this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
9 points (90.9% liked)

Ask Lemmy

31793 readers
888 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Mountain area: 3,500,000 m2

Average height of the mountain: 100 meters

A govt needs some area to build some stuff. I'm trying to figure out if it would be cheaper for them to remove a mountain (this area is owned by govt so its basically free real estate), or paying individual land owners ($15-20/m2).

Point of mountain removal is to make this place suitable for development (industrial area). So probably they don't have to remove the entire mountain

top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kersploosh@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

If the mountain contains valuable minerals then the cost will be negative; you can make money by removing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining

Though, depending on the geology, you might not want to build a town on the resulting site. Sometimes heavy metals leach out of the disturbed rock, resulting in polluted surface water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_mine_drainage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Pit

[–] amksenin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

No minerals

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 5 points 5 hours ago

You’re comparing moving 100 cubic meters of soil, so 200tons+ 10-15km away versus paying $20.

One of these is vastly more expensive than the other.

Governments would rather use eminent domain than literally move mountains.

[–] Apeman42@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You lose a mountain to get some shitty parking lots or whatever.

[–] amksenin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago