« | »

Solar Power = 0.25% Of CA’s Energy

From a discreet New York Times:

With Push Toward Renewable Energy, California Sets Pace for Solar Power


July 16, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO — A decade ago, only 500 rooftops in California boasted solar panels that harvest the sun’s energy. Today, there are nearly 50,000 solar-panel installations in the state, according to a report to be issued Thursday by the research and lobbying group Environment California.

As a result, California, the longtime national leader in solar energy, has a capacity of more than 500 megawatts of solar power at peak periods in the early afternoon — the same as a major power plant.

The solar capacity in California grew by a third from 2007 to 2008. It now represents about two-thirds of the national total, according to a different report that is being prepared by the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, a nonprofit group promoting expansion of solar energy.

As the Obama administration pushes for a national shift to more renewable energy sources, California’s example is therefore being closely watched. Nationally, the states in which solar installations are spreading fastest are those that provide the most generous subsidies for them, industry experts agree.

Two long-term statewide programs in California provide rebates and other financial incentives to encourage rooftop solar panels, and individual municipalities like Berkeley are also beginning to offer financing for the solar arrays.

“The thing about California is that they have a consistent program that has 10 years of funding,” said Larry Sherwood, a consultant to the interstate council.

(The California budget cuts that were being brokered Wednesday will not directly affect the subsidies because the subsidies are underwritten by utility ratepayers, not taxpayers.)

New Jersey is a distant second to California in installed solar capacity with 70 megawatts, followed by Colorado and Nevada, the council’s report said.

The Clean Energy program in New Jersey offers qualifying residential and commercial customers rebates for energy generated by solar arrays.

“Typically, New Jersey incentives have been higher, but its program has had many fits and starts,” Mr. Sherwood said.

Within California, solar technology has spread beyond highly environmentally conscious areas like San Francisco and Sacramento over the last decade to gain a hold throughout the state, Environment California’s report indicates. As of the end of 2008, when the report’s figures were compiled, San Diego had more than 19 megawatts in capacity from installations on 2,200 roofs, followed by San Jose with 15.4 megawatts from 1,330 roofs and Fresno with 14.5 megawatts from 1,028 roofs.

“The biggest thing here,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, the report’s author, “is that from farms to firehouses, the face of solar power is changing. While California’s biggest cities have led the way, the rest of the state and country are quickly picking up on it.”

She added that the cities of the Central Valley, which is both heavily agricultural and baking hot in the summer, are natural places for the solar panels. High air-conditioning loads and high peak electricity rates tend to dovetail partly with the afternoon hours when solar panels are most effective, she noted, giving people an incentive to embrace the new technology.

Nationally, residential installations account for about a third of the energy supplied to the power grid by photovoltaic arrays on panels; the remainder come from installations on larger facilities, like government buildings, retail stores and military installations.

Each of the four top-ranked cities in California in terms of solar power capacity have more electricity available from these sources than all but six states.

Still, 10 states, led by Colorado and including Hawaii, Connecticut, Oregon, Arizona, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts more than doubled their rooftop solar capacity in 2008, Mr. Sherwood said.

While most installations are on rooftops, the number of larger-scale installations is increasing. Fresno’s total output is augmented by a 2.4-megawatt facility at the Fresno Yosemite International airport, while the local Sierra Nevada brewery in Chico has a 1.9-megawatt solar array.

Outside the state, Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada has the largest photovoltaic generating plant, with 70,000 panels generating 14 megawatts of electricity, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.

But even with the increases of the last decade, solar power is a pipsqueak among energy sources; it represents about one-quarter of 1 percent of California’s total energy capacity, according to the California Energy Commission. Nationally, according to the Energy Information Administration, it represents about 0.02 percent of total capacity, but those federal figures are incomplete: they reflect only centralized facilities, not distributed rooftop installations.

Cost is a major hurdle; installation of a rooftop system is likely to cost at least $20,000.

In other countries, according to the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, a research and advocacy group, government subsidies have led to rapid growth in solar power. The group’s latest report shows Germany as the world leader in solar power, with 5,400 megawatts, or about 1 percent of the country’s total generating capacity.

