Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (20553)	2/20/2008 2:48:13 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

Wharfie, you don't put it downtown. There are buildings and people downtown. You put it on the outskirts where there's currently a valley full of trees or something. How come you Greenie doomsters can't seem to understand how things should be done? A mountain a kilometre high will be 3 or 4 kilometres wide. That's too big to fit downtown. I know the maths is complicated, but if you have a look at various mountains [Google has plenty to look at] you'll see that they are wider than they are high unless they are made of stuck-together materials such as granite. Angle of repose of rubbish would be less than 30 degrees, so a kilometre high mountain would need about 5 kilometres of width to be stable. The top could be steeper to make fast sliding down possible and to provide gentle mountaineering experiences. Some sections could be made of glued together plastic and stuff to form cliffs, water falls, ski jumps, Rainfall could be collected and a reservoir built to supply the city. If built in the right spot, the mountain would force more rain out of clouds, keeping the city sunnier and increasing water supplies. Mqurice