Search This Blog

Monday, May 17, 2021

Superheavy element

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheavy_element
Transactinide elements
in the periodic table
Hydrogen
Helium
Lithium Beryllium
Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon
Sodium Magnesium
Aluminium Silicon Phosphorus Sulfur Chlorine Argon
Potassium Calcium
Scandium Titanium Vanadium Chromium Manganese Iron Cobalt Nickel Copper Zinc Gallium Germanium Arsenic Selenium Bromine Krypton
Rubidium Strontium

Yttrium Zirconium Niobium Molybdenum Technetium Ruthenium Rhodium Palladium Silver Cadmium Indium Tin Antimony Tellurium Iodine Xenon
Caesium Barium Lanthanum Cerium Praseodymium Neodymium Promethium Samarium Europium Gadolinium Terbium Dysprosium Holmium Erbium Thulium Ytterbium Lutetium Hafnium Tantalum Tungsten Rhenium Osmium Iridium Platinum Gold Mercury (element) Thallium Lead Bismuth Polonium Astatine Radon
Francium Radium Actinium Thorium Protactinium Uranium Neptunium Plutonium Americium Curium Berkelium Californium Einsteinium Fermium Mendelevium Nobelium Lawrencium Rutherfordium Dubnium Seaborgium Bohrium Hassium Meitnerium Darmstadtium Roentgenium Copernicium Nihonium Flerovium Moscovium Livermorium Tennessine Oganesson
Z ≥ 104 (Rf)

Superheavy elements, also known as transactinide elements, transactinides, or super-heavy elements, are the chemical elements with atomic numbers greater than 103. The superheavy elements are immediately beyond the actinides in the periodic table; the heaviest actinide is lawrencium (atomic number 103). By definition, superheavy elements are also transuranic elements, i.e. having atomic numbers greater than that of uranium (92).

Glenn T. Seaborg first proposed the actinide concept, which led to the acceptance of the actinide series. He also proposed a transactinide series ranging from element 104 to 121 and a superactinide series approximately spanning elements 122 to 153 (although more recent work suggests the end of the superactinide series to occur at element 157 instead). The transactinide seaborgium was named in his honor.

Superheavy elements are radioactive and have only been obtained synthetically in laboratories. None of these elements have ever been collected in a macroscopic sample. Superheavy elements are all named after physicists and chemists or important locations involved in the synthesis of the elements.

IUPAC defines an element to exist if its lifetime is longer than 10−14 seconds, which is the time it takes for the nucleus to form an electron cloud.

The known superheavy elements form part of the 6d and 7p series in the periodic table. Except for rutherfordium and dubnium, even the longest-lasting isotopes of superheavy elements have short half-lives of minutes or less. The element naming controversy involved elements 102–109. Some of these elements thus used systematic names for many years after their discovery had been confirmed. (Usually the systematic names are replaced with permanent names proposed by the discoverers relatively shortly after a discovery has been confirmed.)

Introduction

Synthesis of superheavy nuclei

A graphic depiction of a nuclear fusion reaction
A graphic depiction of a nuclear fusion reaction. Two nuclei fuse into one, emitting a neutron. Reactions that created new elements to this moment were similar, with the only possible difference that several singular neutrons sometimes were released, or none at all.

A superheavy atomic nucleus is created in a nuclear reaction that combines two other nuclei of unequal size into one; roughly, the more unequal the two nuclei in terms of mass, the greater the possibility that the two react. The material made of the heavier nuclei is made into a target, which is then bombarded by the beam of lighter nuclei. Two nuclei can only fuse into one if they approach each other closely enough; normally, nuclei (all positively charged) repel each other due to electrostatic repulsion. The strong interaction can overcome this repulsion but only within a very short distance from a nucleus; beam nuclei are thus greatly accelerated in order to make such repulsion insignificant compared to the velocity of the beam nucleus. The energy applied to the beam nuclei to accelerate them can cause them to reach speeds as high as one-tenth of the speed of light. However, if too much energy is applied, the beam nucleus can fall apart. Coming close enough alone is not enough for two nuclei to fuse: when two nuclei approach each other, they usually remain together for approximately 10−20 seconds and then part ways (not necessarily in the same composition as before the reaction) rather than form a single nucleus. This happens because during the attempted formation of a single nucleus, electrostatic repulsion tears apart the nucleus that is being formed. Each pair of a target and a beam is characterized by its cross section—the probability that fusion will occur if two nuclei approach one another expressed in terms of the transverse area that the incident particle must hit in order for the fusion to occur. This fusion may occur as a result of the quantum effect in which nuclei can tunnel through electrostatic repulsion. If the two nuclei can stay close for past that phase, multiple nuclear interactions result in redistribution of energy and an energy equilibrium.

The resulting merger is an excited state—termed a compound nucleus—and thus it is very unstable. To reach a more stable state, the temporary merger may fission without formation of a more stable nucleus. Alternatively, the compound nucleus may eject a few neutrons, which would carry away the excitation energy; if the latter is not sufficient for a neutron expulsion, the merger would produce a gamma ray. This happens in approximately 10−16 seconds after the initial nuclear collision and results in creation of a more stable nucleus. The definition by the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party (JWP) states that a chemical element can only be recognized as discovered if a nucleus of it has not decayed within 10−14 seconds. This value was chosen as an estimate of how long it takes a nucleus to acquire its outer electrons and thus display its chemical properties.

Decay and detection

The beam passes through the target and reaches the next chamber, the separator; if a new nucleus is produced, it is carried with this beam. In the separator, the newly produced nucleus is separated from other nuclides (that of the original beam and any other reaction products) and transferred to a surface-barrier detector, which stops the nucleus. The exact location of the upcoming impact on the detector is marked; also marked are its energy and the time of the arrival. The transfer takes about 10−6 seconds; in order to be detected, the nucleus must survive this long. The nucleus is recorded again once its decay is registered, and the location, the energy, and the time of the decay are measured.

Stability of a nucleus is provided by the strong interaction. However, its range is very short; as nuclei become larger, its influence on the outermost nucleons (protons and neutrons) weakens. At the same time, the nucleus is torn apart by electrostatic repulsion between protons, and its range is not limited. Total binding energy provided by the strong interaction increases linearly with the number of nucleons, whereas electrostatic repulsion increases with the square of the atomic number, i.e. the latter grows faster and becomes increasingly important for heavy and superheavy nuclei. Superheavy nuclei are thus theoretically predicted and have so far been observed to predominantly decay via decay modes that are caused by such repulsion: alpha decay and spontaneous fission. Almost all alpha emitters have over 210 nucleons, and the lightest nuclide primarily undergoing spontaneous fission has 238. In both decay modes, nuclei are inhibited from decaying by corresponding energy barriers for each mode, but they can be tunnelled through.

Apparatus for creation of superheavy elements
Scheme of an apparatus for creation of superheavy elements, based on the Dubna Gas-Filled Recoil Separator set up in the Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions in JINR. The trajectory within the detector and the beam focusing apparatus changes because of a dipole magnet in the former and quadrupole magnets in the latter.

Alpha particles are commonly produced in radioactive decays because mass of an alpha particle per nucleon is small enough to leave some energy for the alpha particle to be used as kinetic energy to leave the nucleus. Spontaneous fission is caused by electrostatic repulsion tearing the nucleus apart and produces various nuclei in different instances of identical nuclei fissioning. As the atomic number increases, spontaneous fission rapidly becomes more important: spontaneous fission partial half-lives decrease by 23 orders of magnitude from uranium (element 92) to nobelium (element 102), and by 30 orders of magnitude from thorium (element 90) to fermium (element 100). The earlier liquid drop model thus suggested that spontaneous fission would occur nearly instantly due to disappearance of the fission barrier for nuclei with about 280 nucleons. The later nuclear shell model suggested that nuclei with about 300 nucleons would form an island of stability in which nuclei will be more resistant to spontaneous fission and will primarily undergo alpha decay with longer half-lives. Subsequent discoveries suggested that the predicted island might be further than originally anticipated; they also showed that nuclei intermediate between the long-lived actinides and the predicted island are deformed, and gain additional stability from shell effects. Experiments on lighter superheavy nuclei, as well as those closer to the expected island, have shown greater than previously anticipated stability against spontaneous fission, showing the importance of shell effects on nuclei.

