The world is in the midst of a gigantic 'data revolution' right now. What does that entail? There is a massive collection of data going on around us at any given moment. From the geographical location at which you are located to the subject matter which you are searching for using a search engine such as Google or Bing. What benefits might arise out of such a revolution? Many have been proposed. The overall concept to understand why such benefits arise was written about in an article titled "The 7 Industries That Benefit Most From Big Data" on the website 'Smart Collective' in 2016:
Generally, the more data you have, the more specific and accurate insights you’ll be able to generate, which is why big data has become such a powerful tool (and buzzword) in recent years
More data points equals more accuracy. Which promotes the largest benefit which serves as a feedback into all of the industries mentioned in the article above: 'artificial intelligence.' A pathway toward the benefits of artificial intelligence exists and is currently being taken by technology groups around the world. On this pathway toward 'artificial intelligence' playing a larger role in our society has been the concept of 'deep learning':
Deep learning (also known as deep structured learning or hierarchical learning) is part of a broader family of machine learning methods based on learning data representations, as opposed to task-specific algorithms. Learning can be supervised, semi-supervised or unsupervised.[1][2][3]
Deep learning architectures such as deep neural networks, deep belief networks and recurrent neural networks have been applied to fields including computer vision, speech recognition, natural language processing, audio recognition, social network filtering, machine translation, bioinformatics, drug design, medical image analysis, material inspection and board game programs, where they have produced results comparable to and in some cases superior to human experts.[4][5][6]
Deep learning models are vaguely inspired by information processing and communication patterns in biological nervous systems yet have various differences from the structural and functional properties of biological brains (especially human brains), which make them incompatible with neuroscience evidences.[7][8][9]
Again, the amount of data which serves as an 'input' will greatly affect the accuracy of the 'output' the intelligent (computation) answer given to us after the algorithm is executed.
How does all of this play out in the immediate future?
One example is the field of medicine. During a recent break, I was perusing through Facebook and found the following video by an organization called 'Forward'. The video below gives us a glimpse into technology which has already been developed and is out on the market right now. A glimpse of a 'future visit to the doctor' for a health check up. The video is less than 10 minutes in length and worth watching.
Wow right? For those who are uninterested in viewing the entire video here are the basics:
1) No receptionist to check in with. Just an equivalent of an iPad.
2) A Body scan with infrared radiation. While placing a single hand on a sensor, blood oxygen levels, heart rate, metabolic rate, and a body composition -- fat tissue, muscle and bone tissue.
3) Up to 3 visits normally to the center per month. Although, a patient may come and get a body scan anytime. Remember, more data more accuracy.
4) A Body scan creates a 3D model of your body.
5) The Information gathered in the body scan is synced with exam room digital display (i.e. monitor, tv screen) at which time the patient can view results with a physician. Additionally, the information is also synced with the mobile app on your smartphone.
6) Patient goes into exam room and discusses data.
7) Patient and physician review body scan data and blood work (all on the same day) to come up with a plan to achieve health goals which lead to better health.
8) Planning is individual based. No two plans are equal.
Having the ability to reduce time or redundancy with having an on site laboratory (for blood work), a visit to the 'futuristic physician' provided by 'Forward' is greatly enhanced. Plus, as pointed out in the video above, the language which enters into the patient file is the patient's own language -- which is recorded on the screen during discussion with physician. Additionally, all data and discussion is forwarded to your mobile app for your personal viewing and stay plugged into continuously. Awesome. This is the future of medicine.
Conclusion...
The data revolution has the ability to transform our daily lives in many ways. As shown in the video above, the access of big data in real-time is effective in treating an individual patient with the patient's own needs based on the data collected. Additionally, that data is compiled with the ability (upon patient approval) to be used in conjunction with other patients for research and discovery purposes.
One main obstacle with the deluge of big data are the different file types in which the data exists currently. In order to make meaningful discoveries using the big data files, the processing/algorithms need to be able to read the file format. With the collection of data in this forma (a single format), this represents a solution to an existing problem.
Of course, that means still processing old data from decades in the past. Although, after processing old data and combining it with new data compiled in the new format, powerful advances will be able to be made by mining the data for medical research and drug discovery purposes (to name just two). The future of medicine is truly exciting and should be embraced by each of us.
President Trump vowed to pull the United States out the the Paris Climate Agreement as then 'candidate Trump' - then followed his with the words 6 months into his presidency. The only problem as I have noted in a previous blog is that there is no way (technically) to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement. As the Paris Climate Agreement stands of right now, every few years, each country (nation) will evaluate the goals which are self imposed and self-regulated to serve as a check point to see where their respective nation is headed into the next few years.
With the shocking news of President Trump's attempt to convince the United States of his intention to withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, came news (in the form of tweets and press releases - written about here) from various states that they would remain committed to sticking with the Paris Climate Agreement. Specifically, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a 'Memorandum of Understanding' with China stating that California would remain committed to the Paris Climate Agreement. Furthermore, Governor Brown committed to hosting a 'Climate Convention' in California less than two years later. That date has arrived and the convention is convening in San Francisco (California, United States of America).
Great News From California Early!
