A Neural Algorithm of Artistic Style

All Posts, Art, Computer Technology, ,

Peter Lobner

Authors Leon A. Gatys, Alexander S. Ecker, and Matthias Bethge published the subject research paper on 26 Aug 2015 to, “Introduce an artificial system based on a Deep Neural Network that creates artistic images of high perceptual quality.”

Convolutional Neural Networks are a class of Deep Neural Network that is very powerful and well suited for image processing tasks. Common usage is in object and facial recognition systems. The authors explain how their neural algorithm works in a Convolutional Neural Network to independently capture content and style in a composite image that represents the content of an original image in a style derived from an arbitrarily selected second image. The authors state that: “The key finding of this paper is that the representations of content and style in the Convolutional Neural Network are separable. That is, we can manipulate both representations independently to produce new, perceptually meaningful images.”

In their paper, the authors selected the following photo to define the image content.

Neural net pic 1

Two examples of the image selected to define the style, and the resulting final image created by the neural algorithm are shown below.

Style derived from The Starry Night by Vincent van Gogh, 1889.

Neural net pic2

Style derived from Der Schrei by Edvard Munch, 1893

Neural net pic3

I find these results to be simply amazing in terms of their artistic composition and their effective implementation of the selected style.

It probably is premature, but I hope there soon will be a reasonably priced app for this to runs on a Mac or PC. I would buy that app in a heartbeat.

You can download the full paper, which includes all of the examples shown above, from the Cornell University Library at the following link:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06576

Status Report on Global Nuclear Weapon and Fissile Material Stockpiles

All Posts, Nuclear Arms & Arms Control, , ,

Peter Lobner

The International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM) was founded in January 2006 as an independent group of arms-control and nonproliferation experts from both nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapon states. The mission of the IPFM is to analyze the technical basis for practical and achievable policy initiatives to secure, consolidate, and reduce stockpiles of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium. The home page for IPFM is at the following link:

http://www.fissilematerials.org

On the IPFM home page, you will find the following summary information:

 As of January 2013, the global stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU) is estimated to be about 1390 tonnes. The global stockpile of separated plutonium is about 490 tonnes, of which about 260 tonnes is the material in civilian custody.

IPFM 2013 fissile material inventory crop

Numbers for weapon plutonium for the United States and United Kingdom are based on official data. Most numbers for civilian plutonium are based on declarations submitted to IAEA and reflect the status as of December 31, 2011. Other numbers are non-governmental estimates, often with large uncertainties. HEU amounts are 90% enriched HEU equivalent (with the exception of the number for non-nuclear weapon states). The totals are rounded. See individual country entries for details.

In the above table, a “tonne” is a metric ton, or 2,204.62 pounds. One tonne = 1.10231 (short) tons.

IPFM provides regular assessments of the global nuclear weapon and fissile material stockpiles. Their most recent report, Global Fissile Material Report 2015, was presented at the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference at the United Nations on 8 May 2015.

IPFM 2015 Report Cover  Source: IPFM

You can download a copy of the 8 May 2015 IPFM presentation at the following link:

http://fissilematerials.org/library/ipfm15.pdf

This definitely makes interesting reading.

A Framework for K-12 Science Education

All Posts, STEM Education, , ,

Peter Lobner

NAP K-12 science education Source: NAP

The National Academies Press (NAP) describes this new book as follows:

“Science, engineering, and technology permeate nearly every facet of modern life and hold the key to solving many of humanity’s most pressing current and future challenges. The United States’ position in the global economy is declining, in part because U.S. workers lack fundamental knowledge in these fields. To address the critical issues of U.S. competitiveness and to better prepare the workforce, A Framework for K-12 Science Education proposes a new approach to K-12 science education that will capture students’ interest and provide them with the necessary foundational knowledge in the field.

A Framework for K-12 Science Education outlines a broad set of expectations for students in science and engineering in grades K-12. These expectations will inform the development of new standards for K-12 science education and, subsequently, revisions to curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development for educators. This book identifies three dimensions that convey the core ideas and practices around which science and engineering education in these grades should be built. These three dimensions are: crosscutting concepts that unify the study of science through their common application across science and engineering; scientific and engineering practices; and disciplinary core ideas in the physical sciences, life sciences, and earth and space sciences and for engineering, technology, and the applications of science. The overarching goal is for all high school graduates to have sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on science-related issues, be careful consumers of scientific and technical information, and enter the careers of their choice.

A Framework for K-12 Science Education is the first step in a process that can inform state-level decisions and achieve a research-grounded basis for improving science instruction and learning across the country. The book will guide standards developers, teachers, curriculum designers, assessment developers, state and district science administrators, and educators who teach science in informal environments.”

You can download a free pdf copy of this book for free at the following link:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13165/a-framework-for-k-12-science-education-practices-crosscutting-concepts

While you are on the NAP website, browse their other available publications and you will find two NAP publications addressing Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).  These NGSS documents build on the K-12 science education framework described above.  See my 31 March 2015 post for more details on NGSS.

U.S. Reliance on Non-Fuel Mineral Imports

All Posts, Economy, Mining, , , , , , , ,

Peter Lobner

The U.S. Geologic Survey produces a series of mineral commodity annual reports and individual commodity data sheets. The web page for the index to these reports and data sheets is at the following link:

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/

One particularly interesting document, with a very dull sounding title, is, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2015, which you can download for free at the following link:

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2015/mcs2015.pdf

This USGS report starts by putting the non-fuel mineral business sector in context with the greater U.S. economy. In the USGS chart below, you can see that the non-fuel mineral business sector makes up 13.5% of the U.S. economy. By dollar volume, net imports of processed mineral materials make up only a small portion (about 1.6%) of the non-fuel mineral business.

USGS role of minerals in the economy

In the, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2015, USGS also identified the U.S. reliance on non-fuel minerals imports. Their chart for 2014 is reproduced below.

USGS Net Import Reliance

Many of the above non-fuel minerals have very important uses in high-value products created in other business sectors.  A good summary table on this matter appears in the National Academies Press report entitled, Emerging Workforce Trends in the U.S. Energy and Mining Industries: A Call to Action, published in August 2015. You can view or download this report for free at the following link:

http://www.nap.edu/new/

In this report, refer to Table 2.5, Common or Essential Products and Some of Their Mineral Components.

Among the minerals with very important roles in modern electrical and electronic components and advanced metals is the family of rare earths, which is comprised of the 17 elements highlighted in the periodic table, below:

  • the 15 members of the Lanthanide series from 57La (Lanthanum) to 71Lu (Lutetium), and
  • the two Transitional elements 21Sc (Scandium) and 39Y (Yttrium).

Periodic Table - Rare Earths

Source: www.rareelementresources.com/

In the above 2014 import reliance chart, USGS reported that the U.S. continued to be a net importer of rare earth minerals (overall, 59% reliant), and that for Scandium the U.S was 100% reliant on imports.

In the Mineral Commodity Summaries 2015, USGS reported the following usage of rare earth minerals in the U.S.:

  • General uses: catalysts, 60%; metallurgical applications and alloys, 10%; permanent magnets, 10%; glass polishing, 10%; and other, 10%.
  • Scandium principal uses: solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) and aluminum-scandium alloys. Other uses are in ceramics, electronics, lasers, lighting, and radioactive isotopes used as a tracing agent in oil refining

China became the world’s dominant producer of rare earths in the 1990s, replacing U.S. domestic producers, none of which could not compete economically with the lower prices offered by the Chinese producers.

On March 22, 2015, the CBS TV show 60 Minutes featured a segment on the importance of rare earth elements and underscored the need to ensure a domestic supply chain of these critical minerals. You can view this segment at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1HiX0HiAuo

In December 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a report entitled Critical Materials Strategy, which you can download for free at the following link:

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOE_CMS2011_FINAL_Full.pdf

The summary results of the DOE “criticality assessment” are reproduced below

“Sixteen elements were assessed for criticality in wind turbines, EVs (electric vehicles), PV (photovoltaic) cells and fluorescent lighting. The methodology used was adapted from one developed by the National Academy of Sciences. The criticality assessment was framed in two dimensions: importance to clean energy and supply risk. Five rare earth elements (REEs)—dysprosium, terbium, europium, neodymium and yttrium—were found to be critical in the short term (present–2015). These five REEs are used in magnets for wind turbines and electric vehicles or phosphors in energy-efficient lighting. Other elements—cerium, indium, lanthanum and tellurium—were found to be near-critical. Between the short term and the medium term (2015– 2025), the importance to clean energy and supply risk shift for some materials (Figures ES-1 and ES-2).”

