Skip to main content

Paul Newman on Nuclear Energy

logo The National Review has a terrific piece on our old friend Paul Newman and his support for nuclear energy. Here's a taster:

“In all the meetings I had with Paul Newman, he struck me as very open-minded and inquisitive,” says [Denis Beller, a professor of engineering at the University of Nevada]. “He came out to Nevada in 2002 and visited the Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies, where several faculty members showed him research on the transmutation of nuclear waste. They also discussed why ideas like launching nuclear waste into the sun were not really practical. The visit ended with a trip to Yucca Mountain, where Kevin Phillips, the mayor of neighboring Caliente, whose front porch is only 50 yards from the rail line where waste would be transported, told Newman he was not opposed to the project. Later [Newman] told me, ‘That’s the most impressive thing I’ve seen.’”

There's also a shout-out to NEI's involvement with Newman-Wachs, Newman's car racing outlet:

In 2002 Newman and [Eddie] Wachs formed Newman Wachs Racing, which fielded two cars that carried 26 nuclear decals and a public service message promoting nuclear power. Two year later the Nuclear Energy Institute became aware of their effort and sponsored a car emblazoned with the message “Nuclear — Clean Air Energy,” which won the opening race of the 2008 Champ Car Atlantic season. The car and its racing crew subsequently visited several engineering schools around the country to encourage young people to enter the nuclear profession.

You know that with National Review, there's going to be a few zingers at left-wing Hollywood types, but writers William Tucker and Stephanie Gutmann can't quite get past their bona fides to a central point: Paul Newman supported nuclear energy and was still a committed "lefty."

We've noted many times here that nuclear energy has just about become a post-ideological subject and opposing or supporting it is no longer an index to a person's political leaning. We think National Review missed a great opening here: pat themselves on the back for helping this to occur. Might hurt to lose the issue, but a win is a win. They could then move on to more reliable hot button issues - drilling in ANWR, tax breaks to oil companies - the kind of thing that does still inflame the left.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hi, Stephanie Gutmann here.

Has being pro-nuclear energy really become "post ideological." That's actually really interesting (I'm not being snarky here) and maybe a subject for an article for in itself (I'm always scouting...)

Maybe in the scientific community, but certainly from where I'm sitting in the civilian/academic/journalism community anything to do with nuclear is as taboo as ever. A sure fire conversation ender. A sure fire way to ensure that the person you're talking to will think you're a maniac...
Joffan said…
Journalists have been very slow to wake up from the anti-nuclear misinformation, especially given their responsibility to transmit reliable information. Perhaps this is due to the cognitive bias that attaches to deeply entrenched positions, especially incorrect positions that have been relied on for a number of years.

It will take some courage to shift away from that, and that courage is slowly emerging in the journalism community. I hope you can find that courage, Stephanie.
Anonymous said…
SG again.

no, no...Joffen, you misunderstood the point of my comment. Bill Tucker and I are very pro-nuclear energy. Bill's been writing about this and studying it for years and last summer we toured Areva sites in France and were very impressed. I was just saying that I don't see the evidence that nuclear energy has become a "post ideological" issue. People seem as knee-jerk as ever on this issue.
Anonymous said…
And what Stephanie Gutmann points out has always been my point. The anti-nukes are invariably democrats and if you elect Obama, you can kiss the nuclear rennaisance good bye. Academia, journalism, etc. are all full of left wing liberals and the very few who support nuke power are the oddities. The best bet is to support McCain whole hog and utterly defeat Obama.
Rod Adams said…
I can list a number of left leaning or Democrat, pro-nuclear bloggers:

Dave Walters - Daily Koz
NNadir - Daily Koz
Rod Adams (me) - Atomic Insights
http://pronucleardemocrats.blogspot.com/
http://rightdemocrat.blogspot.com/

I like nuclear power because it offers the potential to give more power to the people - it completely breaks the paradigm of enormous fossil fuel controlling entities ruling the world.

It is also a great job generator, a terrific support mechanism for local governments and public schools and an amazing way to produce electricity without producing any air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions.

For many, many reasons, the left has more logical reasons for supporting nuclear power. I happen to believe that there are a large number of very reasonable and logical people who lean to the left side of the spectrum.

Rod Adams
Atomic Insights
The Atomic Show Podcast
Anonymous said…
Joffan
I enjoyed your joke about the responsibility of journalists "to transmit reliable information". I started laughing again as I typed this.
Anonymous said…
You think maybe all this condescending, indiscriminate bashing of journalists in general as left-wing idiots by nuclear industry types might have something to do with it?
Mark Flanagan said…
Okay guys, simmer down. As nuclear energy settles into being a ideologically neutral topic, overselling its pluses and minuses will become less important than addressing the issues that might impede its progress.

It may rankle to hear Obama talk about "safe" transport and storage of nuclear waste, but it's talk, and it's genuinely heartening to hear from the leader of the Democratic Party - Obama is the leading edge of the next generation of graybeards (which is what the Senate will always mostly be) and he is openly considering nuclear energy a necessary component of his energy policy. Speaks well for the party going forward.

We certainly prefer McCain's all-in expression of support, and think the nuclear industry can live up to it, but it's not quite so unusual coming from him and the Republicans. It's really Obama (and many who came before him - Patrick Moore, for example) who has moved the topic from a reliable conservative go-to topic and toward a post-ideological standing.

That's important, because it will end the stuttering progress nuclear energy suffers when government administrations change. (And at present, it looks like McCain or Obama will be working with a strengthened Democratic Congress and with his former rival returned to the Senate; energy policy might well be an area of common cause for them.)
Anonymous said…
I have never done any indiscriminate bashing of journalists. That is contrary to what some of them have done personally to me. I realize that, on the subject of nuclear power, there are two or three honest journalists. But the rest cannot be "bashed" because the wording that would be asserted to be "bashing" would actually be mild criticism when compared to the truth about them. My conclusions on this are based on decades of personal experience and research on what laughingly passes for "journalism" related to nuclear power and other technical and scientific subjects.
Anonymous said…
I have always admired Paul Newman for putting his money to work in such productive ways... His Newman's Own line is high quality stuff and the proceeds go to good causes, win-win

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...