Right before -- as of Monday -- the conference (summit) was to begin, Governor Brown announced and signed into law SB100 -- to transition California to 100% renewable energy by 2045 as shown below:
With the following excerpts regarding SB100 and Governor Brown's intentions for sustainable energy and California provided by authors of 'Politico California Playbook' via e-mail as shown below:
Via POLITICO'S Jeremy B. White in Sacramento: "California's Brown signs renewable energy bill in another rebuke to Trump" -- "California will aim to derive all its retail electricity from renewable sources by 2045 under a bill Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law on Monday, with backers framing the measure as the state’s latest rebuke to environmental backsliding by the Trump administration.
-- "The bill 'is sending a message to California and the world that we are going to meet the Paris agreement and we are going to continue down that path to transition our economy,' Brown said, referencing the climate accord from which President Donald Trump withdrew the United States last year."
-- "Trump has made himself an outlaw on the matter of climate change," Brown said in a follow-up interview with POLITICO’s David Siders on Monday. "And since climate change is [an] existential threat, I would say that doing what he’s doing to undermine efforts that will save lives and prevent catastrophe for California, for America and the world, is about as reprehensible as any act that any American president has ever been guilty of.”
MORE BROWN: “The clash has intensified because Trump, more than anybody else in the whole world in terms of national leaders, is going in the opposite direction. He’s trying to subsidize coal, undermine vehicle emission standards, sabotage clean electricity, make it harder to buy electric vehicles and on and on. So, yes, we’re going on a certain course.”
More celebratory tweets such as those shown below are contagious with wonderful news from Governor Brown on the eve of the Climate Summit in San Francisco. And as one observer notes in a tweet video that every place around the world should have California politicians who are super ambitious for a change toward renewable energy to better the environment:
For the energy transition to happen, the challenge is much more psychological than technological. The goal is to get rid of old beliefs that keep us prisoners of the past and prevents us from seeing better solutions. #1000solutions#GCAS2018pic.twitter.com/ubb1NoZH4q
The news on Monday was a good start to the beginning of the Climate Summit in San Francisco with a warm welcome to Mayors by Mayor London Breed of San Francisco as shown below:
In her tweet, a thread is shown with a few exciting statistics which display the reality that a city (or region) can invest in renewable energy (i.e. implement environmental policy) and have a thriving economy:
Which Mayor London Breed closed the thread with the following message on behalf of all Mayors present in San Francisco for the Climate Summit shown below:
Signaling that there is a large amount of support for the Climate Summit. Further, that there is a large support for the United States to stay with the Paris Climate Agreement. This should be no surprise to those who follow this blog and read newspapers regularly. The world is shifting continuously and dynamically (reshaping the investment landscape) to move away from fossil fuels and invest in renewable (sustainable) energy. Remember the list of corporations along with the tremendous amount of capital (money) available for renewable energy last year? Read here.
For those readers interested in the full press release, I have provided the release below from Governor Brown's web site:
Governor Brown Signs 100 Percent Clean Electricity Bill, Issues Order Setting New Carbon Neutrality Goal
Published: Sep 10, 2018
SACRAMENTO – Reaffirming California’s global climate leadership, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today signed Senate Bill 100, authored by Senate President pro Tempore Emeritus Kevin de León, setting a 100 percent clean electricity goal for the state, and issued an executive order establishing a new target to achieve carbon neutrality – both by 2045.
“This bill and the executive order put California on a path to meet the goals of Paris and beyond. It will not be easy. It will not be immediate. But it must be done,” said Governor Brown.
“In California, Democrats and Republicans know climate change is real, it’s affecting our lives right now, and unless we take action immediately – it may become irreversible,” said Senator de León. “Today, with Governor Brown’s support, California sent a message to the rest of the world that we are taking the future into our own hands; refusing to be the victims of its uncertainty. Transitioning to an entirely carbon-free energy grid will create good-paying jobs, ensure our children breathe cleaner air and mitigate the devastating impacts of climate change on our communities and economy.”
SB 100 advances the state’s existing Renewables Portfolio Standard, which establishes how much of the electricity system should be powered from renewable energy resources, to 50 percent by 2025 and 60 percent by 2030. It also puts California on the bold path to implement a zero-carbon electricity grid by 2045.
“California is committed to doing whatever is necessary to meet the existential threat of climate change,” said Governor Brown in his SB 100 signing message. “This bill, and others I will sign this week, help us go in that direction. But have no illusions, California and the rest of the world have miles to go before we achieve zero-carbon emissions.”
To further ensure California is combatting global warming beyond the electric sector, which represents 16 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, the Governor issued an executive order directing the state to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and net negative greenhouse gas emissions after that. This will ensure California removes as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it emits – the first step to reversing the potentially disastrous impacts of climate change.
The state will reach its goals with continued significant reductions of carbon pollution and increased carbon sequestration in forests, soils and other natural landscapes and programs focused on improving air quality and public health, especially in California’s most impacted communities.
With Governor Brown’s order, California establishes the most ambitious carbon neutrality commitment of any major economic jurisdiction in the world – of more than 20 countries and at least 40 cities, states and provinces planning to go carbon neutral by mid-century or sooner.
