Environmental groups file lawsuit to block solar project at Six Flags Great Adventure

God bless America!

How ironic. SFGA tries to use green energy and angers environmentalists.

In fairness, these groups aren't exactly the Sierra Club. Most of them appear to be local (or state) environmental groups, and I suspect their motives are partly related to local quality of life, aesthetic, or similar concerns. Even if they are looking at what I would call "true" environmental issues, like stream quality, they are much more local concerns and not the big picture issues like climate change. (That doesn't by itself make them invalid, of course.)

In all fairness, the thought of clear cutting 90 acres for a solar project seems too much, why not build an elevated system over the that massive sea of asphalt called a parking lot, not only do they get their solar farm, but park attenders would get shaded parking, trees don't have to get cut down, and the costs would be near the same.

Have you bothered to read any of the other discussion on this? It's almost cost-prohibitive to do so.

According to the last paragraph of the article, the park says using the parking lot for the solar station would result in the loss of too many parking spaces and would restrict use of the parking lot for concerts and charity events. Don't know how true that is though but it at least sounds plausible.

I agree blanketing the entire parking lot would be cumbersome and lead to headaches. At the same time displacing 90 acres of wildlife seems counter productive. The problem is the park wants to take the shortcut of doing it all in one go. Ideally they would invest in placing panels on the rooftops of all the buildings in the park first. And then begin supplementing with additional strategic groupings around the park. Elveated panels could make for good shade over queue lines or outdoor patio areas. I don't think there is 90 acres worth of space to blanket in the park by any means. But a lot of forest space could be saved.

Opponents all seem to disregard the fact that they'll plant more trees than they'll cut down. They're younger, and apparently often diseased our dead trees. And honestly, it's absurd regardless. I'm surrounded by thousands of acres that were pine or abandoned orange groves. It's all going to be housing. Where were the protests?

Trees have to be cut down to build anything. If its a neighborhood or a solar farm for an amusement park. Cutting down trees might not be good, but in order to build things, they will have to go. Its no different with building new coasters. Look at what Dollywood is doing for their rumored 2016 coaster. A solar farm isn't bad for the environment. I believe these environmentalists should protest about a different place cutting down trees than one building something good for the environment with the land they clear. Even if they don't plant new trees, they are still doing a relatively good thing for the environment.

first, CarolinaNick15, you're full of it, your comment that trees NEED to be cut down for any development is BS, come out west where there are thousands upon thousands of acres with no trees and nothing but prairie grass, guess what, no trees needs to be cut down to develop the land. And guess what they're doing with that land, they're building wind farms to provide energy.

second, we all know Six Flags' track record, it is only a matter of time before an attraction such as the safari tour goes to $h!t. Just save the time, energy, and effort and close the attraction now. Release the animals, or at least find someplace else to care for them. They'll then have plenty of land to build their solar energy farm and save themselves money. Lastly, that parking lot will still be available for their concerts, events, and of course, future parking lot roller coasters.

I could care less what they do, but considering the parks proximity to a wildlife management area, it isn't just about 18k trees being cut, it is about the displaced wildlife that doesn't follow directions and stay in the area that they are supposed to be in, the loss of that habitat will result in more wildlife/human interaction that may not always be positive.

You know, this isn't some ancient redwood forest we're talking about. Between their commitment to replant more than they cut down in a new location, and the net reduced carbon footprint, by an enormous margin, I think it's more than a good compromise. If even the people who want renewable energy keep opposing it, I swear we're never going to get there.

Introducing facts is unfair.

coaster kevin said:
first, CarolinaNick15, you're full of it, your comment that trees NEED to be cut down for any development is BS, come out west where there are thousands upon thousands of acres with no trees and nothing but prairie grass, guess what, no trees needs to be cut down to develop the land. And guess what they're doing with that land, they're building wind farms to provide energy.

second, we all know Six Flags' track record, it is only a matter of time before an attraction such as the safari tour goes to $h!t. Just save the time, energy, and effort and close the attraction now. Release the animals, or at least find someplace else to care for them. They'll then have plenty of land to build their solar energy farm and save themselves money. Lastly, that parking lot will still be available for their concerts, events, and of course, future parking lot roller coasters.

I could care less what they do, but considering the parks proximity to a wildlife management area, it isn't just about 18k trees being cut, it is about the displaced wildlife that doesn't follow directions and stay in the area that they are supposed to be in, the loss of that habitat will result in more wildlife/human interaction that may not always be positive.

Fine then. Put the solar panels in the west and let them power a park across the country in New Jersey. WONDERFUL idea.