Isn’t it amazing, the duplicity of the New York Times?

They lead off with this statistic:

A decade ago, only 500 rooftops in California boasted solar panels that harvest the sun’s energy. Today, there are nearly 50,000 solar-panel installations in the state, according to a report to be issued Thursday by the research and lobbying group Environment California.

As a result, California, the longtime national leader in solar energy, has a capacity of more than 500 megawatts of solar power at peak periods in the early afternoon — the same as a major power plant.

Which gives the casual the mistaken impression that California’s solar power is supplying an impressive amount of energy to the state’s grid.

But the tenacious reader who reads to the end of the article soon discovers that:

But even with the increases of the last decade, solar power is a pipsqueak among energy sources; it represents about one-quarter of 1 percent of California’s total energy capacity, according to the California Energy Commission. Nationally, according to the Energy Information Administration, it represents about 0.02 percent of total capacity…

And never mind that each installation costs a small fortune:

Cost is a major hurdle; installation of a rooftop system is likely to cost at least $20,000.

With still more shocking revelations to come:

The group’s latest report shows Germany as the world leader in solar power, with 5,400 megawatts, or about 1 percent of the country’s total generating capacity.

Sure, solar power is a viable alternative to coal and nuclear energy and oil.

And retrofitting our houses, schools and hospitals with solar panels will not only save the planet, but it will save the economy.

Who can doubt it?

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, July 16th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

28 Responses to “Solar Power = 0.25% Of CA’s Energy”

  1. proreason says:

    Does California have enough capacity to run Al Toad’s house?

  2. Chuckk says:

    I became aware of solar power about 40 years ago. It was said that in a single minute the sun delivered enough power to the earth to supply all of our energy needs for a year. All we needed was so many millions of dollars to figure out how to capture it. 40 years later it is still a pipe dream, along with wind power, burning garbage, hydrogen fuel cells, recycled McDonalds grease, geothermal, harnessing the tides, ethanol, and an endless number of crackpot, pie-in-the-sky schemes, mostly funded by billions of tax dollars.

    Jimmy Carter created the Department of Energy to deal with these things and get us off oil. Today these “alternative” energy sources remain unimportant and grossly expensive, while the energy sources that work, coal, nuclear and now oil, are in the process of being shut down. We import more than twice as much oil now as we did with the Department of Energy was created. Thank you government!

    • wardmama4 says:

      More than 40 Chuckk – solar has been around since 1939 – and you know darn well that if it were profitable in the past 70 years some enterprising entrepreneur would have taken it all the way to the bank.

  3. GetBackJack says:

    Screw all that statistical nonsense. We have solar and wind power here at the ranch not for the environment, not for politically correct reasons, We have our own power because it makes us independent of the damned system.

    This is what I don’t get about conservatives and libertarians. You ought to be all over this technology because it cuts the cord of Dependency. Dependency is a Democrat thing. Dependency is liberal Crack. Dependency is the keystone of socialist politics. ANYTHING that makes you dependent is a millstone on your freedom.

    Our water is well water and we have solar distillers for drinking water backup. Our grey and black water drains out through a leach field to fertilize our kitchen garden. I can, and have made methane in quantities big enough to power one of our tractors and if the need arose I can make enough for all our vehicles. (no jokes, please, about my diet, Consuela’s House of Pain burritos, either) I’ve experimented with a compost pile (for creating soil to amend this awful clay silt we have) big enough to heat the whole house with hot water pipes. I do that now for our herb garden (winter heat)

    Point being … we Conservatives and Libertarians and damn sure Christians ought to be the leaders in cutting the cord of dependency. Hang all these stupid NYT articles and their statistical BS. Guys … cut the cord. Live free.

    • texaspsue says:

      Been there, done that, got the t-shirt GBJ. As a matter of fact, my husband has been working in the alternative energy field for the last 8 years. (not solar) As I have commented before, I put solar and wind energy on my land over 15 years ago. (for the same reasons you stated) But, I have found that solar energy is not very cost effective and the life of the solar cells is not that long. I question the NYT’s statistics. (consider the source) 1 megawatt of energy would take a lot of freakin’ solar panels. Wind energy is much better although it has to be under the right conditions and you better be prepared to pay a pretty penny for the battery backup.

