Texas Town That Took Al Gore’s Advice Is Losing Millions On ‘Green Energy’ Contracts

It’s a big warning of what’s ahead with fools like Trudeau & McKenna in power.

The town of Georgetown Texas took the advice of Al Gore and shifted massively towards ‘renewable energy.’

Gore heavily hyped-up the town in his sequel to ‘an inconvenient truth,’ saying it was an example of how renewable energy could save the town tons of money while being environmentally friendly.

Here’s what Gore had said about the town:

“And one thing that Georgetown demonstrates to other places that are just beginning to think about it is that the power supply is not only more affordable the cost is predictable for at least 25 years into the future and really beyond that.”

But that’s not how it turned out.

As reported by the Daily Caller, the city has lost millions.

They’ve lost about $7 million this year alone:

“It’s costing them big time,” vice president of research at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), Bill Peacock, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “This doesn’t appear to be the first time they’ve lost money, just the first time it was big enough to have to go public with it.”

This is a clear warning of what’s ahead here in Canada, and what has already been seen. Particularly in Ontario under the McGuinty-Wynne Liberals, the ‘shift’ to green energy backfired horribly, caused massive energy price hikes, screwed over consumers, and lost billions.

So, with the Trudeau Liberals in power and determined to listen to Al Gore and follow the same failed policies of the Ontario Liberals, Canada is facing an economic and fiscal disaster.

And of course, the Liberals are also following in Gore’s footsteps by being massive hypocrites. Gore’s gigantic mansion uses over 2000% more power than the average home, and he regularly jets around the world. 

As always, the elites have one set of rules they demand to impose on us, while exempting themselves from any change in lifestyle.

Spencer Fernando

Photo – YouTube

***

If you find value in the perspective found at SpencerFernando.com, and you are able to contribute, I ask you to support my Independent writing with a monthly contribution through Patreon or by contributing through PayPal at the button below:




12
Share Your Thoughts

avatar
6 Comment threads
6 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
12 Comment authors
tommy hawkMike AllanLeo FreyJimAggie Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Glen Aldridge
Guest
Glen Aldridge

You don’t think that maybe Texas, the Oil Center of the U.S. might just have a bias in making sure the town didn’t succeed in it’s renewable energy program? That’s if it is actually failing or are the media being manipulated again? With Norway having a northern climate less conducive to renewable energy can make it so successful they are claiming to be completely oil free in a few years & expanding their program to other countries, you do have to wonder why it would not be successful in a Texas town. – https://www.ecowatch.com/norway-investments-in-renewable-energy-could-change-the-world-1881801605.html

Steve Reeves
Guest
Steve Reeves

And maybe the Norway story is bias and being manipulated by the media. That one is more likely.

Del
Guest
Del

It’s all in the contact they signed. The city got suckered by professional scammers as it seems the contract is longer than the anticipated life of the windmills. Dark at night, and solar isn’t consistent so the city has to buy from normal power suppliers at premium prices, PLUS pay the “green” company for all the power that is installed, not necessarily produced. If the wind doesn’t blow, the city still pays, just like it used to be in Ontario.

Wayne Milligan
Guest
Wayne Milligan

Your link contains speculation from the eco-activist group, WWF, about what Norway might do in the future. The article is both biased and speculative and completely devoid of facts. According to the IEA, fossil fuels supply 61.1% of Norway’s Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES): oil (41.5%); natural gas (17.3%); coal (2.3%). Other sources of TPES include: hydroelectric (33.3%); biofuels/waste (4.8%); geothermal/solar/wind (0.7%). Your unsubstantiated claim that they will be “oil free in a few years” is gross exaggeration considering the main source of Norway’s wealth is the offshore O&G industry.

shawn harris
Guest
shawn harris

Try and read the article again and again until you get the message loud and clear, green energy is a fraud, that can never be successful without government sanctioned handouts from the taxpayers. Or maybe you would rather just dismiss as a hoax, the same failed green energy here in Ontario , that has massively destroyed this province, its citizens, its businesses and the next two or three generations. That will have to be saddled with paying for the outrageous costs of green energy, that only produce intermittent power , as the sun and wind don’t always shine or blow… Read more »

Aggie
Guest
Aggie

You should learn more about Texas. It’s also the biggest state in wind-generated power. Ever heard of T Boone Pickens?

Leo Frey
Guest
Leo Frey

That’s total BS Glen. First off Norway is far from oil free. Secondly, why would Norway cut off the hand that feeds it. Norway makes all its money on oil. Why would they try to stop that by leaving it in the ground. That’s total BS.

Ivan Hawkes
Guest
Ivan Hawkes

Mini minds like Climate Barbie has are clueless regarding any form of VIABLE and RELIABLE alternative energy source besides oil, but they scream and yell anyway. Justin, climate Barbie, Rachael Notley all drive around in big fat cars and fly all over the place no problem. Rachael told the people of Alberta that we should walk and bicycle everywhere (but not her). It’s hypocritical and destructive to people and industry to complain so dramatically without an alternative to bring forward. So please SHUT UP until you have a reliable replacement in hand.

Clive Edwards
Guest
Clive Edwards

“Green Energy” doesn’t need pipelines, but it does need high tension transmission lines. My wife and I are both electro-sensitive and I can tell you, driving along beside a power transmission line is way worse for our well being than driving along beside an oil or gas pipeline. Ditto for the bugs, birds, animals and plants. Pipelines are bad when they leak. High tension lines are bad all the time.

Jim
Guest
Jim

It’s like comparing apples to oranges when Norway is in the high 90s percent, producing electricity with hydroelectricity dams and Texas isn’t. Hydro is in the renewable energy group. Norway is blessed with water and short distances, while many North America locations are not. Seems strange it‘s a must today to use the moving wind to produce fluctuating-unreliable electricity. But doing the same with moving water, to produce steady-reliable-electricity is now frowned at across North America. It’s to help the fish, one of the big reasons why few new dams are built today. While bird and bat wind turbine blade kills… Read more »

Mike Allan
Guest
Mike Allan

The lord and saviour gave us this energy to use. If God didn’t want us to use our oil for energy he wouldn’t have gave it to us.Why people listen to libtards is beyond the rational thought of conservative narrative. It’s really sad that all of us will suffer the same fate.

tommy hawk
Guest

By now, even to the diehard Liberals, it must be eminently clear that ‘Liberal policies’ are filled with dangers because they are based on thoughts, but not facts, and it is facts that have either negative or positive impacts on societies. The evidence is endless that Liberal policies are a danger to all.