This action comes days before grassroots activists, mayors, governors, heads of industry and international leaders convene in San Francisco for the express purpose of mobilizing climate action at the Global Climate Action Summit. Late last week, Governor Brown also signed legislation to block new federal offshore oil drilling along California’s coast and announced the state’s opposition to the federal government’s plan to expand oil drilling on public lands in California. The entirety of the state’s coast has been off-limits to new oil and gas leases for more than 30 years, and the state has not issued a lease for offshore oil or gas production since 1968.
The Governor’s signing message for SB 100 can be found here.
The text of the executive order can be found here.
California’s Leadership on Climate Change
California continues to lead the world in adopting innovative policies to fight climate change. Last week, the Governor issued an executive order to safeguard California’s unique plants, animals and ecosystems that are threatened by climate change. Last month, the state also issued its Fourth Climate Change Assessment, which details new science on the devastating impacts of irreversible climate change in California and provides planning tools to support the state’s response.
Earlier this year Governor Brown issued executive orders to improve the health of the state’s forests and help mitigate the threat and impacts of deadly and destructive wildfires, and get 5 million zero-emission vehicles onto California’s roads by 2030. Last year, the Governor signed landmark legislation to extend and strengthen the state’s cap-and-trade program and create a groundbreaking program to measure and combat air pollution at the neighborhood level.
Under Governor Brown, California has established the most ambitious greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in North America; set the nation’s toughest restrictions on destructive super pollutants; and will reduce fossil fuel consumption up to 50 percent and double the rate of energy efficiency savings in buildings by 2030.
The state has met its 2020 target four years early, reducing emissions 13 percent while growing the economy 26 percent. From 2015 to 2016 alone, emissions reductions were roughly equal to taking 2.4 million cars off the road, saving 1.5 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel.
In addition, Governor Brown has helped establish and expand coalitions of partners across the nation and globe committed to curbing carbon pollution. The Under2 Coalition, which originated from a partnership between California and the German state of Baden-Württemberg, now includes 206 jurisdictions on 6 continents that collectively represent 1.3 billion people and $30 trillion in GDP – equivalent to 17 percent of the global population and 40 percent of the global economy. Members of the coalition make a number of key commitments, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 80 to 95 percent below 1990 levels or to less than 2 annual metric tons per capita by 2050.
Last year, California joined Washington and New York to form the U.S. Climate Alliance, which now includes 17 U.S. states – led by both Democrats and Republicans representing 40 percent of the U.S. population – committed to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement and meeting or exceeding the targets of the federal Clean Power Plan. Governor Brown also partnered with Michael Bloomberg to launch America’s Pledge on climate change, an initiative to compile and quantify the actions of U.S. states, cities and businesses to drive down their greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Earlier this year, California and 17 other states collectively representing more than 40 percent of the U.S. car market sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to preserve the nation’s uniform vehicle emission standards that save drivers money at the pump, cut oil consumption, reduce air pollution and curb greenhouse gases.
Who can argue with the need for cleaner air (i.e. less air pollution)? How about environmental justice? How about jobs? Who does not want to create more jobs? The renewable energy sector has been growing tremendously over the last two years. Just ask Google about the growth of renewable energy jobs and see if I am wrong. The investment into a sustainable future makes sense on multiple fronts. As a nation, we will not be traveling back in time. Governor Brown correctly points out that President Trump is an isolationist and stands alone in regards to bringing back the coal industry to power the nation. Whether we (as a nation) like the change or not, the transition is becoming a reality to keep in line with other developing nations towards a cleaner future. A more prosperous future.
Skeptics Weigh In...
All is not sunny with the emerging news of ambitious targets set for California. One major reason is that skeptics are concerned that California will not be able to meet the targets even with all other sources reduced dramatically. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times titled "Until California curbs its oil refineries, it won't meet its climate goals" - the state has obstacles (refineries) which are paramount:
Concentrated in Los Angeles’ South Bay and the San Francisco Bay Area, the state’s 17 refineries comprise the largest oil processing center in western North America. Unless emissions from those refineries are curbed, the state has no chance of meeting its long-range climate change goals.
The cumulative greenhouse gas output from these 17 refineries will overshadow the tremendous progress made over the next 27 years. I will disagree with this notion. Tell anyone that refineries will be going out of business in the new few years and undoubtedly, the response will involve the word "cars" and "California" and "dependent" and "Oil and Gas". Although, to mitigate the continuous use of oil and gas, the transition toward cleaner energy will lead naturally to less demand for oil.
Conclusion...
Therefore, skeptics may weigh in and laugh at the thought of refineries shutting down over the next few decades. But the reality is that as demand for oil and gas continues to decline over the next few decades with a corresponding rise in use of renewable energy, the refineries will be looking to close their doors. Of course, large refineries are owned by gigantic corporations such as Shell Oil Company. Which has already started transitioning (and investing) in renewable energy. That path puts them at an advantage rather than an expected disadvantage. I expect others will follow -- that is, if their respective corporations have not already entertained the transition (in discussion) already.
Regardless, the news that has been breaking regarding emission reduction along with increase investments in renewable energy is very exciting. I am excited to hear about more exciting news coming out of the Climate Summit this week in San Francisco. I will write more as more develops.