      I can see using alternative energy to supplement our energy problems but, it could never be able to replace our most valuable natural resources: oil, gas, coal etc. I’m with Sarah Palin and Michael Steele on this one, “Drill, Baby Drill”! :-)

    • tranquil.night says:

      You and I have a much different definition of dependency. If you want to spend $20k or whatever it takes for a percieved level of independence then by all means do so and congratulations (really), but the government should never be allowed to mandate how and with what the people are going to power themselves.

      But the truth is this has nothing to do with dependency. The laws of the modern markets (the people) will dictate what is the economical energy source in the present and future, and right now it’s oil, coal, and nuclear because it’s cheap and abundant – or it would be if the socialists would let us use our own resources.

      It may not always be oil, coal, and nuclear that are the standard. Nobody gets discouraged over the prospect of new sources of energy, everybody is for that. Energy companies, physicists and material scientists alike have all been in the realm of finding the golden egg of cheap/limitless/clean energy. It just isn’t feasible enough on a cost to benefit ratio to hit the mainstream.

      Regarding our dependence on foreign sources of energy, that is completely the fault of the liberals, and now with Cap ‘n Tax and all these green initiatives and global warming alarmism they want to switch that dependence from Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil to big government; government everywhere.

    • catie says:

      We had solar panels in HI and what we had to pay for them, they were not cost affective but I guess eventually they would be. Unfortunately the losers who bought our beautiful home have no let it go into foreclosure and my neighbor said these idiots “sold” the panels to someone who took them off the roof.
      I’m all for getting off of foreign oil.

  4. Reality Bytes says:

    GBJ: You live on a ranch which provides the real estate necessary for a properly sized solar cell system. Unfortunately most American don’t have the luxury of property big enough for a 1000 sq ft of solar panels much less the ability to pitch a 40 ft windmill in their backyard.

    The diminishing return of solar & wind power is the amount of surface area they require, which in the end when they finally are deployed will be stopped by eco fascists because of the blight they cause on the environment & to wild life.

    Nope, instead, the Good Lord had the good sense to create stuff under our feet that we can get at any time we want without taking up so much valuable space. Trouble is, we don’t want to get it. Instead, we prefer to let those dirty Arabs ruin their environment, which if you’ve ever been fishin’ off Corpus Christi Texas doesn’t happen anyway.

    I always wondered how the human race devolved into the Dark Ages. I’m beginning to understand now. People were driven into it by their leaders.

  5. Ah, same as it ever was: Obfuscate & misdirect to preserve the narrative; Obfuscate & misdirect to preserve the narrative…

  6. Douglas says:

    Solar is a joke. At least in current format. The payback time for buying and installing PV is longer than the expected lifespan of the PV setup. Both solar and wind rely on state and federal subsidies to make them competitive. Someday solar may be a good investment as may wind, but to build large projects using either technology today is to cut your own throat from an economic perspective.

    • proreason says:

      Solar and Wind both rely on non-exitant technologies IN ADDITION to the solar and wind technologies.

      Without the means to store the energy, they are worse than useless, since they require a fully redundant facility that can supply the energy at night or when the wind isn’t blowing. That technology doesn’t exist, even though batteries have been around for a hundred years. But maybe Obamy can dictate a miracle of science.

      And then, they both require the capability to transport the energy. Pickens just got out of the wind business because the transport capability isn’t good enough and/or is too expensive. That was after investing a huge personal sum. That ought to tell you something. But again, Obamy seems to be a scientific genius, having graduated with honors (so they tell us) from Harvard, and all.

      So, it’s not just the technical problems with Solar and Wind, there are other immense problems to overcome.

      And if those can someday be overcome, then we can deal with the wholesale destruction of the environment by both of these technologies (at scale).

