Monday, February 19, 2018

How well do Offshore Floating Wind Farms Perform? The data is now in, and it looks great.

World's first floating wind farm performing well beyond expectations

We've been following the story of Hywind, the world's first "floating" wind farm, with great interest-not least of all for its potential to reduce installation costs and open up new territories to offshore wind in deeper waters. But how would it actually perform?

From article, (We've been following the story of Hywind, the world's first "floating" wind farm, with great interest—not least of all for its potential to reduce installation costs and open up new territories to offshore wind in deeper waters.

But how would it actually perform?

 According to a report over at Business Green, the early data is exceedingly good—with the project reporting an average operating capacity factor of 65% between October and January. (This compares to a typical 45-60% for a conventional wind farm during the winter months.)

Just as promising is the fact that the project survived several major storms, and 8.2 meter high waves. This, says Statoil's executive vice president for New Energy Solutions Irene Rummelhoff, suggests that floating wind turbines really could open up new waters to energy production:
"Knowing that up to 80 per cent of the offshore wind resources globally are in deep waters (+60 meters) where traditional bottom fixed installations are not suitable, we see great potential for floating offshore wind, in Asia, on the west coast of North America and in Europe. We are actively looking for new opportunities for the Hywind technology.")

Capturing A Rocket Faring with a Net? Only SpaceX could come up with this Plan.

SpaceX's claw-boat ready to recover rocket fairing with a giant net

Teslarati's West coast photographer Pauline Acalin has captured some amazing photos of one of SpaceX's most immediately recognizable fairing recovery vessels berthed in the Port of San Pedro. For the first time ever, the vessel (officially named Mr. Steven) has had its iconic claw rigged with a massive net intended to gently capture Falcon 9 ...

From article, (SpaceX has been trying in earnest to recover its rockets’ fairings for approximately one year, but has yet to recover a fairing intact. While the company appeared to have recovered at least one large fragment on the East coast, success has proven elusive, and CEO Elon Musk noted in press conferences before and after Falcon Heavy’s inaugural launch that the task had proven more difficult than was anticipated. Despite the difficulties, SpaceX has no intention of surrendering their valuable fairings (a $5 million pallet of cash, as Musk once joked) to the sea.

 By all appearances, SpaceX has retained the same general strategy of fairing recovery mentioned in the past by Musk and other executives. To oversimplify, after launch, the payload fairing separates (mechanically) from the second stage once Falcon 9 or Heavy has left behind the majority of Earth’s atmosphere. After separation, each fairing half orients itself for a gentler reentry into the atmosphere with cold nitrogen gas thrusters, likely the exact same thrusters used in part to achieve Falcon 9’s accurate and reliable landings. Due to their massive surface area and comparatively tiny weight, fairing halves effectively become exceptionally finicky and awkward sails falling through the atmosphere at insane velocities, with the goal generally being to orient each half like a boat’s hull to provide some stability. Once they are low enough, assuming they’ve survived the journey from TEN TIMES THE SPEED OF SOUND and 62 MILES above Earth’s surface to a more reasonable ~Mach 0.5 and maybe 5 miles of altitude, the fun parts begin. At this point, each fairing half deploys a GPS-connected parachute system (a parasail, to be exact) capable of directing the massive hunks of carbon fiber and aluminum to a very specific point on the surface of the ocean.

Successful fairing recovery would quite literally entail an immediate cost reduction of as much as 10% of a Falcon 9’s entire advertised launch price, ~$6 million. For recovery of a single half, that figure is of course…halved, but $3 million is still an impressive instantaneous cost reduction. It’s unclear how SpaceX eventually intends to recover both halves of the fairing – a Mr. Steven sibling, perhaps? – but that is a problem for future SpaceX!)

For More Info

Computer programs are finding new mixes for all kinds of materials. Here it is used to create new LED light colors from abundant elements, instead of expensive elements.

Computers aid discovery of new, inexpensive material to make LEDs with high color quality

Computers have helped researchers develop a new phosphor that can make LEDs cheaper and render colors more accurately. Researchers predicted the new phosphor using supercomputers and data mining algorithms, then developed a simple recipe to make it in the lab. Unlike many phosphors, this one is made of inexpensive, earth-abundant elements and can easily be made using industrial methods.