Technology has served many different functions in our society. Among the most important recently are the algorithms which correct themselves while directing people around the world. Yes, I am talking about the residents of the world who use 'GoogleMaps'. Over time, the algorithm seeks to improve the accuracy by self assessment. What? Yes, the algorithm updates and assesses itself after every use. Amazing. Back in January in Seattle, Amazon opened up a store without cashier type check out stands. Yes, without check out stands. I have been sitting on this short post for quite a while for no good reason. Although, with the greater use of digital tracking of our preferences, the subject is worth highlighting.
But the technology that is also inside, mostly tucked away out of sight, enables a shopping experience like no other. There are no cashiers or registers anywhere. Shoppers leave the store through those same gates, without pausing to pull out a credit card. Their Amazon account automatically gets charged for what they take out the door.
There are no shopping carts or baskets inside Amazon Go. Since the checkout process is automated, what would be the point of them anyway? Instead, customers put items directly into the shopping bag they’ll walk out with.
Every time customers grab an item off a shelf, Amazon says the product is automatically put into the shopping cart of their online account. If customers put the item back on the shelf, Amazon removes it from their virtual basket.
The only sign of the technology that makes this possible floats above the store shelves — arrays of small cameras, hundreds of them throughout the store. Amazon won’t say much about how the system works, other than to say it involves sophisticated computer vision and machine learning software. Translation: Amazon’s technology can see and identify every item in the store, without attaching a special chip to every can of soup and bag of trail mix.
Before the above excerpt can be explored more, the differences between a traditional grocery store and the new store offered by Amazon should be briefly highlighted. Grocery stores with the option of 'cashier assisted' checkout are nothing new. Stores ranging from Ralphs to Home Depot (or Lowes) have all incorporated the 'checker' less option. What is new is the option without a 'check out stand' altogether. To test your ability of paying attention to the potential impact of opening a store such as that which has been open for over a few months now, there are a few questions which a school teacher came up with in "teacher has come up with questions" from 'The New York Times' shown below:
1. What type of convenience store opened in Seattle on Jan. 22?
2. What details make the Amazon Go store different from a traditional grocery store?
3. What is noticeable about the photos in the article? What do they show about the new store?
4. How are items paid for in the Amazon Go store, and what is eliminated in the process?
5. What does Amazon say about the role of cashiers and potential loss of jobs with the new system?
6. Why does the author say the experience feels like shoplifting, and what happened when he attempted to shoplift a four-pack of vanilla soda?
The above questions represent a good exercise in critical thinking for the article under scrutiny about the new grocery stores. You may be wondering why I am bringing this up now when the stores have been open for the last few months. The reason is that there is a larger change at hand with this new technology. Amazon is looking to expand the information extracted about each customer by introducing new technology. The grocery store is just one.
Inside the grocery store are a large amount of cameras which are tracking movements. Not to scare you in any way, this is for the main purpose of tracking purchases. Although, the amount of time that each customer stands in front of a given product is being recorded along with the customers who simply walk by and pay no attention toward a given item. This technology is being extended into algorithms which are embedded into the 'Kindle' by Amazon.
I accidentally misplaced the reference (the name of the podcast/episode) which described the shift in Amazon's strategy to gather more information out of their readers Kindle usage. Including tracking how long each reader stays on a page and if the reader returns to a section with a given phrase or story. This information will inevitably help Amazon sell better books by adjusting the plot to tailor the customers exact needs. Scary? Possibly.
Conclusion...
The changes proposed or being sought by Amazon are interesting and potentially frightening. As the Virtual Reality pioneer -- computer scientist -- Jaron Lanier implied in his book titled "Who Owns The Future?" -- nothing is for free in Silicon Valley. Meaning, any discount or free technology is accompanied by a lengthy 'legal disclaimer' which is basically saying that the information collected on this device belongs to Amazon or any other technology company.
At the same time, Jaron Lanier states that in order to get around such an inevitable problem, a new system will have to arise -- something akin to 'micro-payments'. If the user is unwilling to pay the 'micro-payment' then a short commercial might need to be watched by the user to access the 'free service'. Ultimately, the technology offered by Amazon might not be terrible given that the time needed to search for an interesting book for a person will be reduced as A.I. algorithms become more intelligent.
In the end, the technology depends on a choice by the consumer (you and I). Are we willing to give up our information for a "free service"? Do we really understand what data is being collected by theses technology companies? Do we really care what data is being collected? These questions will have to be answered in the future as technology rapidly advances in data collection over time.
If jobs are lost to another Nation, one would think that instead of bringing the same job back, create a new one -- with a more intelligent worker. Hold on here... more intelligent? Yes, skilled workers working on jobs that promote a healthier and more environmentally friendly world. With the recent victory over the North Dakota pipeline by the Sioux Indian Tribe, our mindset should be the following:
1) Inspect, test, and repair the existing millions of miles of pipeline in operation today.
2) Offer more incentives for businesses who are promoting the use of renewable energy to operate.
3) Follow the lead of major corporations moving toward green energy initiatives.
Why do I suggest the above steps as a mindset moving forward?
Below are a few thoughts to initiate the discussion forward.