Alpha decays are registered by the emitted alpha particles, and the decay products are easy to determine before the actual decay; if such a decay or a series of consecutive decays produces a known nucleus, the original product of a reaction can be easily determined. (That all decays within a decay chain were indeed related to each other is established by the location of these decays, which must be in the same place.) The known nucleus can be recognized by the specific characteristics of decay it undergoes such as decay energy (or more specifically, the kinetic energy of the emitted particle). Spontaneous fission, however, produces various nuclei as products, so the original nuclide cannot be determined from its daughters.

The information available to physicists aiming to synthesize a superheavy element is thus the information collected at the detectors: location, energy, and time of arrival of a particle to the detector, and those of its decay. The physicists analyze this data and seek to conclude that it was indeed caused by a new element and could not have been caused by a different nuclide than the one claimed. Often, provided data is insufficient for a conclusion that a new element was definitely created and there is no other explanation for the observed effects; errors in interpreting data have been made.

History

Early predictions

The heaviest element known at the end of the 19th century was uranium, with an atomic mass of approximately 240 (now known to be 238) amu. Accordingly, it was placed in the last row of the periodic table; this fueled speculation about the possible existence of elements heavier than uranium and why A = 240 seemed to be the limit. Following the discovery of the noble gases, beginning with that of argon in 1895, the possibility of heavier members of the group was considered. Danish chemist Julius Thomsen proposed in 1895 the existence of a sixth noble gas with Z = 86, A = 212 and a seventh with Z = 118, A = 292, the last closing a 32-element period containing thorium and uranium. In 1913, Swedish physicist Johannes Rydberg extended Thomsen's extrapolation of the periodic table to include even heavier elements with atomic numbers up to 460, but he did not believe that these superheavy elements existed or occurred in nature.

In 1914, German physicist Richard Swinne proposed that elements heavier than uranium, such as those around Z = 108, could be found in cosmic rays. He suggested that these elements may not necessarily have decreasing half-lives with increasing atomic number, leading to speculation about the possibility of some longer-lived elements at Z = 98–102 and Z = 108–110 (though separated by short-lived elements). Swinne published these predictions in 1926, believing that such elements might exist in the Earth's core, in iron meteorites, or in the ice caps of Greenland where they had been locked up from their supposed cosmic origin.

Discoveries

Work performed from 1964 to 2013 at four laboratories – the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in the US, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in the USSR (later Russia), the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Germany, and RIKEN in Japan – identified and confirmed the elements from rutherfordium to oganesson according to the criteria of the IUPACIUPAP Transfermium Working Groups and subsequent Joint Working Parties. These discoveries complete the seventh row of the periodic table. The remaining two transactinides, ununennium (element 119) and unbinilium (element 120), have not yet been synthesized. They would begin an eighth period.

List of Elements

Characteristics

Due to their short half-lives (for example, the most stable known isotope of seaborgium has a half-life of 14 minutes, and half-lives decrease gradually going to the right of the group) and the low yield of the nuclear reactions that produce them, new methods have had to be created to determine their gas-phase and solution chemistry based on very small samples of a few atoms each. Relativistic effects become very important in this region of the periodic table, causing the filled 7s orbitals, empty 7p orbitals, and filling 6d orbitals to all contract inwards toward the atomic nucleus. This causes a relativistic stabilization of the 7s electrons and makes the 7p orbitals accessible in low excitation states.