From article, (Researchers at UC San Diego and Chonnam National University in Korea discovered and developed a new phosphor that is made mostly of earth-abundant elements; it can be made using industrial methods; and it produces LEDs that render colors more vividly and accurately.
Thanks to the computational approach developed by Ong's team, discovery of the phosphor took just three months -- a short time frame compared to the years of trial-and-error experiments it typically takes to discover a new material.
"Calculations are quick, scalable and cheap. Using computers, we can rapidly screen thousands of materials and predict candidates for new materials that have not yet been discovered," Ong said.
Ong, who leads the Materials Virtual Lab and is a faculty member in the Sustainable Power and Energy Center at UC San Diego, uses a combination of high-throughput calculations and machine learning to discover next-generation materials for energy applications, including batteries, fuel cells and LEDs. The calculations were performed using the National Science Foundation's Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment at the San Diego Supercomputer Center.
 Phosphors, which are substances that emit light, are one of the key ingredients to make white LEDs. They are crystalline powders that absorb energy from blue or near-UV light and emit light in the visible spectrum. The combination of the different colored light creates white light.
The phosphors used in many commercial white LEDs have several disadvantages, however. Many are made of rare-earth elements, which are expensive, and some are difficult to manufacture. They also produce LEDs with poor color quality.
The new phosphor -- made of the elements strontium, lithium, aluminum and oxygen (a combination dubbed "SLAO") -- was discovered using a systematic, high-throughput computational approach developed in the lab of Shyue Ping Ong, a nanoengineering professor at the UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering and lead principal investigator of the study. Ong's team used supercomputers to predict SLAO, which is the first known material made of the elements strontium, lithium, aluminum and oxygen. Calculations also predicted this material would be stable and perform well as an LED phosphor. For example, it was predicted to absorb light in the near-UV and blue region and have high photoluminescence, which is the material's ability to emit light when excited by a higher energy light source.
Researchers in the lab of Joanna McKittrick, a materials science professor at the Jacobs School of Engineering, then figured out the recipe needed to make the new phosphor. They also confirmed the phosphor's predicted light absorption and emission properties in the lab.
A team led by materials science professor Won Bin Im at Chonnam National University in Korea optimized the phosphor recipe for industrial manufacturing and built white LED prototypes with the new phosphor. They evaluated the LEDs using the Color Rendering Index (CRI), a scale that rates from 0 to 100 how accurate colors appear under a light source. Many commercial LEDs have CRI values at around 80. LEDs made with the new phosphor yielded CRI values greater than 90.)



How looking into the Eyes can Predict Diseases.

Google AI can predict heart disease by looking at pictures of the retina

I can look into your eyes to see straight to your heart. It may sound like a sappy sentiment from a Hallmark card. Essentially though, that's what researchers at Google did in applying artificial intelligence to predict something deadly serious: the likelihood that a patient will suffer a heart attack or stroke.

From article, (Google cautions that more research needs to be done. [But...]

Google [applied] artificial intelligence to predict something deadly serious: the likelihood that a patient will suffer a heart attack or stroke. 

According to the company, medical researchers have previously shown some correlation between retinal vessels and the risk of a major cardiovascular episode. Using the retinal image, Google says it was able to quantify this association and 70% of the time accurately predict which patient within five years would experience a heart attack or other major cardiovascular event, and which patient would not. Those results were in line with testing methods that require blood be drawn to measure a patient’s cholesterol.


For More Info


How do You date the Origin of Plant life on Earth when they leave very little behind to place your calculations on?

Land plants arose earlier than thought-and may have had a bigger impact on the evolution of animals

We have land plants to thank for the oxygen we breathe. And now we have a better idea of when they took to land in the first place. While the oldest known fossils of land plants are 420 million years old, researchers have now determined that pond scum first made landfall almost 100 million years earlier.
From article, (For decades biologists have been trying to come up with a reliable birth date for land plants. Lacking backbones and hard shells, plants leave relatively little behind in the fossil record, so researchers suspect even the oldest plant fossils don't represent the first flora. 
Some scientists have tried to use plant genetic data as "molecular clocks"—knowing a typical mutation rate, they can estimate how long ago various species split based upon their differences in DNA-to figure out their evolutionary history. But they have been unable to sort out the lowest, or earliest, branches of the plant family tree. At that base, vascular plants--which include the trees, crops, and flowers we are most familiar with--came along sometime after liverworts, hornworts, and mosses. Yet the order in which those three other groups appeared has been a mystery and has stymied molecular clock studies. 
 Philip Donoghue thought that if he brought enough computer power to bear on this problem, he could solve this mystery. Donoghue, a paleobiologist at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom, and his colleagues started with previously collected genetic data on more than 100 plant and algal species. They tested every permutation of the relationships of the four groups of plants with several kinds of these analyses and factored in the ages of dozens of plant fossils as a reality check. 
The exact configuration of the base of the plant family tree doesn't matter to dating the first land plats, Donoghue and his colleagues report today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. All the analyses indicate that land plants first appeared about 500 million years ago, during the Cambrian period, when the development of multi-cellular animal species took off. 
The new analysis “shows that the first land plants arose earlier than we thought, regardless of current uncertainties about which land plants evolved first," says Lenton.



