By Clinton E. Crackel, Signature Sponsor and Co-founder and Co-chairman, Nuclear Fuels Reprocessing Coalition

March 15, 2019 - In support of the proposed Green New Deal on Capitol Hill, the Illinois state legislature’s proposed Path to 100 Act is intended to expand Illinois’ Renewable Portfolio Standard to 40% by 2030, with a total transition to 100% by 2050. Currently Illinois gets roughly 54% of its electricity from nuclear power, 30% from coal and 6% from natural gas.

Proposition 127 in Arizona was intended to expand Arizona's Renewable Portfolio Standard to 50% by 2030. Luckily it failed at the polls last November by a wide margin of 69% of the voters voting NO to 31% of the voters voting YES.

Unfortunately, Illinoisans will not have the option of voting for or against the Path to 100 Act even if the majority of voters don’t want more renewable energy. That vote was cast last November when the Democrats took control of the governor’s office, in addition to already having control of both the state senate and house since 2003.

In response to the proposed Path to 100 Act, I sent Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker an e-mail message on February 19, 2019 urging him to oppose the Act. The message follows.

From: clintoncrackel@aol.com

To: GovernorsOffice@illinois.gov

Sent: 2/19/2019 7:13:04 PM Central Standard Time

Subject: Opposition to Path to 100 Act.

Dear Governor Pritzker:

I wish to extend my sincerest congratulations on being elected Illinois’ 43rd governor. I have the utmost confidence you will serve all Illinoisans to the best of your ability.

As an Illinois resident I urge you to oppose the proposed Path to 100 Act, which would expand our state’s share of renewable energy to 40%. I don’t consider increasing the state’s reliance on renewable energy to such a percentage to be practical in terms of meeting our industrial base’s reliability on baseload electricity.

Because of my electric utility background, I do not support the widespread use of renewable energy sources such as solar power and wind generators because of their obvious limitations, including their inability to meet baseload electricity demands consistently. My electric utility background includes completing numerous electric utility power plant courses on such subjects as electrical generation and distribution, plant chemistry, chemical and volume control systems, electrical print reading, thermodynamics, heat transfer and fluid flow, instrumentation and controls, diesel generators, and many more. I also have several years of proven hands-on, power plant operating and engineering experience.  

In order to substantiate my position on solar power and wind generators, I have attached two articles that I wrote and were published on-line: When it Comes to Causing Global Warming, Natural Gas Beats Coal Hands Down and Inconvenient Truths About Renewables.

Another critical deficiency regarding solar power and wind generators is the fact that many of these energy sources aren’t capable of providing reactive power needed for electrical components that make use of an alternating magnetic field, such as electric motors, transformers, many switching power supplies in computers and televisions, and even mercury-vapor lamps. That is why fuel sources such as coal and nuclear continue to play essential roles in fulfilling industry demands for baseload electricity, especially when considering the reactive power factor. 

Instead of promoting the use of more renewable energy, I believe the time has come to revisit the advantages of the uses of coal and nuclear in the electric utility industry.

In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the obvious advantage of nuclear power is that it releases no greenhouse gases from either the nuclear fission or fusion processes. 

While coal has been used primarily for combustion purposes in coal-fired power plants, it has not been utilized to its fullest extent. With the advent of small modular reactors, it is feasible to incorporate nuclear and coal together by using coal strictly as a feedstock for producing a multitude of products for industrial and household use, while also meeting baseload electricity demands on a consistent basis, including fulfilling reactive power needs and meeting stricter atmospheric release limits.

I have also attached my latest published article Coal Could be a Great Source for Low-Cost Carbon Fiber. This article provides a list of many of the products available by using coal solely as a feedstock, while diverting greenhouse gas emissions through closed loop systems to produce industrial and household products.  

In addition to various academic, industrial and state and local political interests in combining coal and nuclear, the Center for Environment, Commerce & Energy (CfECE) favors this concept. Mr. Norris McDonald, a renowned environmentalist, is President of the CfECE; and in 2012, he was listed as one of America’s top 100 most influential African Americans by Ebony Magazine.

Although I am not paid to write such articles for publication, I welcome any comments or questions you may have on this matter.

Thank you for any consideration you wish to give to my proposal.

Very respectfully,

Clinton E. Crackel, Energy Consultant”               

What the Green New Deal’s architects either don’t understand or don’t care about is the fact that millions of jobs in the agricultural, energy, manufacturing, military, mining, petroleum and transportation sectors will be lost.

For example, banning fossil fuels altogether will restrict our trucking industry to operating electric tractors only, reduce our railroads to only electric-powered locomotives, eliminate all personal, farming and military vehicles powered by internal combustion engines, eliminate our current civil and military waterborne fleets, eliminate civil and military aviation, eliminate our steel manufacturing because of the lack of metallurgical coke, etcetera. For that matter, the manufacture of solar power and wind generator units will have to be restricted to outside the U.S. because of the dependence on carbon-based fuels needed to manufacture them.

In closing, I wish to inform you that I firmly believe that whoever controls our energy controls our economy.