Elements 103 to 112, lawrencium through copernicium, may be taken to form the 6d series of transition elements. Experimental evidence shows that elements 103–108 behave as expected for their position in the periodic table, as heavier homologues of lutetium through osmium. They are expected to have ionic radii between those of their 5d transition metal homologs and their actinide pseudohomologs: for example, Rf4+ is calculated to have ionic radius 76 pm, between the values for Hf4+ (71 pm) and Th4+ (94 pm). Their ions should also be less polarizable than those of their 5d homologs. Relativistic effects are expected to reach a maximum at the end of this series, at roentgenium (element 111) and copernicium (element 112). Nevertheless, many important properties of the transactinides are still not yet known experimentally, though theoretical calculations have been performed.

Elements 113 to 118, nihonium through oganesson, should form a 7p series, completing the seventh period in the periodic table. Their chemistry will be greatly influenced by the very strong relativistic stabilization of the 7s electrons and a strong spin-orbit coupling effect "tearing" the 7p subshell apart into two sections, one more stabilized (7p1/2, holding two electrons) and one more destabilized (7p3/2, holding four electrons). Additionally, the 6d electrons are still destabilized in this region and hence may be able to contribute some transition metal character to the first few 7p elements. Lower oxidation states should be stabilized here, continuing group trends, as both the 7s and 7p1/2 electrons exhibit the inert pair effect. These elements are expected to largely continue to follow group trends, though with relativistic effects playing an increasingly larger role. In particular, the large 7p splitting results in an effective shell closure at flerovium (element 114) and a hence much higher than expected chemical activity for oganesson (element 118).

Element 118 is the last element that has been synthesized. The next two elements, elements 119 and 120, should form an 8s series and be an alkali and alkaline earth metal respectively. The 8s electrons are expected to be relativistically stabilized, so that the trend towards higher reactivity down these groups will reverse direction and the elements will behave more like their period 5 homologs, rubidium and strontium. Nevertheless, the 7p3/2 orbital is still relativistically destabilized, potentially giving these elements larger ionic radii and perhaps even being able to participate chemically. In this region, the 8p electrons are also relativistically stabilized, resulting in a ground-state 8s28p1 valence electron configuration for element 121. Large changes are expected to occur in the subshell structure in going from element 120 to element 121: for example, the radius of the 5g orbitals should drop drastically, from 25 Bohr units in element 120 in the excited [Og] 5g1 8s1 configuration to 0.8 Bohr units in element 121 in the excited [Og] 5g1 7d1 8s1 configuration, in a phenomenon called "radial collapse". Element 122 should add either a further 7d or a further 8p electron to element 121's electron configuration. Elements 121 and 122 should be similar to actinium and thorium, respectively.

At element 121, the superactinide series is expected to begin, when the 8s electrons and the filling 8p1/2, 7d3/2, 6f5/2, and 5g7/2 subshells determine the chemistry of these elements. Complete and accurate calculations are not available for elements beyond 123 because of the extreme complexity of the situation: the 5g, 6f, and 7d orbitals should have about the same energy level, and in the region of element 160 the 9s, 8p3/2, and 9p1/2 orbitals should also be about equal in energy. This will cause the electron shells to mix so that the block concept no longer applies very well, and will also result in novel chemical properties that will make positioning these elements in a periodic table very difficult; element 164 is expected to mix characteristics of the elements of group 10, 12, and 18.

Beyond superheavy elements

It has been suggested that elements beyond Z = 126 be called beyond superheavy elements.

Coal phase-out

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Top 5 coal consuming countries to 2017, US EIA data
 
The 1968 Farmington coal mine disaster kills 78 in West Virginia, United States

Coal phase-out means stopping burning coal for energy, and is part of fossil fuel phase-out. Coal is the most carbon intensive fossil fuel, therefore phasing it out is critical to limiting climate change and keeping global warming to 1.5°C as laid out in the Paris Climate Agreement. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that coal is responsible for over 30% of the global average temperature increase above pre-industrial levels. Several countries and financial institutions have taken initiatives to phase out coal out such as ending funding for building coal plants. The health and environmental benefits of coal phase-out, such as limiting biodiversity loss and respiratory diseases, are greater than the cost. It has been suggested that developed countries could finance the process for developing countries provided they do not build any more coal plants and do a just transition.

