The debate about the role of renewable energy in the U.S. is highly politicized and polarized, needlessly hurting our energy and national security interests.
Proponents point to an industry that is growing robustly, creating jobs, lowering our carbon footprint and empowering individuals to break free of centuries-old utility business models. Congressional and other detractors point to the Department of Energyís Solyndra debacle and insist that hydraulic fracturing and unconventional oil and natural gas can solve all of the nationís energy problems.
What is undeniable is that renewable energy can be a strong component of energy and national security and the ongoing debate over its validity threatens our soldiers overseas and limits our options at home.
Renewable energy is moving from a niche market to the mainstream. Renewable sources represent approximately 13 percent of U.S. energy generation. While still small, these numbers are growing quickly; wind generation is up 20 percent and solar is up more than 100 percent in the past year. Wall Street has taken notice, offering market-based solutions to bring down capital costs through securitizations, yieldcos and other vehicles. Nevertheless, renewable energy does not enjoy some of the tax advantages given to fossil fuels, such as master limited partnerships. Oil and gas proponents argue that these are not subsidies, while often incorrectly labeling as subsidies tax-based solutions for renewables such as the investment tax credit and production tax credit. The playing field is not level and any efforts to create long-term solutions and bridge the treatment gap between fossil and renewable energy is often met with uninformed rhetoric.
A growing group of investors, politicians and industry stakeholders recognize that renewable energy is here to stay and its economic competitiveness, long-term price stability and grid responsiveness all are beneficial to our nationís economic choice and security. As the U.S. went through its early January cold spell, areas of the country that had more renewables were subject to fewer brownouts and blackouts. For example, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator in the Midwest were able to rely on their growing wind capacities to counteract thermal plants being knocked offline due to mechanical and natural-gas supply issues.
On the international level, our militaryís forward operating bases can utilize micro solar, wind and fuel cells to reduce or eliminate the need for diesel generators. More importantly, renewables reduce the need to put our young men and women in harmís way guarding fuel supply convoys. On the homefront, the Department of Defense is seeking to source 25 percent of its energy from renewable energy by 2025, or about 1 gigawatt for each branch of the military, producing savings upward of $10 billion over the life of the power purchase agreements.
There is no one-stop shop to solve U.S. energy security. Our increasingly accessible unconventional natural gas supply is starting to be shipped abroad to take advantage of high prices in overseas markets, erasing some of the advantages to domestic users. On the transportation side, so long as we import one barrel of oil, we will not have energy independence, as prices will be set by the global market. Overall, energy security, like most things, is rarely a black and white issue.
Former Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., candidate for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire, holds his hand over his heart during the singing of the national anthem as he waits to take the stage for his town hall campaign rally with Sen. John McCain at the Pinkerton Academy in Derry, N.H., on Monday, Aug. 18, 2014.