30 Years Of Oil Spills
In a recent article from 'The Atlantic' titled "30 Years of Oil and Gas Pipeline Accidents, Mapped" Author George Joseph provides us with a great overview of the last 30 years of oil transportation using oil pipelines. The article contains extremely informative infographics and visual illustrations which prove beyond a doubt that the last 30 years has been less than stellar for the oil industry -- as far as accidents go.
Using the recent Standing Rock Sioux Indian tribe's protest of the North Dakota pipeline, he jumps right into hammering down the truth surrounding accidents and oil pipeline with the following statements:
Oil industry supporters argue that pipelines are safer alternative to hauling fuel by tanker trucks or freight trains. “Environmental analysis comparing pipelines to rail finds pipelines will result in fewer incidents, barrels released, personal injuries, and greenhouse gas emissions,” says John Stoody, a spokesperson for the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, in a statement to CityLab. He cites an environmental impact statement conducted by the U.S. State Department comparing the impact of rail delivery of crude oil to that of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Additionally, a 2013 study from the conservative Manhattan Institute found that road transportation had an annual accident rate of 19.95 incidents per billion ton miles and rail transportation had 2.08 incidents per billion ton miles, compared to 0.89 incidents per billion ton miles for natural gas transmission and 0.58 serious incidents per billion ton miles for hazardous liquid pipelines.
Environmentalists, however, point to a lack of adequate state and federal regulation and the difficulties of maintaining millions of miles of aging pipeline infrastructure in their warnings about the dangers of spills, fires, and other accidents. And data from the federal government suggests such concerns should be taken seriously. Over the last twenty years, more than 9,000 significant pipeline-related incidents have taken place nationwide, according to data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The accidents have resulted in 548 deaths, 2,576 injuries, and over $8.5 billion in financial damages. (Not counted in this total are thousands of less “significant" pipeline-related malfunctions.)
Readers of this site will recall the calculations performed in a recent blog post regarding the amount of oil that could potentially be moved per day through the Dakota pipeline -- 19.7 million gallons per day! That is no small amount. Therefore, accidents like those described in the excerpt result in large environmental costs and human costs (injuries) -- which will be commented on shortly.
As if the figures above were not enough to drive home the point surrounding the dangers associated with the transportation of oil in pipelines, he goes onto show evidence gathered in the form of graphs/plots of frequency of occurrence correlated with geography. One snapshot of a plot appears like the following shown below tracking the growth of the pipeline spills over the last 30 years:
The total costs of the spills dotted in the above image total to $8.5 billion over a 30 year period. With that many miles of pipeline developed over a 30 year period, one cannot help but wonder what is the disaster/injury rate. Below is a diagram taken from the same source detailing the number of incidents over a 30 year period from 1986-2016:
Just last week, after the victory of the Sioux Tribe in getting a total Environmental Impact Report, the news did not report another pipeline break that was 200 miles from the Dakota protests. In an article from the website 'EcoWatch' titled "Oil Pipeline Shut Down After Spill, Just 200 Miles From Standing Rock" the author lists a series or recent spills that have occurred with the company at fault in the last few years -- resulting in hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil being spilled. One would ask the logical question:
Why do we continue to build oil pipelines in light of the disasters over the years?
Even when the disasters have such long term (and unknown) consequences to the environment. The points made above do not take into account the tourism industry which suffers greatly as a result of any oil spill. In a blog post I wrote last spring, I discuss the traditional 'California Dream' being destroyed by the operations of 'big oil.' The effects of pipeline disasters are unknown and loom largely in the background -- which is why the last question is extremely important to consider repeatedly when the discussion of energy demand is on the table.
Of course, the default answer to the energy trade is the that the national demand drives our dependence on cheap fossil fuels rather than costly renewable energy. I am not arguing against the fact that demand does drive the default (lowest cost) solution. What I will propose is to build upon the existing pipeline (improve conditions) along with growth toward renewable energy. Growing the renewable energy sector will demand a more intelligent workforce (which we have) and improve the conditions of working overall. Let me explain below.
Grow Renewable Energy!
First, before we grow renewable energy, the existing oil and gas infrastructure needs to be approved upon. When I was a graduate student at University of California at Riverside in the Chemistry department, I got to work closely with the machine shop. Some of the machinists had come to work for the University after working along the pipeline in the North West of America -- Alaskan pipeline.
According to a welder, the work was tedious and not challenging since it was highly repetitive. Although, I have met a number of people in my life who thrive in those conditions. They love repetitive work. Work the shift hard and then go home -- sounds like a perfect fit to me. Which raises the following question:
Why can't we get workers back to work improving existing oil and gas pipeline?
According to the article cited above in 'The Atlantic,' there exists millions of miles of pipeline.
What a great fit?
Could you imagine the amount of jobs required to inspect and repair millions of miles of pipeline. The number of hires needed would be in direct proportion to the time required to complete and upgrade our oil delivery system. By update, I mean repair and make sure that the existing oil pipeline is in good shape.
