"640 acres for 21,000 homes? DOn't you think it might be BETTER for to just grew 640 acres of TREES?
Honestly, it's just not worth it, the technology is not even there yet." -kingofwale
While I'd like to say any step in the stopping use of non-renewable resources is always a good thing... this is irrational. You would ONLY see something like this in California. 640 acres for 21k homes is rediculous. The technology has such a long way to go... why not just clear off the 640 acres of land, build a super efficent nuclear power plant, and use the remaining land as a safety zone and waste facility?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Brian James @ Jul 9th 2007 8:39PM
"640 acres for 21,000 homes? DOn't you think it might be BETTER for to just grew 640 acres of TREES?
Honestly, it's just not worth it, the technology is not even there yet." -kingofwale
While I'd like to say any step in the stopping use of non-renewable resources is always a good thing... this is irrational. You would ONLY see something like this in California. 640 acres for 21k homes is rediculous. The technology has such a long way to go... why not just clear off the 640 acres of land, build a super efficent nuclear power plant, and use the remaining land as a safety zone and waste facility?