      And if that can be overcome, then we can deal with the overwhelming cost to maintain the facilities. Of course, the good news is that fixing windmills and manufacturing/replacing solar panels will require millions of people in the US. Since the equivalent fossil fuel or nuclear facilities require 1/10th the people, there will be a lot more jobs. That could be good news if you don’t think there is anything else useful those millions of people could be doing.

    • texaspsue says:

      proreason, there is a new generation of batteries. They are being made in Kansas. My husband is working on a project that is using them for wind turbines. But, don’t get me wrong, I agree with your comments and see why Pickens got out of the wind business. Everything is still in the prototype stage and there are many snags to be worked out.

      I keep teasing my husband that with the 1 megawatt of energy being stored in the battery bank, he might just be creating a portal into another dimension. LOL

    • Right of the People says:

      I remember reading in Popular Science about 20 years ago about the “latest” solar cells and how happy NASA was to get 13 to 18% efficiency from them, and that was in space! Down here on the ground they stated that 8 to 10% was the best they could get on a clear, sunny day. They were hoping by the turn of the century (remember this was in the mid to late 80’s) to up the earthbound solar panels to the mid-teens.

      I’m all for alternate sources of energy, heck some of the farmers here in Vermont and New Hampshire have a co-op where they process manure into liquid fertilizer and capture the methane. Some of the farms use the methane to run generators to run the lights and equipment in their barns and outbuildings. That seems like a lot more practical source of energy than the sun which doesn’t shine here that often. We’ll always have cows in Vermont. The power company want to put up some windmills a few years back but that got blocked by the yuppies who didn’t want their view disturbed.

      Oblah-blah just wants us to go to the dark ages like RB says. I’m sure he’d like to bring back the feudal system with us as the serfs.

      Take it back!

    • proreason says:

      texaspsue, I had high hopes for a revolution in battery technology as early as 1999. Even invested a bit of money in a one of the several companies that seemed promising.

      Progress has been made, as evidenced by the Prius and other vehicles, and improvements in Notebook battery life. But the improvements are incremental, not transformational, at least so far.

      To store the kind of energy necessary for Solar or Wind to be viable when the source is off will take a revolution.

      It may happen at some point, but I haven’t heard anything yet that makes me think a breakthrough of that magnitude is about to happen.

      On the other hand, unlike the Moron, I’m not an expert in the matter….just going on general knowledge and history.

      And besides, nature provided a battery that is just laying around. It’s cheap, it’s abundant, it’s transportable, it’s powerful, we know how to get to it, we know how to control it, we know the benefits and the costs. And it has hundreds of important uses besides portable energy. It’s a miracle. Other than grace, it’s one of the greatest blessing mankind has, because it has enabled humanity in 2009 to live like emperors lived in 1899.

      They call it oil.

    • texaspsue says:

      “They call it oil.”

      Yup and it is plentiful in the USA. We can’t do without oil. Think of all of the products made with oil.

    • BigOil says:

      I’ve heard we are addicted to oil – and our rulers can cure us with windmills and solar panels. Truth is our addiction to oil is an addiction to prosperity.

      Like it or not, affordable energy is the foundation of our economy. It is what creates the standard of living we enjoy and produces the wealth we rely on to help protect our freedom.

      Once we begin relying upon inefficient and intermittent sources of energy, our nation will be relegated to third world status.

      Words spewing from the mouth of a marxist community agitator can not change the laws of economics, physics, and thermodynamics.

    • bitterclinger says:

      I am excited about a quiet little Texas company named EEStor. If they have the technology they claim to have, large scale energy storage will make wind and solar feasible in just a few years.

  7. GetBackJack says:

    This is another thing about ‘conservatives’ that baffles me.

    No belief in advancing technology. Poo poo-ing changes. Of course the first iterations are iffy. Of course, second generation is a little less valuable than useless. Of course third generation is slightly better than a handful of promises. That;s how it goes.

    But …

    But with that kind of thinking, none of us would have computers or a network. Cars, modern highways, anything that we take for granted now. Conservatives strke me as an entire political movement made up of Henry Ellsworth(s) who is rumored to have shuttered the US Patent Office because everything that could be invented had been invented (urban myth). I lived through my brother working to research, create and implement the first wide area network for small computers – Project Athena/MIT – and the number and volume of nay sayers was appalling. The threats, the fights, the rice bowls that got kicked over, the business interests that were threatened by advancement, stunning. Yet they prevailed, they did it, and today you have a network backbone that works.

