Six Flags Great Adventure's green choice: Solar over trees

JACKSON, N.J. - Slated to be the largest installation of its kind in New Jersey, Six Flags Great Adventure's planned solar farm might be called the "Kingda Ka" giant coaster of the park's green deeds.

The amusement park says its energy project will eliminate nearly 226,000 tons of carbon dioxide over 15 years, greatly reducing its carbon footprint.

But environmentalists are not along for the ride.

In a shift from their usual support for such efforts, several state environmental groups have called it a "great green mistake" because it includes razing nearly 19,000 trees - a compromise that has raised questions about clean energy, environmental stewardship, and the greater good.

"As green as solar is, you don't get a pass for chopping down a forest," said Doug O'Malley, director of Environment New Jersey. "We strongly support solar in the state, but not when you're destroying the natural environment."

On Earth Day this week, O'Malley's group, four other environmental organizations, and more opponents, including former New Jersey Gov. Jim Florio, visited the site to bring attention to their concerns. They say the trees to be axed - including pitch pines and oaks - on nearly 90 acres near Great Adventure's safari park are just as worthy as those protected in the adjacent Pinelands and create an important natural habitat.

Great Adventure Park president John Fitzgerald said "the environment is something that needs to be taken care of, and we take that very seriously."

"It seems to me there's a struggle within the environmental camp about solar" and where it can be installed, he added.

Construction is expected to begin in several weeks on the 21.9-megawatt facility, which would be built and operated by KDC Solar and be complete by late 2016. The park will plant about 26,000 new trees in other areas of park-owned property over time.

Experts say the scenario presents an interesting debate over the associated costs of such energy facilities.

"Even though they're arguing and it's somewhat contentious, it sounds like everyone is raising genuine issues," said Mark Alan Hughes, faculty director of the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. "This kind of conversation and calculation of the set of trade-offs is totally par for the course."

The debate isn't novel. In Chester County, some environmentalists have taken issue with plans to remove trees to make way for solar panels at Coatesville Area High School.

Environmentalists say the solar array at Great Adventure should be placed above the park's large surface parking lots, where the panels also would provide shade to cars parked for hours on summer days. Great Adventure officials counter that the park explored that prospect but found it would limit already tight parking availability and event capabilities. Fitzgerald said the plans had gained most necessary permits.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has almost no regulatory jurisdiction over the park-owned land, said spokesman Larry Hajna.

"We don't agree with Six Flags," he said. "We met with them . . . and expressed our concerns. They were not receptive."

Minor permits from the DEP, Hajna said, would not have any strong influence on the project's advancement. "New Jersey takes pride in being a leader in solar energy," he said. "We do not believe clearing the forest is the way to develop solar projects."

Some critics are concerned that the amusement park is acting swiftly for financial purposes and that the project will negatively impact adjacent wetlands and lead to sediment erosion, runoff, and the pollution of waterways, some that connect to the distressed Barnegat Bay.

Denise Garner, a Jackson environmental commissioner who voted against endorsing the project, said the solar project was "not anything that's a handshake to our town."

"It's a good, thriving woods," Garner said Friday, admiring the trees off Reed Road that are slated for demolition.

Great Adventure spokeswoman Kristin Siebeneicher said in an e-mail that "the concerns raised by environmental groups were the same concerns we had as we developed the project" and that they were "addressed and mitigated in the final version of the plan."

Fitzgerald, who said he drives an electric car and is environmentally conscious, said the park had taken other steps - including using LED lights for its rides - to lessen its impact on the environment.

"I think the time has passed when businesses are trying to make a quick buck at the expense of the environment," he said.

The gains - especially in the reduction of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change - are "being lost in the conversation," he said.

Great Adventure estimates the solar project will eliminate about 226,000 tons of carbon dioxide over 15 years. By comparison, the existing trees - half of which are in poor condition, according to the park - would have removed about 9,700 tons in that time.

Hughes, of the Kleinman energy policy center, said it was "really good" to have the massive park drawing its own power, especially during the summer, when electric demands strain the grid.

Park officials have said the park would likely produce excess energy during the off-season that would be available to the grid. Fitzgerald said the park would realize "significant" savings through the project, but cited company policy in declining to discuss specifics.

Jeffrey Brownson, a Pennsylvania State University associate professor of energy and mineral engineering who specializes in solar research, said that solar energy would continue to expand in the United States and that "there will always be environmental impacts and consequences that we should be aware of."

"If we are committing to a change in land-use patterns, then we really need to fully understand the impact of that shift," Brownson said. "The idea is to do a full accounting for what that ecological and environmental impact would be."