Coal phase-out by country

Africa

South Africa

As of 2007, South Africa's power sector is the 8th highest global emitter of CO2. In 2005/2006, 77% of South Africa's energy demand was directly met by coal, and when current projects come online, this ratio will increase in the near term.

There are no plans to phase out coal-fired power plants in South Africa, and indeed, the country is investing in building massive amounts of new coal-fired capacity to meet power demands, as well as modernizing the existing coal-fired plants to meet environmental requirements.

On 6 April 2010, the World Bank approved a $3.75B loan to South Africa to support the construction of the world's 4th largest coal-fired plant, at Medupi. The proposed World Bank loan includes a relatively small amount – $260 million – for wind and solar power.

Rated at 4800 MW, Medupi Power Station would join other mammoth coal-fired power plants already in operation in the country, namely Kendal Power Station (4100 MW), Majuba Power Station (4100 MW), and Matimba Power Station (4000 MW), as well as a similar-capacity Kusile Power Station, at 4800 MW, currently under construction. Kusile is expected to come online in stages, starting in 2012, while Medupi is expected to first come online in 2013, with full capacity available by 2017. These schedules are provisional, and may change.

Since 2008, South Africa's government started funding solar water heating installations. As of January 2016, there have been 400 000 domestic installations in total, with free-of-charge installation of low-pressure solar water heaters for low-cost homes or low-income households which have access to the electricity grid, while other installations are subsidised.

Americas

Canada

In 2005, Canada annually burned 60 million tonnes of coal, mainly for electrical power, increasing by 15 percent annually. In November 2016, the Government of Canada announced plans to phase out coal-fired electricity generation by 2030. As of 2020, only four provinces burn coal to generate electricity: Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan. Canada aims to generate 90% of its electricity from non-emitting sources by 2030. Already, it generates 82% from non-emitting sources.

Beginning in 2005, Ontario planned coal phase-out legislation as a part of the Ontario electricity policy. The province annually consumed 15 million tonnes of coal in large power plants to supplement nuclear power. Nanticoke Generating Station was a major source of air pollution, and Ontario suffered "smog days" during the summer. In 2007, Ontario's Liberal government committed to phasing out all coal generation in the province by 2014. Premier Dalton McGuinty said, "By 2030 there will be about 1,000 more new coal-fired generating stations built on this planet. There is only one place in the world that is phasing out coal-fired generation and we're doing that right here in Ontario." The Ontario Power Authority projected that in 2014, with no coal generation, the largest sources of electrical power in the province will be nuclear (57 percent), hydroelectricity (25 percent), and natural gas (11 percent). In April 2014, Ontario was the first jurisdiction in North America to eliminate coal in electricity generation. The final coal plant in Ontario, Thunder Bay Generating Station, stopped burning coal in April 2014.

United States

In 2017, fossil fuels provided 81 percent of the energy consumed in the United States, down from 86 percent in 2000.

Year Electrical
generation
from coal (TWh)
Total
electrical
generation (TWh)
%
from
coal
Number of
coal
plants
2002 1,933 3,858 50.1% 633
2003 1,974 3,883 50.8% 629
2004 1,978 3,971 49.8% 625
2005 2,013 4,055 49.6% 619
2006 1,991 4,065 49.0% 616
2007 2,016 4,157 48.5% 606
2008 1,986 4,119 48.2% 598
2009 1,756 3,950 44.4% 593
2010 1,847 4,125 44.8% 580
2011 1,733 4,100 42.3% 589
2012 1,514 4,048 37.4% 557
2013 1,581 4,066 38.9% 518
2014 1,582 4,094 38.6% 491
2015 1,352 4,078 33.2% 427
2016 1,239 4,077 30.4% 381
2017 1,206 4,034 29.9% 359
2018 1,146 4,174 27.5% 336
Estimated effect of a carbon tax on sources of United States electrical generation (US Energy Information Administration)
Total energy consumption in the US by source: comparing fossil fuels with nuclear and renewable energy
US electrical generation: fossil fuels vs. nuclear and renewable energy

In 2007, 154 new coal-fired plants were on the drawing board in 42 states. By 2012, that had dropped to 15, mostly due to new rules limiting mercury emissions, and limiting carbon emissions to 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity produced.