Additionally, the employees could also install 'sensors' with accuracy to detect when the flow at a given point has changed dramatically. Sensor technology has advanced quite a bit in the last couple of decades. Piezo-electric technology has the ability to offer such solutions to the oil and gas industries to detect major changes. In an article from the website "Scientific Computing" titled "Aviation Enhancements, Better Biosensors Could Result from New Sensor Technology" an update is given by the author on the state of piezo-electric technology by the following excerpt:
Piezoelectric sensors measure changes in pressure, acceleration, temperature, strain or force and are used in a vast array of devices important to everyday life. However, these sensors often can be limited by the "white noise" they detect that can give engineers and health care workers false readings. Now, a University of Missouri College of Engineering research team has developed methods to enhance piezoelectric sensing capabilities. Enhanced sensors could be used to improve aviation, detect structural damage in buildings and bridges, and boost the capabilities of health monitors.
Guoliang Huang, an associate professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering in the MU College of Engineering, and his team's new platform improves sensors by amplifying the signal, allowing the same amount of sensors to read more data. Their new device also cuts costs by allowing fewer sensors to cover larger structures and longer distances.
The author goes onto describe the changes from previous sensor technology. Further, the sensors can be "tuned" to a specifically weak signals which would neglect other signals. These sensors are an example of the type of technology appearing on the market that has been developed and is currently in use in a wide range of applications from aerospace to the biomedical field. Understanding that the technology exists raises the following question:
Why is this technology not being deployed to prevent oil and gas spills?
This prospect would be beneficial to society and the world at large. No one likes to see an economy that is adversely impacted by a large number of spills resulting in a large amount of environmental damage. Moving toward a sustainable future is where the world is headed. The question becomes then:
Is the current administration headed in the same direction?
Toward a more sustainable and healthy environment through the promotion of green energy?
Unfortunately, at the current moment with the announcement of reductions in climate funding and science funding overall, the direct seems to be counterintuitive to that of forward progress. Not to worry though? There exists powerful people (CEO) that are in charge of large corporations that can and are promoting change toward renewable energy.
Private Investment In Renewable Energy!
In addition to whatever funding is sought after to elevate the use of renewable energy in the future, a portion of that money will be inevitably from 'Private Sector' funding. Years ago, I was watching a Charlie Rose interview with a rear Admiral who was explaining that funding sources occur in two different ways: either government funding or private sector funding.
At any given time, you can limit the source to either funding avenue. Furthermore, he stated that the funding source can change between the initiation of the project and the end point of the project. With the recent Paris Climate talks just completed (less than a year ago), there is enthusiasm on part of the private sector through an initiative called "Breakthrough Energy Ventures" spearheaded by top CEO's like Bill Gates. This is encouraging.
Although with the news of the incoming administration's intention to back away from these environmentally friendly improvements, the Coalition has had to step up with a press release. In an article from the website "Laboratory Equipment" titled "Billionaires Launch Massive Green Energy Fund to Spur Breakthroughs" the author introduces the Coalition's intention of elevating the renewable energy market by competitive bids. Here is an excerpt describing the thought process behind the initiative:
Breakthrough Energy Ventures counts Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Jack Ma of Alibaba, Richard Branson of Virgin, Reid Hoffman of LinkedIn, and a handful of others among its board.
Their goal: to invest in new breakthroughs that have the potential to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions “by at least half a gigaton.”
That difference must be achieved across five areas, they said: electricity, transportation, agriculture, manufacturing and buildings.
“Some of these investments will result in ideas that move forward and some won’t; developing some may even make work on others unnecessary,” they said.
Together, the group’s combined total wealth is about $170 billion, according to Business Insider.
Ventures is part of a larger Coalition founded last year to inject private innovation and research dollars into new energy technologies. Government research alone will not solve the open-ended conundrum, they said. To find the solution, there are probably dead-ends that need to be investigated – perhaps at a net loss of capital.
As you can see by the names listed in the first paragraph -- the backers are 'heavy hitters'. Very successful Chief Executives that have produced wealth and supported massive change in supply and demand areas in our economy over the years. Their combined wealth is $170 billion -- WOW!
I state that the CEO's listed have produced massive wealth and changes in supply and demand. One might be wondering what exactly I mean by this. I will explain below.
By creating change in the way supply and demand exists in our world, these CEO's have literally transformed our society. Think about the changes alone of just Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates. Bill Gates has competitively changed our life as we know it with the products of Microsoft. Not to mention the purchasing power that the online market offers with the addition of Amazon. A person can order a variety of items (groceries, books, audio products, tech gadgets, etc.) with the push of a button using their distribution system.
Now, a person might be reading this blog post and cite the jobs lost as a result of technology change with the production/distribution lines in factories being lost to Robots. I would argue that a loss of a job going to a Robot is a creating of a job going toward a renewable energy position. 'Work smarter not harder.'
Putting employees in high level jobs -- creating renewable energy -- would offer the new employees experience in operating data collection systems. These systems that monitor the creation and distribution of energy would result in optimizing the system and reduce threats to the system over time. The overall achievement would be to have unemployed people working and a more intelligent (more highly skilled) labor force.
