Environmental groups oppose Six Flags Great Adventure solar farm

Posted Monday, April 6, 2015 9:38 AM | Contributed by Jeff

Two New Jersey environmental groups have come out against Six Flags Great Adventure's plans to cut down 18,000 trees for a 90-acre solar farm. In addition, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection says the agency doesn't support the project, but acknowledges it has limited jurisdiction over the site.

Read more from The Asbury Park Press.

Thursday, April 9, 2015 9:33 AM

Here's an opinion piece from a Sierra Club dude opposing it. Everyone is an expert. Of course you could do it in a parking lot, and at significant additional expense that the park isn't floating in the first place.

+0
Thursday, April 9, 2015 9:50 AM

As Tommy mentioned earlier, people would be constantly running into the supports as they bump around in the pothole-COVERED lot. So it would be an ongoing expense to continuously repair/replace supports (as well as whatever damage might be done to the solar "accessories").

The lot idea is nice, but there's drawbacks. At the VA lot by UF, the supports are really big.

+0
Thursday, April 9, 2015 10:30 AM

While I kind of agree, how is it any different from the many places with parking garages?

+2Loading
Thursday, April 9, 2015 10:55 AM

"If you build them, they will be constantly run into."

-from the classic film, Field of Elevated Solar Panels

+10Loading
Friday, April 10, 2015 1:39 AM

People constantly crashing their vehicles into supports that hold up a solar panel roof in a parking lot is easily remedied. Just install barriers around the supports. Stone walls or simple yellow concrete pillars like at large retail stores and malls. Hypothetically, of course.

I wonder if power providers are secretly behind these "environmental groups?" Power providers have an interest against anyone creating their own power, and an even larger interest against anyone creating enough power that they can sell their power to the grid.

+0
Friday, April 10, 2015 8:28 AM

Yeah, I keep hearing "easily" and "simply" without regard to cost.

+2Loading
Friday, April 10, 2015 8:51 AM

In regards to cost, the very basic/simplified rule we use in the office is:

Built on surface = $
Elevated = 2 x $
Underground = 3 x $

You also have a bit of increased maintenance - solar panels need to be clean to take in energy, and you need access to repair/replace broken sections. If everything is built on the ground, you can have a service vehicle drive up/down the aisles between them quite easily, manually inspect/wash them and/or build a water system to automate some of that. If everything is elevated over a parking lot (a huge one at that), a lot of these processes become more complex (and more time consuming/expensive). All of that would cut into the park's ROI, which for solar projects is typically already in the 7-10 year range.

+1Loading
Friday, April 10, 2015 10:37 AM

Well, yea. If solar panels are built on top of a parking lot, of course it's going to cost a lot more.

+0
Saturday, April 25, 2015 5:54 PM

Made me think of you guys.

http://www.slashgear.com/solar-powered-electric-vehicle-charging-st...-18379748/

+1Loading
Sunday, April 26, 2015 9:37 PM

Here you go

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...