don't you think $23 billion is enough to spend on windmills? That is what we have spent since 1992--$23 billion for 4 percent of America's electricity. This is electricity that is unreliable. The windmills blow about one-third of the time, often at night, and it can't be stored. We will spend $5 billion this year and $4.4 billion next year. We could double our energy research spending if we would stop subsidizing wealthy people to build giant wind turbines. Sixty percent of our carbon-free electricity comes from nuclear reactors. Relying on giant wind turbines and new transmission lines to power a country that uses 25 percent of all the electricity in the world is like going to war in sailboats when the nuclear Navy is available. We already have $80 million going to research, which Senator Gardner and Senator Collins have asked us to include in the legislation. It is in the bill. We don't need to spend more. We have already spent $23 billion since 1992. Spending $4 or $5 billion a year is more than enough to spend on giant wind turbines. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Merkley amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Share
More from Heidi Alexander
The Government considers that the development covered by the Heathrow expansion NPS is critical to national growth and therefore plans to designate expansion at Heathrow as critical national growth infrastructure.
Not only are we lowering costs for the summer, the £2 bus fare cap will help all passengers get to where they need to for less.
I am glad I was here to hear the wise words of the Senator from Texas. I look at our region, in the Tennessee Valley, compared to California. California is moving ahead with a policy a lot like Vice President Biden's. They have got a high…
This is a signal of the importance the government places on the need for expansion and will be an important additional factor in the planning balance.