Other CEO's listed above are spearheading 'green movements' on their own which enable them to join the coalition. Sir Richard Branson has a large part of his business 'Virgin Atlantic' devoted to thinking sustainably. Back in 2014, he purchased a 74-acre island (Necker Island) in the British Virin Islands and started thinking about powering the land solely by 'renewable energy.' This thought process led to the creation of "The Carbon War Room" -- whose mission is stated in 2 minutes in the following video below:
As highlighted in the video above, the total thinking on behalf of companies has shifted toward a renewable energy based mindset. And as a result, there will be inevitably job creation as these new industries develop solutions to the challenge of reducing the carbon footprint by a gigaton per year.
What Does The Data Say?
In a recent study highlighted on the website "Science Daily" in an article titled "Natural gas and wind are the lowest-cost generation technologies for much of the U. S." a wonderful and positive result for the renewable energy industry was reported. The study aimed to map the "Levelized Cost of Electricity" per county across the United States.
Result: wind and natural gas technologies stand out as the cheapest across the Nation!
How did the authors arrive at the conclusion? What were the considerations in the study?
Here is an excerpt from the paper on 'Science Daily':
Researchers categorized the electricity system into three principal components: consumers; generation technologies; and the wires, poles, storage and other hardware required to connect end users and generators. Taken as a whole, the white papers assess the interaction among these three components, as well as costs often considered external to the electricity system, such as environmental effects and public health impacts.
"These are complex, interrelated issues that cannot be adequately addressed from one perspective," said Dr. Tom Edgar, director of the Energy Institute. "We assembled a cross-disciplinary team to provide a fuller understanding of these costs and their policy implications."
For the white paper on power generation costs, researchers used data from existing studies to enhance a formula known as the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE). In addition to including public health impacts and environmental effects -- which the LCOE typically does not -- the research team used data to calculate county-specific costs for each technology.
Other considerations include:
The FCe- study examined numerous factors affecting the cost of electricity generation, including:
1)Power Plant Costs (both operating and capital costs)
2)Environmental and Health Costs (air quality, greenhouse gases)
3)Infrastructure Costs (transmission & distribution lines, rail, pipelines)
4)Fuel Cost (variability, full fuel cycle)
5)Integration of renewable and distributed energy resources
6)Energy Efficiency
7)Government financial support for electricity generation (subsidies)
This is just one of a few studies that have emerged with indisputable data showing that renewable energy is starting to become a prominent player in the energy market. The 'white paper' for the study above can be found by clicking - here. The diagram with low resolution of the different sources and their geographical location are shown below:
I will be the first person to admit that certain aspects of renewable energy have a distance to go before being realized. A major obstacle to the generation of renewable energy is what to do with the energy afterward? How do the energy companies deal with the tremendous amount of energy to be stored? This is where battery technology could be further developed and optimized to fill in the gap.
Regardless, the data from the study above and others like it are promising and cannot be denied. More on this subject in the future on this site.
Conclusion...
Renewable energy offers the opportunity for large job growth in the future according to the accounts above. You don't have to believe me necessarily. There are plenty of high-level CEO's discussing the possibility. Which is great. I am a huge proponent of the private sector contributing to 'science funding'. In a blog post a few months ago, I wrote about how the supposed '1%' could give (in funding) to elevate science research. As highlighted above by Mr. Bill Gates, the funding will be multi-faceted and long range down the line. The process is not a short sprint, but a long marathon for the future of renewable energy production.
As with any race or run, there must be a course to run (a plan), the proper protection (i.e., police) of the course during the run (Federal dollar protection - investment). And there must be 'runners'. In the paragraphs above, the 'runners' (Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Sir Richard Branson, etc.) do exist -- which is extremely encouraging.
Lets hope in closing that the support of the plan comes in by enlisting the federal government to back these projects up. With the support of all entities, growth in the renewable market is not only possible, but jobs will be created in the process. This will be directly in line with the President-elect's 'bringing jobs back' and 'making America great again' slogans.
Currently, there is a data revolution occurring in the world. Recent articles in professional journals often highlight the need for science based data degrees. The hope is to have data scientists migrate often away from the field of science into more lucrative jobs crunching numbers to determine how to increase the number of "likes" and the sort. Add to that craziness, and you get big organizations like the National Football league joining the party of 'big data' collection. The question is the following:
What is the NFL going to do with the 'big data' collected?
In order to find out a few of the possibilities, one must continue to read below. The possibilities are endless, although, the initial reasons are restrictive.
What data are they collecting that is not already being collected?
I was confused by the title of the article, since, one would think that a huge organization like the NFL would already have an enormous amount of data. Think about the gambling industry across the world and their profits on sports. One would imagine that big data has played a significant role already in generating an enormous amount of profits from big data. Evidently not. Hard to believe.
According to the article mentioned, the NFL is just entering the field of "Big Data":
In some potentially game-changing news for the way we understand professional football, the National Football League began the 2016 preseason by placing tracking sensors in its footballs for the first time. The chips are also in balls used in Thursday night games.
Over the past decade, we’ve seen an explosion in data analytics in sports, particularly on the professional level. Technological advances in cameras and sensors have allowed teams, media and fans to gain insight into a bunch of previously gray areas of sport performance, such as the National Basketball Association’s use of SportVU to track every bit of player and ball movement on the floor.
