Walter Moore, Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles, MooreIsBetter.com

 

Mayor Villaraigosa is on yet another trip, this time to New York to talk about reducing L.A.'s carbon footprint.

 

For those of us still in the city, let me ask you a question: should L.A. build a nuclear plant?

 

I'm leaning towards "yes," because France and Japan have used them for years to generate electricity without burning coal or fossil fuels, and without any significant safety problem, as far as I know. General Electric, moreover, is in the process of getting plans for plants pre-approved by the federal regulatory authorities, and can apparently build a plant for around $1.5 billion, and in just a few years.

To put that price-tag in perspective, the plans to remodel LAX call for an expenditure of $11.5 billion for a process would result in the airport having three fewer gates. Nuclear power could also help pave the way, so to speak, for electric cars, buses, etc.

 

On the other hand, we DO live in an area that gets hit by earthquakes. Also, we're on every terrorist's "Top 10" list, so we have face a risk of intentional attack, too. Plus, like you, I grew up watching "Godzilla" and movies like it from the 1950's. The last thing I'd want to see is giant ants attacking the city after mutating. Plus, science fiction aside, we need to know that we're not going to have a Chernobyl or Three Mile Island here. I gather modern plants have much better safeguards, but still, one nuclear accident can ruin your whole city for a few thousand years.

 

What do YOU think? I'd be especially interested in hearing from people who know what they talk about, i.e., people with some facts and figures. Also, please limit yourself, for this discussion, to the pro's and con's of nuclear power per se, rather than advocating conservation, solar, wind, etc. We can talk about those another time. Right now, I'd like to know more about nuclear power.  Click here to e-mail me.