Assignment 3

29 02 2012

Converting Lightning Into Renewable Power

           Personally, I feel that because of the socio-economic diversity of Norfolk and the impossible amount of reconstruction needed to implement many current GREEN technologies, that developing an alternative power source would be the most helpful to Norfolk.  This power source should be able to run cars, buildings, homes, restaurants and even ships.  This source would make Norfolk incredibly GREEN without changing much.  How then do we develop this? The truth is, this power exists however its just not being used to its potential. This power source is electricity.

Brazilian scientist Fernando Galembeck, Ph.D., stated,

“Our research could pave the way for turning electricity from the atmosphere into an alternative energy source for the future,” said study leader Fernando Galembeck, Ph.D. His research may help explain a 200-year-old scientific riddle about how electricity is produced and discharged in the atmosphere. “Just as solar energy could free some households from paying electric bills, this promising new energy source could have a similar effect,” he maintained.

They are in the early stages of this technology but if scientists at ODU focused their efforts on developing this technology, it could be attainable sooner.  This technology combined with solar power and hydropower could make Norfolk completely GREEN without much reconstruction.  This technology if created and made relatively inexpensively, could improve the lives of all the Norfolk population.  Imagine if they did begin manufacturing in Norfolk! The amount of jobs created would grow the middle and upper class and shrink the amount of poor in Norfolk in less than a year.

I see Norfolk using its rainwater as electricity, its wind power as electricity, its humidity and lightning as electricity. Even ODU sees the value in electricity ( Obviously Electricity is the cheapest, most un- intrusive way of turning Norfolk into a green city.   Using electricity will ultimately cut out all green house emissions and improve the air quality in Norfolk overall.

The Sharable Future of Cities

22 02 2012
  • How many people does Steffen estimate we will have living in or near cities by mid-century?
  • Explain how you agree or disagree with Steffen’s point that our energy use is “predestined” rather than “behavioral”.
  • What correlation does Steffen make between a city’s density and its climate emissions?
  • What are the “eco districts” that Steffen mentions? How you see these as feasible or unfeasible in a city like Norfolk?
  • Explain how you agree or disagree with the “threshold effect” that Steffen discusses related to transportation.
  • What does Steffen mean by the idea that, “…even space itself is turning into a service…”? Can you provide any examples that you see here in Norfolk or elsewhere?
  • Describe your understanding of Steffen’s argument that, “…it’s not about the leaves above, but the systems below…”.
  • Finally, overall in what way(s) do you see Steffen’s ideas working / not working here in Norfolk? Spend time with this question!
8 billion living in cities
– I agree that you know what energy your going to need and use in a city, its not a choice.
– As density increases, climate emissions decrease because what you need is close and doesn’t require energy to acquire
– When people stop driving, they will give it up all together!
-I agree, a perfect example is Downtown Richmond.  A lot of people either dont use their car, or dont have one.
– Ghent’s Apartment and Restaurants in the same building
– Do the systems actually help the city become green or are the leaves just for looks..
-I think that some ideas will however the amount of construction needed would be extreme.  I do agree that the “space becoming a service” idea is definitely a big part of Norfolk, just look at Ghent.

Oh yeah… this ought to go over well…..

1 02 2012



Its not invasion of privacy…but it just doesn’t seem right.





1 02 2012






Newest Pepper spray- New Technology and Brand New Campus safety tool

27 01 2012

13ft at 90 mph.

Abstract 1: Description and Reflection of “Pop goes the Culture”

22 01 2012

Andersen, K., Booth, C., & Dutka, E. (1986). POP GOES THE CULTURE A NATIONAL KNACK FOR THE QUICK, THE VIVID, THE EXUBERANT. Time127(24), 68.

This article is a medium length look at  pop culture and how it has “permeated every aspect of life with an inexorability that was beyond the powers of any sort of intellectual antagonism to resist.”  Its discusses a broad range of pop culture icons from Bugs Bunny to Batman complete with a rather lengthy tribute to Sylvester Stallone..It moves through the decades comparing the pop culture of now (1986) to older pieces of literature, music, film, and everything in between.

This article is an excellent look into how pop culture has..okay I have to do this again…”permeated every aspect of life with an inexorability that was beyond the powers of any sort of intellectual antagonism to resist.”  That is just really good.. okay back to the article…  Each name in this article could easily be replaced by pop culture icons and from ’86 on  and the article would not change much.  For just a random choice, I really enjoyed this article very much because if its quirky sarcasm and references.

Technology and Me “Love-Hate Relationship”

18 01 2012



I have a love-hate relationship with technology. I rely heavily on technology in my daily life.  I take notes in Microsoft Word, I correspond with everyone via Facebook, I email constantly with Entourage, I organize my homework through an app on my phone, not to mention I have had a cell phone since 7th grade.  Knowing this, you would think I am a tech maniac! However, with the a large amount of technology comes a lot of stress.  Just because I CAN know everything at the same time doesn’t mean I WANT to.  I cherish going camping, fishing, hunting or even going to a beach where I may not have cell service or wi-fi.  I think its good for you to set down the phone or computer and I definitely take advantage of it when I can.