DOE Critical Materials Strategy

While the results of the DOE criticality assessment focused on importance to the energy sector, the identified mineral shortages will impact all business sectors that depend on these minerals, including consumer electronics and national defense.

Further insight on the importance of rare earths is provided by an annual report to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence entitled, U.S. Intelligence Community Worldwide Threat Assessment Statement for the Record. The report delivered on March 12, 2013 highlighted the national security threat presented by China’s monopoly on rare earth elements. You can download that report at the following link:

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=732599

The 2013 threat assessment offered the following perspective on the strategic importance of rare earth minerals:

“Rare earth elements (REE) are essential to civilian and military technologies and to the 21st century global economy, including development of green technologies and advanced defense systems. China holds a commanding monopoly over world REE supplies, controlling about 95 percent of mined production and refining. China’s dominance and policies on pricing and exports are leading other countries to pursue mitigation strategies, but those strategies probably will have only limited impact within the next five years and will almost certainly not end Chinese REE dominance.”

 While the above focus has been on rare earths, the discussion serves to illustrate that the U.S. is dependent on importing many minerals that are very important to the national economy.

Building a Modern Wind Turbine Generator

All Posts, Power Generating Technology - Alternate, , , , ,

Peter Lobner

MidAmerican Energy Company, Iowa’s largest energy company, began installing wind turbines in 2004. In May 2013, MidAmerican Energy announced their latest plan to invest up to $1.9 billion to expand its wind generation fleet and add up to 1,050 MWe of wind generation in Iowa by year-end 2015. Once this expansion is complete, approximately 3,335 MWe, or approximately 39%, of MidAmerican Energy’s total owned generation capacity will come from wind-powered generation from 1,715 wind turbines.

MidAmerica Energy wind turbines Source: MidAmerica Energy

You can visit the wind energy page on the MidAmerica Energy website at the following link:

http://www.midamericanenergy.com/wind_overview.aspx

Fact sheets on this site provide details on the two types of wind turbines currently being installed:

  • 1.5 MWe General Electric wind turbine (most common in the MidAmerica fleet)
  • 2.3 MWe Siemens wind turbine (largest in the MidAmerica fleet)

The impressive dimensions of the larger Siemens machine are shown in the following diagram:

MidAmerica Energy 2.3 MWe wind turbine Source: MidAmerica Energy

MidAmerican Energy Company has posted a 5+ minute time-lapse video on YouTube showing their three-week construction process for the Siemens wind turbine. This is worth watching to get a better understanding of the modest site preparation work required, the very large scale of the pedestal and rotor components, and the short time frame required to complete a wind turbine generator and have it ready to be put into revenue-generating service.  You can view the video at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/84BeVq2Jm88?feature=player_detailpage

Now complete this process several hundred times and you have a respectable sized wind farm.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) defines “capacity factor” as follows:

“Capacity factors describe how intensively a fleet of generators is run. A capacity factor near 100% means a fleet is operating nearly all of the time. It is the ratio of a fleet’s actual generation to its maximum potential generation”.

EIA reports average monthly and annual capacity factors for utility generators. For utility generators not primarily using fossil fuels, the results are at the following link:

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_6_07_b

Here are average capacity factors reported by EIA:

EIA capacity factors 1

As a renewable power source, wind has a significantly higher capacity factor than solar. However, over the long term, a wind farm delivers only about one-third of it’s “nameplate rating.” This statistic, of course, does not capture the real-time variability in electrical output as wind conditions constantly change.

As a point of comparison, you can find the EIA capacity factor results for utility generators primarily using fossil fuels at the following link:

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_6_07_a

Here are average capacity factors reported by EIA for selected fossil generators (I only included those that are likely to be base loaded):

EIA capacity factors 2

70th Anniversary of the First Detonation of a Nuclear Explosive Device at the Trinity Site Near Alamogordo, NM

All Posts, Nuclear Arms & Arms Control, , , , ,

Peter Lobner

On 16 July 1945, the Manhattan Project team successfully detonated the “The Gadget”, which was an implosion-type plutonium fission device similar in design to the Fat Man bomb detonated less than a month later over Nagasaki, Japan.