The Next OPEC?

Meet the new 'renewable superpowers'-nations that boss the materials used for wind and solar

Imagine a world where every country has not only complied with the Paris climate agreement but has moved away from fossil fuels entirely. How would such a change affect global politics?
From article, (countries that would become the new "renewables superpowers" contains some familiar names, but also a few wild cards. The largest reserves of quartzite (for silicon production) are found in China, the US, and Russia – but also Brazil and Norway. The US and China are also major sources of copper, although their reserves are decreasing, which has pushed Chile, Peru, Congo and Indonesia to the fore.
Chile also has, by far, the largest reserves of lithium, ahead of China, Argentina and Australia. Factoring in lower-grade "resources" – which can't yet be extracted – bumps Bolivia and the US onto the list. Finally, rare earth resources are greatest in China, Russia, Brazil – and Vietnam.
Of all the fossil fuel producing countries, it is the US, China, Russia and Canada that could most easily transition to green energy resources. In fact it is ironic that the US, perhaps the country most politically resistant to change, might be the least affected as far as  are concerned. But it is important to note that a completely new set of countries will also find their natural resources are in high demand.
there is a significant difference between  and the chemical elements needed for green energy. Oil and gas are consumable commodities. Once a natural gas power station is built, it must have a continuous supply of gas or it stops generating. Similarly, petrol-powered cars require a continued supply of crude oil to keep running.
In contrast, once a wind farm is built, electricity generation is only dependent on the wind (which won't stop blowing any time soon) and there is no continuous need for neodymium for the magnets or copper for the generator windings. In other words solar, wind, and wave power require a one-off purchase in order to ensure long-term secure energy generation.
The shorter lifetime of cars and electronic devices means that there is an ongoing demand for lithium. Improved recycling processes would potentially overcome this continued need. Thus, once the infrastructure is in place access to coal, oil or gas can be denied, but you can't shut off the sun or wind. It is on this basis that the US Department of Defense sees green energy as key to national security.
A country that creates  infrastructure, before political and economic control shifts to a new group of "world powers", will ensure it is less susceptible to future influence or to being held hostage by a lithium or copper giant. But late adopters will find their strategy comes at a high price. Finally, it will be important for countries with resources not to sell themselves cheaply to the first bidder in the hope of making quick money – because, as the major oil producers will find out over the next decades, nothing lasts forever.)



How do we find life on Exoplanets? An Astronomy Professor says, Look for Charged Oxygen in the Atmosphere.

Charged oxygen in ionosphere may offer biomarker for exoplanets

On January 9, 1992, astronomers announced a momentous discovery: two planets orbiting a pulsar 2,300 light years from our sun. The two planets, later named Poltergeist and Draugr, were the first confirmed "exoplanets"-worlds ...