    The number of nay sayers to any technology always outweigh the few who actually do it.

    When I erected my first solar it was on an urban house, using solar panels bought at government auction that had fallen to 75% useful capacity. Bought them for pennies on the dollar, covered the roof with them and off set my energy bill by 30%. First year I broke even, second year with the panels falling to 60% efficiency, I made money. Because of the cost averaging of what I spent for used panels. (Forest Service panels)

    I’ve experimented with producing home hydrogen, and it can be done soooo easily with a trickle current run off the smallest windmill you can imagine. I know a rancher who … never mind. Too crazy for you to hear.

    The technology isn’t the problem. If it was, then we’d have never moved past the first printed circuit board and from mainframes to the unbelievable Macintosh I’m on, now. Scalar size is a matter of energy efficiencies and engineering. Once a thing can be done, it will be done.

    For example, I give you the Hydrogen House.


    Now, c’mon. Seriously. Don’t you think that’s the coolest thing ever?

    Back in the mid 80s I was on the Board of a real estate development builder. We built envelope houses that powered themselves, cooled themselves and for the most part you could even grow the majority of your fresh food and protein with that house [1]. Our guarantee was that if you had to pay for energy costs to heat or cool that house in the first five years, we’d pick up the bill.

    Never did.

    Heat was via thermal transmission from the Sun, cooling by laying in 4″ PVC pipe eight feet underground then using the same air movement effect to draw cool dry air into and through the home. We even engineered and designed the first insulation-foam building block design so you could build a house on plumb in a day. With unskilled labor.

    This isn’t rocket science. It’s natural physics. And I’m just ornery enough to be willing to pay the price to not have my sack of huevos pierced with a ring and led around all my life by companies and interests who supply “The Only Answer”.

    [1] Envelop house – http://steves.seasidelife.com/Anotherinspirationalhousedesign_E146/house3.gif

    • proreason says:


      you know there’s a world of difference between prototypes and commercial grade.

      You like technology. Good for you. It’s certainly interesting and fun. Enjoy it.

      But technologies with commercial potential are always leveraged quickly. Lasers were toys in the 1970’s. The first PC’s came out in the late 70’s. Micro-chips. Cellphones. Wireless technologies. MRI’s. And going back over the last 200 years, the list is endless.

      Yet, alternative energy technologies haven’t been able to get off the ground in 50 years, sometimes longer. They have niche markets, because they work. They just are not commercially viable.

      Maybe it’s just enemies of Al Toad conspiring against his quest to be the greatest prophet of all time.

      Or maybe it’s conservatives who refuse to change.

    • neocon mom says:

      GBJack, with all due respect

      I formed my opinion on alternative energy after reading a National Geographic (a mag that advances the theory of man-made global warming) article that affirmed that wind and solar are not yet efficient enough to provide our energy needs. So why would anyone with two brain cells to rub together think that a big investment in such technology in its current state in our infrastructure is wise?
      If you want to spend your money on these things, fine. It sounds like you were a smart shopper and got a good deal on something that taxpayer money already paid for (from the Forest Service.) You didn’t even pay cost for them. But people who do pay top dollar to have brand new ones installed find that they don’t pay for themselves. That’s why in our fair city, the commission (all democrat) decided to pass a plan to pay solar panel owners for the energy they don’t use. That just means the rest of us schlubs subsidize them. Why should I be penalized for not investing in technology that I cannot afford and isn’t worth it even if I could? My energy bill has increased by at least 40% in the last 6 years already.
      Foreign oil sucks for security reasons, but that’s just more reason to burn the coal that we already have, drill our oil, etc. and keep the money in our pockets and look for other good things to invest in. And we ought to be wary of the government trying to pick energy winners and losers, energy independence from foreign sources would be super, energy independence from the government is an even nobler goal for those who value freedom and individualism.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Us conservatives are not against new technology. I love new technology when it works but right now, the energy alternatives are, to me, the same as the latest kitchen gadget that now sits in the junk drawer, unused.