Various measurements were made to determine the yield of “The Gadget”. The best estimates are that the total yield of the test device was 21 kT, with 15 kT coming from plutonium fission and 6 kT coming from fast fissions in the natural uranium tamper. You can read more on the yield estimates at the following link:

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/11/10/fat-mans-uranium/

You also can read more details on the Trinity site and the test in a fact sheet prepared by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which you will find at the following link:

http://www.webcitation.org/6VDXaYUBL

Today, the Trinity Site is part of the White Sands Missile Range. This site was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1965 and is marked by the Trinity Site Obelisk National Historical Landmark. Currently the site is open to visitors only on two days of the year, the first Saturday in April and October. No reservations are required. Check the White Sands Missile Range website for the latest information:

http://www.wsmr.army.mil/PAO/Trinity/Pages/default.aspx

You can read an account of a 2006 visit to Trinity Site at the following link:

http://www.takemytrip.com/06newmex/06_15a.htm

Trinity_Site_Obelisk_National_Historic_Landmark  Source: en.wikipedia.org

Together, the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima, on 6 August 1945, and Nagasaki, on 9 August 1945, are credited with bringing an end to World War II. Japan announced its surrender on 15 August 1945 and formally signed the surrender documents on 2 September 1945.

The Trinity test and the nuclear bombing of Japan also marked the start of a nuclear arms race, initially between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, but soon followed by other nations wishing to be nuclear powers: U.K, France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea. The history of the worldwide nuclear weapons stockpiles and related arms control treaties is presented well in the following graphic from the Wall Street Journal. I’m hoping that Iran doesn’t show up as a new yellow dot on a future edition of that chart.

WSJ History of Nucelar Arms Control_e Source: Wall Street Journal

New Horizons Spacecraft Rapidly Approaching Encounter with Pluto

All Posts, Planetary science, Spacecraft and Missions, ,

Peter Lobner

New Horizons is rapidly approaching Pluto for a fast fly-by encounter with closest approach at 7:49 am on Tuesday, 14 July 2015. You’ll find basic information about the New Horizons mission in my 14 March 2015 post on this subject. Detailed information is available at the NASA New Horizons mission website at the following link:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html

The spacecraft will fly past Pluto at 30,800 mph (49,600 kph), and is expected to fly within 7,750 miles (11,265 km) of Pluto’s surface. The close-encounter segment of the flyby is quite brief, as shown in the following diagram of New Horizon’s trajectory through the Pluto system.

New Horizons trajectorySource: NASA/Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute

On 9 July, New Horizon’s Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (Lorri) took the following photo from a range of 3.3 million miles. Some basic surface features have been noted by the NASA project team, along with a diagram indicating Pluto’s north pole, equator, and central meridian.

Pluto pic 1

Source: NASA/Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute

On 11 July, the project team released the following slightly more detailed photo that reveals linear features that may be cliffs, as well as a circular feature that could be an impact crater.

Pluto pic 2

Source: NASA/Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute

Below is a photo released on 9 July showing both Pluto and it’s largest moon, Charon, which orbit each other around their common center of gravity. You’ll find more information on the unusual orbital interactions among Pluto and it’s five known moons in my 6 June 2015 post on that subject.

Pluto pic 3

Source: NASA/Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute

New Report Quantifies the Value of Nuclear Power Plants to the U.S. Economy and Their Contribution to Limiting Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

All Posts, Economy, Global Climate, Power Generating Technology - Nuclear, , , , ,

Peter Lobner

On 2 July 2015, I made a long post entitled, “EPA Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule Does Not Adequately Recognize the Role of Nuclear Power in Greenhouse Gas Reduction.”