From article, ("What more important question could we ask? Are we alone?" asks Boston University professor of astronomy Michael Mendillo. "I don't know of any more fascinating question in science."
For decades, astronomers have been searching these distant exoplanets for signs of life, mostly looking for that most essential molecule, water. But Mendillo and his colleagues have a different idea. In a paper published in Nature Astronomy on February 12, 2018, Mendillo, BU associate professor of astronomy Paul Withers, and Ph.D. candidate Paul Dalba (GRS'18) suggest looking instead at an exoplanet's ionosphere, the thin uppermost layer of atmosphere, which is whizzing with charged particles. Find one like Earth's, they say, packed with single  ions, and you have found life. Or, at least, life as we know it.
 "Throughout the history of human civilization, we have never gotten to the point—until basically the last 15 years—where we could see  around other stars. And now we're at the point where we're coming up with ideas to discover life outside Earth," says John Clarke, professor of astronomy at Boston University, and director of the Center for Space Physics. "This is a great intellectual adventure that we're on."
Their work began when Mendillo and Withers received a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to compare all planetary ionospheres in the solar system. (All the planets have them except Mercury, which is so close to the sun that its atmosphere is stripped off entirely.) Simultaneously, the team was also working with NASA's MAVEN mission, trying to understand how the molecules that made up Mars' ionosphere had escaped that planet. 
Since the early years of the Space Age, scientists have known that planetary ionospheres differ greatly, and the BU team started to focus on why that was the case, and why Earth's was so different. While other planets stuff their ionospheres full of complicated charged molecules arising from  or hydrogen, Earth keeps it simple, with mostly oxygen filling the space. And it's a specific type of oxygen—single atoms with a positive charge.
"I started thinking, how come our ionosphere is different than the other six?" recalls Mendillo.The team ticked off numerous possibilities for Earth's high concentration of O+ before settling on a culprit: green plants and algae.
"It's because we have this atomic oxygen that traces its origin back to photosynthesis," says Mendillo. "We have atomic oxygen ions, O+, in the ionosphere as a direct consequence of having life on the planet. So why don't we see if we can come up with a criterion where the ionosphere could be a biomarker, not just of possible life but of actual life."
Most planets in our solar system have some oxygen in their lower atmospheres, but Earth has much more, about 21 percent. This is because so many organisms have been busy turning light, water, and carbon dioxide into sugar and oxygen—the process called photosynthesis—for the past 3.8 billion years.
"Destroy all the plants on Earth and our atmosphere's oxygen will vanish away in mere thousands of years," says Withers, who notes that all this oxygen exhaled by plants doesn't just stick around the Earth's surface. "To most people, O2, the oxygen we breathe, is not a very exciting molecule. To chemists, however, O2 is a wild, exhilarating, and perilous beast. It just will not sit still; it chemically reacts with almost any other molecule it can find and it does so very quickly."
On Earth today, excess oxygen molecules, in the form of O2, float upward. When the O2 gets about 150 kilometers above the Earth's surface, ultraviolet light splits it in two. The single oxygen atoms float higher, into the ionosphere, where more ultraviolet light and x-rays from the sun rip electrons from their outer shells, leaving charged oxygen zipping through the air. The abundance of O2 near the Earth's surface—so different than the other planets—leads to an abundance of O+ high in the sky.
This finding, says Mendillo, suggests that scientists seeking extraterrestrial life could perhaps narrow their search area. Paul Dalba, who was working on exoplanet atmospheres with BU assistant professor of astronomy Philip Muirhead, joined the team to weigh in. "Dalba's knowledge of star-exoplanet systems really helped," Mendillo says. Currently, most scientists on this quest focus on M-class stars—the most abundant in the galaxy—and the planets circling them in the "habitable zone," where water might exist.
This makes sense, because life as we know it needs water. But scientists don't know exactly how much water a planet needs to support life. "If we only had the Mediterranean, would that have been enough? Do we need the Pacific, but not the Atlantic?" asks Mendillo. "If you look at the ionosphere, you don't need to know the number. You just need to know that if the maximum electron density is associated with , then you've nailed it—you've got a planet where there's photosynthesis and life.")


What is so Exciting about SpaceX's BFR?

Everything you need to know about the SpaceX BFR project

Elon Musk's SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket managed a successful takeoff in early 2018, orbiting the Earth with a Tesla car inside and completing its in-space maneuvers, albeit with a bumpy landing. The company can rest on its laurels, right? Hardly.
  
From article, (the BFR will be way more capable than just the Falcon Heavy — which is a very exciting rocket, but it’s not exactly meant for squishy little humans. There’s a good reason that the Heavy only took a Tesla car up into orbit, and not any passengers—it’s not made to sustain life, and if it sees action in the future it will probably be an automated supply transport that would ferry materials to Mars that people would use for survival.
When it comes to the BFR specifically, the goal is to attach a rocket to a spaceship and fly them both around, something that SpaceX thinks will take around $10 billion to accomplish. The spaceship half will contain a fully featured living quarters; it could have up to 40 cabins, a galley, and a shelter for passengers to climb into during a solar storm. It’ll be able to dock with another BFR in Earth orbit as well, Ars Technica notes.
But all of that is theoretical, projects measured not in years but in SpaceX years, which tend to take a little longer than real world time. For now, SpaceX is mostly concerned with getting a viable rocket working. The spaceship part will probably come along in a couple years.
The Moon: The first long-term goal may be to head over to the moon and, you know, check up on it. The moon gets tossed around as a potential goal because it’s a lot safer target than Mars, both literally and financially. There are also plans to orbit the moon with a Dragon rocket, which may well be merged with BFR if SpaceX wants to keep focused. If the BFR isn’t looking quite ready for a Mars flight in several years, then it’s safe to bet that it will at least try to go to the moon.

Mars: The Mars plan is surprisingly detailed, even at this early juncture. The first Mars flight would confirm water resources and scout out potential hazards, while scanning for the best places to build power plants, mine minerals, and so on. The second flight would include a bare-bones crew that would start to build structures and produce reserves of fuel. Once a base is established, SpaceX intends to start a full-blown colony, with a final goal of transporting millions of people to a Mars habitat.
Like we said, ambitious.
Earth transport: In the near future, you can at least expect the BFR to rocket its way around the Earth. Part of Musk’s goal is to use the BFR as a transportation option that allows people to zoom nearly anywhere on our planet in about 30 minutes. Plus, early tests of this transportation project are far easier and safer than trying for a full orbital test.

So where is BFR right now?

Things are looking pretty good! The success of the Falcon Heavy was a very important step, and Elon Musk has pushed the gas pedal down on BFR development for now, although SpaceX has acknowledged that it may pursue different projects in the future, depending on how things go.
Look for the next big milestone in 2019, when SpaceX plans to test early prototypes of the BFR in the atmosphere. If these tests go well, we can expect a much more exciting orbital test in 2020 and potentially a Mars flight in 2022. Of course, keep in mind that the Falcon Heavy itself was subject to delays and pushed-back dates, so this is more of a hopeful plan than a promise.)

What Role will SpaceX's Falcon Heavy Play in U.S. Exploration? And... why is China Jealous of it?

China and Europe love SpaceX's new Falcon Heavy rocket. Does NASA?

When SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket debuted this month, China's aerospace community was mostly envious, noting that their equivalent rocket, the Long March 9, would not be ready for another decade. One story in state media observed that "to put it more bluntly, this time the Americans showed us Chinese with pure power why they are...
From article, (SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy was built to help realize Elon Musk’s dreams of a multi-planetary civilization. When deployed in its final form later this summer—perhaps in June, to launch some experimental hardware for the US Air Force and NASA—it is expected to be able to deliver some 70 tons to low-earth orbit, or less than 20 tons to Mars, while costing around $150 million per mission. According to Musk, the rocket cost somewhere north of $500 million to develop.

When SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket debuted this month, China’s aerospace community was mostly envious, noting that their equivalent rocket, the Long March 9, would not be ready for another decade. One story in state media observed that “to put it more bluntly, this time the Americans showed us Chinese with pure power why they are still the strongest country in the world.”


 The Trump administration has determined that the US should re-orient itself toward lunar exploration, and its first step will be funding the development of a piece of space hardware called the “power and propulsion element,” which will be placed in orbit around the moon in 2022 as the cornerstone of a human outpost, possibly by a privately owned rocket like the Falcon Heavy. Meanwhile, this year China plans to land a robotic mission, Chang’e-4, on the dark side of the moon—something no other space power has done.

It’s not clear what role the new Falcon Heavy will play in helping US space exploration in the near term; to be sure, it may take time for space project managers to work the long-delayed vehicle into their plans, if they are willing to do so. A meeting of the National Space Council on Feb. 21 —already fraught with jockeying between rival rocket-makers—may shed more light on NASA’s plans. The White House has asked for $150 million to fund public-private partnerships to send robotic explorers to the moon, and it is possible the Falcon Heavy will be a vehicle for some of these experiments.


When the rocket launched a Tesla roadster into a solar orbit earlier this month, the “marketing wheeze,” in Wörner’s words, was the biggest event in the space world for years. While the stunt attracted both criticism and applause, it was a shot across the bows of the space establishment: If a private company can put a car up there, what else can they do? One Chinese state newspaper put the argument in terms that might be echoed at NASA’s Marshall Space Center: “what our country has to desperately catch up with is actually a private U.S. enterprise.”)


For More Info