If not please, I beg you, read the article at this site...
then take action!!
Please send in emails and ask for this not to be built before Feb. 28!! We need as much help as we can get and our voices must be heard. Thank You for your help!
ps- tell every one you know to send emails!
2007-02-18 10:56:37 · 7 answers · asked by heather feather 3 in Environment
sorry the link above might not work
http://www.cleanenergy.org/programs/hottopic.cfm?ID=71
2007-02-18 10:57:39 · update #1
oh sorry I live in North Carolina, but my state will not be the only one affected by this....there are 25 power plants purposed, and the date on this one is increasing its deadline!!
2007-02-18 11:32:57 · update #2
Also North Carolina does NOT need the extra energy that would be coming from the plant..they are just rushing the deadlines because in 2009 new guidelines will be passed that would make it more expensive to build and mantian the plants......thats why they are building them now.
We want Wind Farms in the App. Mountains and Solar Powered Plants as well.
2007-02-18 11:35:49 · update #3
NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE NOT CLEAN AT ALL!!
but thanks for insulting me in the process, you can take the nuclear plant in your backyard=)
2007-02-19 06:33:07 · update #4
No - Both are absolutely horrible power solutions.
Shame on those of you supporting coal or nuclear. Wake UP! and do something to help the planet instead of just being Stupid and part of the problem.
2007-02-18 11:40:33 · answer #1 · answered by Thuja M 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Unfortunately this is a rhetorical political question apparently posed by someone who is poorly informed at best.
Economically, if people are willing to pay 5 to 15 times more for electricity - then wind or solar may be an option.
From and environmental point of view, if people are willing to blot out vast areas of sunlight to convert the sun to electricity - though this is fruitless at night - then Solar Panels may be a good idea - unfortunately you cannot farm - or get a tan - under a solar panel.
Windfarms are interesting - but aside from the cost - remember 5 to 15 times that of hydro, nuclear or coal - they are rather ugly, and they take up a lot of room.
Nuclear power plants are the best answer - Hydro has limited availability. Coal plants are generally dirty, though they produce relatively cheap electricity. Nuclear plants are clean, safe, and cheap.
I have tried to give a serious answer to an obviously Rhetorical question.
2007-02-19 05:29:36 · answer #2 · answered by mtnhiker026 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i'd incredibly see them make the Nuclear flora first. The coal can proceed to be as a lower back up. to boot the sulfur and strip mining issues, there incredibly are not any significant problems with coal. Nuclear flora have a habit of remaining down in the past they are up and working.
2016-11-23 17:24:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The article is talking about a coal plant.
What are you saying? That neither should be built? Where should we then get the power from if not either coal or nuclear? Natural Gas?
2007-02-18 11:06:23 · answer #4 · answered by bkc99xx 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes they should be built. If you don't want them built just what are you doing to conserve energy so that they might not need be built. With all the new technology coal is quite clean compared to what it used to be, look up carbon dioxide sequestration on line.
2007-02-18 11:01:51 · answer #5 · answered by vagpenisdude 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't know where you live, but it does not matter. Nuclear plants and coal plants should be banned. They destroy the ecology.
2007-02-18 11:01:49 · answer #6 · answered by Yafooey! 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Only if you have a hamster powered computer.
2007-02-18 11:05:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