      There is no doubt that the technology works. However, as has been said, it has to be commercially viable and having the government dictate what you can and cannot use to power your home, or car you drive, is not the way to do it. The Concorde was a marvelous piece of technology but it was also not commercially viable. It was funded entirely by the people of France and Great Britain and didn’t turn a profit until the last few years of its service life.

      In order for all to benefit, then all must be able to afford it.

      To say it’s in its infancy is an understatement. The one thing the liberals seem to think (judging by their actions) is that teh technology is ready now when it’s not. Perhaps too many watchings of Star Trek where all things are possible given an hour time-frame and not-too-challenging the plot complication.

      The technology just hasn’t evolved enough yet to make it practical. And only time will allow us the opportunity to make new discoveries, learn and then apply it. In other words, “you can’t push a string”. Unless you’re the government which, it would seem, would have us driving cars powered by bird-poop or some such when instead, what we SHOULD see is a gradual shift over time to the new technology as more and more people can afford it, as the price of that technology comes down and the technology itself becomes more efficient.

      Unfortunately, Algore’s “sky-is-falling” rhetoric is just that. He is the consummate example of the guy on the street corner with the sign that says “The Earth Will End In 5 Days” and yet…a month later, he’s still there.

      But because of a willing media and scientists who drink from the teat of federal funding, they legitimize his hollow argument and get everybody thinking “we need to save the planet…and NOW”. Meanwhile, India Russia and China don’t have the time to entertain such enlightened viewpoints as they are busy building the infrastructures their citizens will need in this century.

      Indeed, we have, in this nation, perhaps educated ourselves so wrongly that too many people are inebriated with soft science and loose-logic theory driven by the heart instead of the head.

    • bronzeprofessor says:

      “You conservatives”…. what a pointless generalization. Have you noticed how much we disagree with each other? We don’t represent one monolithic viewpoint. So why not speak to us based on our particular, individual views instead of throwing out a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

  8. texaspsue says:

    “This is another thing about ‘conservatives’ that baffles me.

    No belief in advancing technology. Poo poo-ing changes.”

    Are you serious or just trying to stir the puddin’? (as Neal Boortz puts it) That’s the most untrue statement that I have ever heard. I have been surrounded my whole life by people that have invented things and are hell bent on advancing technology. Where do you think most of the alternative energy inventions have come from? NOT Liberals. They have been down here in Texas/Redstates trying to steal everyone’s inventions/technology.

    There are a lot of alternative energy ideas that look good on paper but, to take to level of being operational is another story. It doesn’t happen overnight. By all means why not embrace of of the energy resources available including oil, gas and coal.

    Okay your hydrogen house sounds cool, just don’t blow up. :-)

  9. canary says:

    no wonder such an increase of fires in California. Since, Gore says we need to use heat from the earth now, is this a waste of time and money? I’ve got a neighbor down the street, that is OC and totally losing her mind, going back and forth. Now we need it to be hotter. Now we need to destroy hundreds of thusands of trees because they soak up too much water. I explained to her what would happen to farming, if we did this. And the hundreds of thousands of craters left from digging up the trees. And she has more and more recycle bends in her little home, and sneaks and uses bug poison and weed killer. You just have to tip toe around her.

    • proreason says:

      your brain needs to be studied by science, canary.

      I think you’ve got a bunch of multi-processors in there, firing away concurrently. First this one gains control and out comes something interesting. Then that one gains control and out comes something more or less related, also interesting. And so forth. At the end, they all go to sleep at once.

  10. canary says:

    ProReason, I think science should study my brain too, and look for a cure. My mind is worse at night because of chronic nightmares. And I am a conservative, and maybe it’s a lie that if you didn’t dream you’d go crazy.

