Sadly, this is serious
NJ theme park to cut 18K trees to go solar http://t.co/ob4Na1xAOK pic.twitter.com/F2x5t2Nrhm
— NBC New York (@NBCNewYork) March 27, 2015
A theme park plans to cut down more than 18,000 trees for the construction of what it says will be the largest solar farm in New Jersey.
Six Flags Great Adventure says the facility will generate 21.9 megawatts, or enough to power about 3,100 homes, and capable of meeting all of the park’s needs.
This is modern “environmentalism”. They say it will cut down on the park’s fossil fuels usage. Do they realize that 99.99% of the people working at the park and visiting the park come in fossil fuels vehicles? Growing up at the Jersey Shore, I’ve done that myself many times. It was about a 25 minute drive. But, hey, they’re (supposedly) going to plant 25,000 trees over the next 7 years.
Teach inadvertently left out this part:
And the employees aren’t forced to drive gas vehicles are they? No. The transition from gas vehicles and coal/gas generated electricity to electric vehicles and renewable energy systems will be just that – a transition.
Is your complaint in this case that 1) a private corporation has made a sound business decision that resulted in removing 18,000 trees that they own? Or are you concerned that 2) the trees and the CO2 they convert to non-volatile forms of carbon and the oxygen they release somehow belong to us all?? (LOL)
Or is your complaint really just, 3) HYPOCRITES!! Solar power kills trees!
We know the answer to the quiz.
Jeffery,
A large portion of Great Adventure’s operations occur when the sun don’t shine. The issue with solar is it’s not economical, and the burden of losses falls upon the taxpayer; i.e, without stealing other (taxpayers) money, this would not be a “sound business decision”.
This massive redistribution scheme will do NOTHING to alleviate the existing power generators’ kilowatt obligations. You can’t switch coal/nuclear/oil/gas plants on and off at will, so if the public wants electricity when it wants it, we need reliable, constant sources.
Solar is expensive, and I’m not willing to pay for it as long as a cheaper, more reliable source is available.
BTW, I live in one of the counties in NJ with gummint solar projects based on the “Morris Model”, and we’re being taken to the cleaners for this debacle.
The bottom line is, the trees are theirs, the property is theirs, but the solar panels are being financed by me, not them, so fuck ’em.
I’ll bet my bottom dollar that if you dig into this the park is getting a very large subsidy to help defray the cost of the solar farm, otherwise I don’t know how it would pencil out as a good business investment unless it is being written off as public relations.
Perhaps you should read the entire post, Jeff. Last line. And no, I did not edit it. Which can be proven.
Bob better take a look at the new numbers for solar you are really out of date
The 100 acres of undeveloped land will be going back on the tax rollsCertainly solar WAS expensive but the cost is now down to less than 50 cents a watt per panel
in the last 5 years it has fallen from 1.50 per watt to 42 cents
in another 5 years it may be 25cents
http://www.solarreviews.com/news/top-chinese-manufacturers-will-produce-solar-panels-for-42-cents-per-watt-in-2015/
It’s just collateral damage.
[…] William Teach on The Pirate’s Cove: Six Flags Great Adventure To Cut Down 18k Trees For Solar Panels […]
Well john, once again you show that you either cannot read, are willing to lie, or are epically stupid.
First, the article that you cite is from 2011. The solar panel advocacy site you quote from is estimating the costs of solar panels in 2015 – not the actual costs. (See the little “e” after the years on the graphs? That stands for “estimated.”)
The problem is that those figures include massive subsidies, especially from the Chinese. A study by MIT and the US Department of Commerce show the prices you quote are the result of Chinese dumping products into a market that cannot sustain the investment. In fact, since your article was written, two of the largest solar panel companies in China have defaulted on massive bank loans because they cannot make the product for a profit.
In short john, you got caught again.
BTW – did you ever figure out where Selma, Alabama was?
Demanding that renewable energy not be subsidized ignores the trillion dollar subsidies for fossil fuels. The only way the denier argument against solar makes sense is if the cost of fossil-fuel dependent global warming is negligible. That is hardly the case.
What do you call the situation when humankind and our governments pick up the tab for the negative externalities (i.e., global warming) not incorporated into the market price? You’re right. Subsidies. The industry is not being held accountable for the societal costs of CO2 pollution. Fossil fuels are heavily subsidized – unless deniers can prove global warming to be a hoax. That’s the reason the industry pays so much to deny.
“Ignores the trillion dollar subsidies for fossil fuel.” Fossil fuel companies by and large receive tax breaks, not subsidies. They are not the same thing. Alternative energy are the entities that receive subsidies. Again, the tax breaks they receive are the same tax breaks other viable companies receive, and the same as individuals receive. The get to keep more of their money, the same as we do on, say, mortgage interest deduction. A subsidy is for the most part given to companies that aren’t viable-hence the need for the subsidy.
Jeffery has tried rockin’ the “subsidies” lie before and has gotten beaten up for it. The fact that he keeps trying to bring it up shows that truth doesn’t matter to him.
I wasn’t referring to tax breaks (which ARE subsidies), but the negative externality of CO2 pollution.
You and your ilk repeatedly claiming that tax breaks aren’t subsidies, especially when I didn’t mention it, is hardly getting beaten up, except maybe in fluffer land.
If human-caused global warming is real (it is), then CO2 pollution is a cost of using fossil fuels. The costs of global warming will be in the trillions. Who pays? Fossil fuel companies or taxpayers? If it’s taxpayers it’s a huge subsidy. Has nothing to do with tax breaks. Nada. Zip. Do you think the fossil fuel industry will pay for the damages from global warming? I don’t either.
If you want to argue that global warming isn’t real you can (but you’ve already lost).
If you want to argue that the cause of global warming, CO2 from fossil fuels, is a natural phenomenon, and there is no responsibility by anyone you can.
gitarcarver,
When one commenter’s (you) only contribution is to give an “atta boy” to another commenter (jl), that act defines blog fluffing.
The problem is that jl and then his fluffer (you), ignored what I typed and made up something I didn’t say.
Then you have the ovaries to say that something I didn’t even type
Spin, deflect, distract and lie all you want.
If you want to discuss substance let me know.
“once again you show that you either cannot read, are willing to lie, or are epically stupid”…
Sound familiar? I didn’t bring up tax credits, you fluffed it up from jl’s misdiagnosis. See what happens when you don’t think for yourself?
I think this “shows that truth doesn’t matter to him”
This isn’t your first time, either. But there could always be a first time for you to acknowledge your mistake/perfidy.
You don’t get to change the meanings of words Jeffery.
You said “subsidies” which is clearly different from either tax breaks or what you claim you want the term to mean.
Nice try, but once again, you failed.
Tuesday morning links
No Girls Allowed: The Merits and Flaws of an All-Boys Public School Fixing Flood Insurance – A Reform That Works Oh sh*t, I’m the 1 percent: Secrets of the super-wealthy. I grew up poor. My kids now live in Fairfield County. We all think we’re middle