On 7 July 2015, Nuclear Matters (http://www.nuclearmatters.com) issued a related,  comprehensive report, prepared by economists from The Brattle Group (http://www.brattle.com), that quantifies the significant value of nuclear power plants to the U.S. economy and the contribution made to limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Their report’s findings include:

  • U.S. nuclear energy plants contribute $60 billion annually to gross domestic product (GDP), in addition to other economic and societal benefits.
  • The nuclear industry accounts for about 475,000 full-time jobs (direct and secondary).
  • Energy generated from nuclear plants avoids emissions that otherwise would have been generated by fossil power plants.
    • 573 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, worth an additional $25 billion annually if valued at the U.S. government’s estimate for the social cost of carbon.
    • 650,000 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and over one million tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions annually, together valued at $8.4 billion using the National Academy of Science’s externality estimates.
  • Nuclear power helps keep electricity prices low. Without nuclear power, retail electricity rates could increase by about 6% on average. Keeping electricity prices low is the primary means by which nuclear power boosts the economy.
  • Provides $10 billion in federal tax revenues and $2.2 billion in state tax revenues annually.

You can download the report, entitled, “The Nuclear Industry’s Contribution to the U.S. Economy” at the link below.  The report also describes the modeling techniques used to estimate economic value with and without the contributions from nuclear power.

http://www.brattle.com/system/news/pdfs/000/000/895/original/The_Nuclear_Industry’s_Contribution_to_the_U.S._Economy.pdf?1436280444

Brattle-Group-nuc-power-economics-report-7-Jul-15 R1

U.S. Drought Indicators Derived From GRACE Satellite Data

All Posts, Global Climate, Remote Sensing, Spacecraft and Missions, Water Resources, , , , , , ,

Peter Lobner

Scientists at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center generate groundwater and soil moisture drought indicators each week. They are based on terrestrial water storage observations derived from GRACE satellite data and integrated with other observations, using a sophisticated numerical model of land surface water and energy processes. You can see current results for the continental U.S. at the following link to the National Drought Mitigation Center (NMDC), University of Nebraska-Lincoln, website:

http://drought.unl.edu/MonitoringTools/NASAGRACEDataAssimilation.aspx

Drought indicator maps for 6 July 2015 are reproduced below for:

  • Surface soil moisture
  • Root zone soil moisture
  • Shallow groundwater

The drought in the U.S. West looks most severe in the shallow groundwater map.

You can find information on the twin GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellites at the following link:

http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/

GRACE_6Jul15_SFSM

GRACE_6Jul15_RTZSM

GRACE_6Jul15_GWS

Bacteria Could Help Clean Groundwater Contaminated With Uranium

All Posts, Biology, Nuclear Cleanup, Water Resources, , , ,

Peter Lobner

On 15 June 2015, Rutgers University announced the discovery in uranium-contaminated groundwater of bacteria that can breathe uranium and employ it in a reduction chemical reaction that immobilizes the uranium and thereby removes it from solution in the groundwater. Professor Lee Kerkhof, in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, leads the Rutgers team that is working with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) researchers on this project.

The bacteria were discovered in soil at an old uranium ore mill site in Rifle, Colorado, almost 200 miles west of Denver. The bacteria of interest are from a common class known as betaproteobacteria.

Rifle CO uranium mill siteThe Rifle, CO site today. Source: news.slac.stanford.edu

The Rutgers University announcement states:

 “This bacterium can breathe either oxygen or uranium to drive the chemical reactions that provide life-giving energy”.

 “Exactly how the strain evolved, Kerkhof said, ‘we are not sure.’ But, he explained, bacteria have the ability to pass genes to each other. So just like bacteria pick up resistance to things like antibiotics and heavy metal toxicity, this bacterium ‘picked up a genetic element that’s now allowing it to detoxify uranium, to actually grow on uranium.’ “

You can read the Rutgers University announcement at the following link:

http://news.rutgers.edu/research-news/bacteria-could-help-clean-groundwater-contaminated-uranium-ore-processing-rutgers-study-finds/20150614#.VZcuR4sUyOI

You can read the April 2015 Rutgers paper, Spatial Distribution of an Uranium-Respiring Betaproteobacterium at the Rifle, CO Field Research Site, at the following link:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123378

An earlier paper published in October 2011, entitled, Influence of Uranium on Bacterial Communities: A Comparison of Natural Uranium-Rich Soils with Controls, identified Acidobacteria, Proteobacteria, and seven others phyla in uraniferous samples. This French study, supported by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, concluded that:

 “…our results demonstrate that uranium exerts a permanent high pressure on soil bacterial communities and suggest the existence of a uranium redox cycle mediated by bacteria in the soil.”

You can read the paper written by the French team at the following link:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025771