    Fires came to mind because you can start a fire with a maginifying glass and the sun, and something dry that will burn. And I think what goes up comes down. As someone who worked outside as a kid, you always checked the weather in the newspaper, or call up temperature on those phones that you had to dial and wait for this ring to go back around each number. Anyways, it always got in the 100’s in the summer. For the last ten years, it’s stayed in the 90’s but, no ones has noticed. People just say it’s hot and it’s global warming. I was watering with hand held hose to save water, Someone drove by and stopped a second and asked me if I heard that Gore said we have one year or something.

    I think man-made things have side-affects. And nothing is perfectI

    And technology has it’s side-affects too, and really affecting alot of children and teenagers. So many going on Attention Deficit Disorder medication. All the games and text-messaging, and IM’s 5 friends at a time on the internet, I can see the effects. And I think alot of them don’t need to be put on medicine, they just need help in limiting their i-brains. The adreniline and panic of the games, drains their minds, and then they are kind of vegative. In a daze. My greenie neighbor’s son has been addicted for years. And at 13 decides her son needs medication. I begged her not to without limiting his game playing first. I believe it has alot to do with children’s brains. Adreniline and on the edge, then they are drained and dazed afterwards. Their brain crashes. And here’s the deal. Children that have ADD are suppose to have games and texting limited anyways. So, his addiction is worse, because the computer has been added on top of the games. So, she changes his medication, but doesn’t want him to know, so he doesn’t look for changes as they might be in his head or imagination. Just tells him they are different pill form now. So, he’s extra crouchy and few days later becomes a bit violent and scared her. And he said I’m so sorry, mom, I just have felt so agitated and not myself. So, she called the doctor to change it.

    And, I think that text-messaging is not good on under-developed children’s brains. They can text in school without looking at the keys. Most average 10,000 incoming and outcoming a month. Do the math. When my son got textmessaging, he couldn’t talk normal. Ask these kids any question, and they all give the same answer. “uh, yeah, uh no, uh maybe, okay, uh hm. yep.”. So, this summer I let my son have texting again. Already, a drastic change. Take his phone away, and he keeps rubbing his pocket he’s in such a habit. And it took him 1 hour to vacume his little bedroom, before I realised what was taking so long. And then when they talk to you, they have to be doing something with their fingers. Anytime words with sound come out of the mouthes, their fingers are moving. And their school papers get marked off for putting “U” instead of you.’
    I hope our children don’t end uup needing teleprompters someday, but I’m sure

    Obama’s got some agency working on tiny ones. He’ll some little chip implanted in his eyeball, and someone will tell him what to say 24/7.

  11. BillK says:

    Ironically enough, one of the most cogent energy policies to come out of the last election was Paris Hilton’s:


    We should fund solar and wind. It makes a lot of sense to do so, and we need to increase or solar and wind generation capabilities.

    But we also need to simultaneously continue to build coal and nuclear power plants. Those electric cars that are promoted so heavily by the President have to have reliable electric power to charge, and that’s not wind nor solar.

    Certainly to rely on solar and wind to the exclusion of coal and nuclear is insane.

    Further, while researching improvements in batteries we also need to drill. Wean from oil sure, but neither our economy nor consumers can go cold turkey.

    But rhapsodizing about alternative technologies ignores the reason they are alternatives – they just aren’t financially feasible yet. Couple that with environmental wackos (no wind – chops up birdies, no solar, takes up wildlife migration paths, no hydro – hurts the fishies) and you go nowhere.

    I’m sure I’m not the only one who remembers when hydroelectric was going to solve all of our energy woes “just like in the Pacific Northwest” because it was the cleanest of clean energy – harvesting gravity! Hoover Dam was the ultimate in Green!

    Now those dams need to be blown up to “restore” the river basins they sit in.

    I have no doubt that the plot of 12 Monkeys will eventually come to pass – Mankind will eventually be wiped out by some bioweapon released not by Islamists but my animal rights activists who want to see the “virus” known as humanity wiped out so that nature can “restore its proper balance.”

  12. texaspsue says:

    Uh Oh! Austin’s “Green Program” has hit a snag. http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/07/17/0717greenchoice.html

    This is what happens when the Government runs the show. When are they going to realize if you want to advance alternative energy technology, let the private sector handle it.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »