New Jersey to Six Flags Great Adventure: We'll buy the land you want for a solar farm

I imagine that Great Adventure is one of, if not THE biggest customer for whatever power company that provides their electricity.

Power companies all over the country are doing whatever it takes to make adding solar power and wind turbines to one's home as difficult and expensive as possible. Free energy could cripple their business. It would be a domino effect too, because the fewer people who use the power company's power, the more expensive the power they offer will have to be. That will cause even more people to install solar and wind power to their homes.

Also, there is the issue of the wind and solar owner putting energy back into the grid, and getting paid by the power companies for that energy.

I expect this to be a hot topic in coming years.

LostKause said:

And... Remember the light-up glass solar-paneled roadway invention that was so popular on the internet a few years back? It would be awesome if they paved the entire park and parking lot wit that.! I am dreaming again.

Well I mean, the portions under parked cars would not be all that efficient. At least not during park hours (ie during the summer, in the day) ;)

So the tree huggers don't really object to the Six Flags solar project? They are just saying they do because it will help the bottom lines of the power companies (folks against whom the tree huggers rail all the time for spewing toxins into the air, ground and water and destroying Mother Earth all in the name of higher profits)?

Who currently owns the land?

I guess you could file it under "Coaster Enthusiast Conspiracy Theory." Maybe the power company plays a role in the story somewhere. Maybe not. They do have an awful lot to lose though.

bjames said:

it's not even a nice forest. it's pine barrens. the soil is toxic to most plants besides pine trees. these people are nuts.

It's a reserve with unique plant and animal life so it's more than just "not a nice forest". While I'm certainly not against solar power, this is a tough one. Planting new trees (regardless of how many you plant above and beyond what you removed) isn't a way to replace part of an established ecosystem.

Want to install solar panels? Do what every other commercial entity in the state is doing- put them on structures above parking lots. I fail to see how that will be that much more expensive than removing almost 2,000 trees. Besides, if you're going to complain it costs a little more money, then saving the environment wasn't your initial heart's desire in the first place. Not to mention the benefits of being able to park under an overhead structure that protects cars from sun, rain and toxic bird poo (from birds that were munching on food from those toxic pine barrens) will enable the park to double the cost of having the pleasure of parking in the lot! $50 parking fee, anyone?

Will the trees scream when being cut down? If not, then I have no particular interest in this one way or the other.

Screaming Trees:

And... Remember the light-up glass solar-paneled roadway invention that was so popular on the internet a few years back? It would be awesome if they paved the entire park and parking lot wit that.! I am dreaming again.

Actually right now those roads are in the 1st year of a 20 year testing review

Thanks, Jeff.

I nearly lost them.