The concept of integrating numbers and analysis into scouting, training and coaching isn’t new. But access to powerful hardware and software has greatly increased the quality and quantity of available data. A nearly insatiable appetite for data on sports has created a sports analytics market that is set to grow from the millions to the multiple billions of dollars over the next few years.
The amount of data generated during each game would be enormous. By keeping the sensor limited to the football and possibly the sidelines, the data generated would be reduced too. Although, with a reduction of data flowing in from the game, the accuracy of the plays suffer too. The author mentions that the next step would be to incorporate sensors into the players 'shoulder pads' - which would increase the data stream coming in.
Overall, the practice would be transformative to the entire industry. I wonder how that would change the challenges that referees face during the game. Currently, during a challenge, the play is reviewed on a closed circuit screen available to the referee and officials only. With the rise of sensors, now the game can be analyzed by each team in real time. Although, the technology is not distributed in real time yet.
Any avenue of improvement that the coaching staff can incorporate into the teams training regimen would be greatly sought after. Currently, teams are exploring both game simulators and drone coverage of their practices to improve overall flow. The incorporation of data from the NFL offers two great aspects of improvement:
Ideally, data from ball trackers or shoulder pad trackers could serve two purposes for the NFL. First, it can help teams understand player movement and the flow of play more completely, providing coaches a greater understanding on how players are physically performing during plays, and allowing for input from coaches to players on how to fix their technique to increase efficiency or limit exposure to injury, possibly leading to more efficient training and practice.
Second, the data can be used by the league’s media partners, and perhaps its fans, to further explain the game to audiences, particularly on television. By tracking player movement digitally, clearer representations of what makes individual football plays succeed (or fail) can be provided. These data also allow media to break down individual physical accomplishments, such as extraordinary bursts of speed by wide receivers.
The NFL’s plan to release tracking data within 24 hours of a game’s end points to a future in the league where hard data on player and ball movement are integrated into the daily strategic calculations of each coaching staff. This will likely create a rush to innovation within NFL coaching, as each staff grapples with what will likely be a huge amount of data every week, trying to come up with best practices and analytical methods for evaluating and using that data constructively.
Of course, generating a tremendous amount of data means that the NFL along with individual teams that participate need to have the technological infrastructure (computing power, data scientists, etc.) to make meaningful use of the data coming into the organization. This requires both technology and scientists to handle that technology in a fruitful manner.
That means scientists will be taken away from professional fields in which they were trained to contribute. Is this good?
NFL Data Science Improves Science Indirectly
There are a tremendous amount of scientists who are interested in sports. At least, that is my impression after going through the university system in a science driven field -- through an advanced degree program. The prospect of losing a scientist to the NFL organization at first sight might seem unethical. Scientists should stick within their field (discipline) right?
Not necessarily. There might be many benefits by losing data scientist to the NFL. First, the scientist working for the NFL will inevitably have a appropriate infrastructure to handle the large amounts of data coming in. In science, funding is scarce and often sought out among many research groups.
I have always maintained that in order to improve the funding for science, we need the entertainment industry and the sports industry to get involved (financially and technologically) to boost the ability of science. Why? Not all great ideas come from working on science problems in science.
What do I mean by this last statement?
A famous story about the world famous physicist Albert Einstein revolves around generating his best ideas while shaving. Successful people will often tell stories of ideas which have been generated about their business while performing outside work or tasks. The shower or shaving are just two.
Additionally, while performing a job outside a given field, a scientist may gain insight into the problems within their field. This methodology is sometimes referred to as "thinking outside the box." By tackling problems associated with dealing with large data sets like players in a game, other problems might be tackled using different algorithms. Can you think of any? I can.
One such problem is tracking people in real time in a city and finding potential threats (WM -- chemical and biological weapons, etc.). Sifting through the data to find meaningful answers might improve the governments ability to sift through data to find a threat. Although, the funding opportunities to develop an algorithm or simulation might be too costly on part of the city. Therefore, having organizations such as the sports organizations tackling the data regarding player movement within a given region (on field inside a stadium) will inevitably improve our ability to detect a threat.
As most of us know, the entertainment industry is rich in funding and not at a loss for funding such interesting projects. Alternatively, new algorithms will be made (which are proprietary for the NFL) to tackle the issue of analyzing real-time data. But the inherent thinking or structure of mining the data is what is critical. After that is known, then an algorithm could be changed to achieve that specific problem. This prospect offers a great future to science and society in the future.
Conclusion...
The correlations which will arise as a result of data mining real-time player information have yet to be realized. By the descriptions in the cited article above, we are just at the tip of the iceberg in terms of finding relationships within such data sets. Additionally, no one knows the benefit or adverse effect the data mining will have on both the gaming (gambling industry) and the NFL organization.
Hopefully, out of such data mining algorithms, safer players (with less injuries, etc.) will result. Science will inevitably benefit out of the data mining processes that are developed. I have no doubt about that. Scientists are interested in sports and already use the industry to approach problems in science. Even if progress is made on the initial thought process of how to find correlations in the data, I believe that meaningful results will arise from the exercise. Initial findings suggest that this is the case. Although, as I mentioned, we are just at the 'tip of the iceberg' in the process. Stay tuned!
