Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

Six Flags Great Adventure (SFGAdv) Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

^ I agree, Im no tree hugger but certain things need to remain intact that are crucial to the local ecosystem. They have so many other places to stick some ugly solar panels. Part of what makes me like Great Adventre is that it has that element of "being in the woods."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't followed the solar farm thing very closely since it was first announced, but why don't they consider doing it over the parking lot? Has this been addressed in any way? It would save 66 acres of forest, provide shade for people parking, and they look good honestly:

 

solaire-generation-solar-parking-lot-structures.jpg

 

I'm sure it cost more, but honestly how much more? It still seems worth it as the 66 acres of land probably hold more value than the cost difference of construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to the money reason, I could see that being an additional reason. Although I think all parks should have a security tower in the parking lot to prevent any type of criminal behavior.

 

Long term, building this over the parking lot seems like a much better idea, but I am sure it is cheaper to destroy 66 acres and waste space. Hopefully the park gets turned down but is given some kind of additional tax break incentive to build this over their parking.

 

Is New Jersey one of the states that offers payment to owners of solar power that produce excess power and are connected to the power grid, allowing for that excess power to be used elsewhere? I assume they are considering how common these panels are over shopping mall parking lots in New Jersey compared to states that I know don't provide payment incentive for private production of solar electricity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a few reasons, and yes it has been addressed.

 

First of all, there are not 66 acres of viable parking lot space for solar panels. I do believe SF has agreed to use the employee lot for panels, but even including the main lot, employee lot and Hurricane Harbor lot, you still come nowhere near enough space (which, yes, I agree, you can't really justify chopping 66 acres of trees for this project).

 

I believe I remember reading that SF has addressed the risk of putting panels over the lot. Aside from expenses (they may also have to repave first which is supposedly $10 million they don't want to spend), it's the northeast, people are stupid and sue for anything. There are some minor inherent dangers with covering a lot with panels (visual obstructions, more things in the way for NJ drivers to run into, etc), but it sounds like a bit of an excuse on SF's part to get out of paying a much higher amount up front, IMO.

 

There are also some buildings than panels could be placed on top of, but this is supposedly (I'm not an expert) more costly than just placing panels in a field, and altogether, even with all the lots included with the buildings, they're still short of 66 acres.

 

 

Personally I think it's ridiculous how long discussion has been happening and both sides aren't compromising (they were having a heated argument about the definition of native grass a few weeks back). I'd love to see incentives from the county to help cover the parking lot expenses so they can do the three lots there and less than 30 acres of forest, but I don't know how likely it is that would happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to the money reason, I could see that being an additional reason. Although I think all parks should have a security tower in the parking lot to prevent any type of criminal behavior.

GAdv does have one of these towers. In all my years visiting the park, I've never once seen it manned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to the money reason, I could see that being an additional reason. Although I think all parks should have a security tower in the parking lot to prevent any type of criminal behavior.

GAdv does have one of these towers. In all my years visiting the park, I've never once seen it manned.

I guess even if it was manned, the view would be blocked completely with the panels over the parking.

 

I can see the risk there. If it isn't a huge issue for malls with parking garages, I'm not sure why it would be such an issue at a theme park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a few reasons, and yes it has been addressed.

 

First of all, there are not 66 acres of viable parking lot space for solar panels. I do believe SF has agreed to use the employee lot for panels, but even including the main lot, employee lot and Hurricane Harbor lot, you still come nowhere near enough space (which, yes, I agree, you can't really justify chopping 66 acres of trees for this project).

 

I believe I remember reading that SF has addressed the risk of putting panels over the lot. Aside from expenses (they may also have to repave first which is supposedly $10 million they don't want to spend), it's the northeast, people are stupid and sue for anything. There are some minor inherent dangers with covering a lot with panels (visual obstructions, more things in the way for NJ drivers to run into, etc), but it sounds like a bit of an excuse on SF's part to get out of paying a much higher amount up front, IMO.

 

There are also some buildings than panels could be placed on top of, but this is supposedly (I'm not an expert) more costly than just placing panels in a field, and altogether, even with all the lots included with the buildings, they're still short of 66 acres.

 

 

Personally I think it's ridiculous how long discussion has been happening and both sides aren't compromising (they were having a heated argument about the definition of native grass a few weeks back). I'd love to see incentives from the county to help cover the parking lot expenses so they can do the three lots there and less than 30 acres of forest, but I don't know how likely it is that would happen.

