would theft increase from adding solar panels? Doubt it. I have not seen any evidence that shows an increase in theft to parking lots with solar panels.

 

Here is a site that points out all the benefits that come with solar panels in parking lots. It does point out of course that the only problem is cost. Yeah, putting solar panels over the lot would cost more and likely require them to repave it. But I would like them to actually say how much more it would cost to put it in the lot and exactly how it can be dangerous for the gusts, because right now I see it as a doable project, but then again I don't have any formal education in this field.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/28/the-best-idea-in-a-long-time-covering-parking-lots-with-solar-panels/

 

In response to the question of theft increasing: I think it depends on the nature of the visitors who use the lot. Typically, I believe most solar panel lots are used for college students, company employees, or sports fans who are paying a lot more money to go to a game than Six Flags.

[Viper26]

So should they install some of them on the employee lots and its adjacent offices?

[jdc12192]

^They cut down the Forrest amount because they plan to put them on the employee lot if I remember correctly.

[Railer]

^^ That was a compromise the Park proposed. Cut the amount of acres and Trees out off Reed Rd, and split it up with the Employee Lot. That would be a suitable compromise that i wish would go thru. It would prob cost the Park a little more over the year's with maintinance at split location's though. One thing none of them is also taking into account that with the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere now, Trees do mature more quickly, and grow bigger overall. I wish the Park would push that fact a little, when mentioning the re-planting effort. It is really a measurable difference nowadays, and it will only increase for the immediate future until emmisions are actually cut some. The Park getting this done will help that effort.

[Matt Kaiser]

It's my understanding that the employee lot panels are the current plan. The original deal was that KDC Solar pays for all installation and maintenance, so I'm not sure how they worked this compromise out.

And SF can push all the positive facts they want, the environmentalists are just filibustering. They've been going back to hour-long discussions about grass seed for months.

[YoungPup]

 

In response to the question of theft increasing: I think it depends on the nature of the visitors who use the lot. Typically, I believe most solar panel lots are used for college students, company employees, or sports fans who are paying a lot more money to go to a game than Six Flags.

But what SFGadv123 was asking was where is this "increase of theft" idea coming from? You guys are acting as if Six Flags has sniper towers and they're always watching the parking lot, so if they cover it up a bit, they won't be able to monitor them. If someone wants to break into someone car, they're going to. There's enough cars there for nobody to see them. Solar panels aren't going to make theft any worse. I feel like some of you are just against the parking lot idea, because you're upset people who care about the environment are going against Six Flags, and it's turning into a thing like "How dare you tell me I can't do something".

[Matt Kaiser]

The theft issue isn't a big point for me, that just seems to be what most people care about and relate to. I'm more concerned with the other reasons I've stated on previous pages as to why the lots can't be used.