I do understand a lot of the risks, they just don't seem to completely justify it. It would be nice to see them at least do the roof top option and employee parking to reduce the number of acres sacrificed. Those options seem like no brainers, but I am definitely seeing the many reasons against using the guest parking lots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, It's probably in Great Adventure's best interest to just come out and say how much doing this will cost. I think everyone is massively underestimating the cost AND feasibility covering the parking lot with solar panels.

 

By my calculations, the total amount of land at Great Adventure that is parking lots is around 85.39 acres including the employee lot, overflow parking, and Hurricane Harbor lots.

1197989717_Screenshot(16).thumb.png.c17eff683eab51ec44db1e46a0bfb09c.png

 

Now we have to remember that parking lot panels don't cover that whole area - if they went with the standard design of the panels like the ones below, you'd probably be getting maybe 50% of the lot covered in solar - or roughly 43 acres (I'm just gonna round up for simplicity). Which is significantly less than what they'd be able to get from the current plan.

 

 

Rutgers covered 32 acres of parking lot in 2011 back for $40 million - if you adjust that for the drop in price for solar (since 2011, prices have gone down by half), you're looking at a price of $26.875 Million. You also have to add on the costs to renovate the parking lot to install the panels (which password121 mentioned being possibly around $10 million). That's going to end up at nearly $37 million for the cost of doing the parking lots that would probably only put out 2/3 the power of what they would get from the panels in the woods. Honestly, I'd also guess that my estimates are probably being quite generous and I wouldn't be shocked if the costs were even more, possibly up to the $40+ million range.

 

Additionally, it seems like the going rate for standard solar is roughly $500 thousand per acre (Source 1,Source 2). For Six Flags, that would be $30 million for the 60 acres, which also gives you 33% more power output. For the equivalent amount of power, from the parking lot panels, they'd probably need to get up into the $50 to nearly $60 million dollar range.

 

As much as I agree that doing the parking lot solar would make more sense, its just not a good financial option for Six Flags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, Six Flags isn't paying for it. I heard that an outside company is footing the bill and doing the work; the park is just providing the land and reaping the benefit.

 

Edit: After reading the initial press release, from last March, I believe I'm mistaken. Although the outside company (KDC Solar) will indeed own and operate the facility, I'm sure the park is paying them. Not sure where I heard what I mentioned initially; might have just been me having a brain fart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ That, and much less of a risk of damage. I believe the park when they say the parking lot isn't viable. People are idiots, they will find a way to either damage the panels or themselves were they to be built in the lot.

 

Like I said earlier, with both sides digging their heels in and unable to compromise, this project will probably fall by the wayside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally hope they reconsider the placement of the panels. Using renewable energy to power a park sounds environmentally great, but that probably would not make up for the loss of trees and habitat for the ecosystem caused by the deforestation. I think parking lots are a great idea for the panels. Since parking lots are already impervious surfaces that increase stormwater runoff, why not at least slap some solar panels over them to make up for the fact it's already negatively impacting the environment. Another thing is that the shade would be very nice in the summer! As far as human violation of solar panels, I think that is truly a minor concern. I definitely would not put it past someone as people lack respect these days, but if they are high enough off the ground there should be little to worry about. My college campus has them installed in our lots and even if someone were to crash their car into one of the structural beams, the car would most likely take all the damage assuming they are traveling at parking lot speeds. I would just hate to see all of those matured trees removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think that parking lot panels can work. If they can have solar panels over Lincoln Financial Field's parking lots with (Dumb Drunk Eagles fans), then they can have them anywhere. Im not sure of the specific size of the area, but it says the Eagles put 30 million in for 11,000 panels. Six Flags could always do the parking lot in phases over so many years so they get some money back before buying another section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Screamscape:

Six Flags - (2/26/16) Six Flags may be planning another LARGE roller coaster for one of the parks in the chain, as they have filed paperwork to trademark the name "TITAN" for a future ride. To date Six Flags has only used the "Titan" name once, at Six Flags over Texas for the sister ride of Magic Mountain's Goliath.

With the only other "Titan" in Texas, you can count that they wont use that name again at Fiesta Texas, so look for the name to possibly drop at one of the parks more likely to add a new coaster in 2017 like SF Magic Mountain, SF New England, SF Over Georgia or maybe even La Ronde.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/