In July 2013, US Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz outlined Obama administration policy on fossil fuels:

In the last four years, we’ve more than doubled renewable energy generation from wind and solar power. However, coal and other fossil fuels still provide 80 percent of our energy, 70 percent of our electricity, and will be a major part of our energy future for decades. That’s why any serious effort to protect our kids from the worst effects of climate change must also include developing, demonstrating and deploying the technologies to use our abundant fossil fuel resources as cleanly as possible.

Then-US Energy Secretary Steven Chu and researchers for the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory have noted that greater electrical generation by non-dispatchable renewables, such as wind and solar, will also increase the need for flexible natural gas-powered generators, to supply electricity during those times when solar and wind power are unavailable. Gas-powered generators have the ability to ramp up and down quickly to meet changing loads.

In the US, many of the fossil fuel phase-out initiatives have taken place at the state or local levels.

California electricity generation by source, 2010 (data from US EIA)
Sources of electricity generated in Maine. 2010 (US EIA)
Sources of electricity generated in Texas, 2010 (US EIA)
Sources of electricity generation in Washington state, 2010 (US EIA)
California

California's SB 1368 created the first governmental moratorium on new coal plants in the United States. The law was signed in September 2006 by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, took effect for investor-owned utilities in January 2007, and took effect for publicly owned utilities in August 2007. SB 1368 applied to long-term investments (five years or more) by California utilities, whether in-state or out-of-state. It set the standard for greenhouse gas emissions at 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, equal to the emissions of a combined-cycle natural gas plant. This standard created a de facto moratorium on new coal, since it could not be met without carbon capture and sequestration.

Maine

On 15 April 2008, Maine Governor John E. Baldacci signed LD 2126, "An Act To Minimize Carbon Dioxide Emissions from New Coal-Powered Industrial and Electrical Generating Facilities in the State." The law, which was sponsored by Rep. W. Bruce MacDonald (D-Boothbay), requires the Board of Environmental Protection to develop greenhouse gas emission standards for coal gasification facilities. It also puts a moratorium in place on building any new coal gasification facilities until the standards are developed.

Oregon

In early March 2016, Oregon lawmakers approved a plan to stop paying for out-of-state coal plants by 2030 and require a 50 percent renewable energy standard by 2040. Environmental groups such as the American Wind Energy Association and leading Democrats praised the bill.

Texas

In 2006, a coalition of Texas groups organized a campaign in favor of a statewide moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. The campaign culminated in a "Stop the Coal Rush" mobilization, including rallying and lobbying, at the state capital in Austin on 11 and 12 February 2007. Over 40 citizen groups supported the mobilization.

In January 2007, a resolution calling for a 180-day moratorium on new pulverized coal plants was filed in the Texas Legislature by State Rep. Charles "Doc" Anderson (R-Waco) as House Concurrent Resolution 43. The resolution was left pending in committee. On 4 December 2007, Rep. Anderson announced his support for two proposed integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) coal plants proposed by Luminant (formerly TXU).

Washington state

Washington has followed the same approach as California, prohibiting coal plants whose emissions would exceed those of natural gas plants. Substitute Senate Bill 6001 (SSB 6001), signed on 3 May 2007, by Governor Christine Gregoire, enacted the standard. As a result of SSB 6001, the Pacific Mountain Energy Center in Kalama was rejected by the state. However, a new plant proposal, the Wallula Energy Resource Center, shows the limits of the "natural gas equivalency" approach as a means of prohibiting new coal plants. The proposed plant would meet the standard set by SSB 6001 by capturing and sequestering a portion (65 percent, according to a plant spokesman) of its carbon.

Utility action in the US
  • Progress Energy Carolinas announced on 1 June 2007, that it was beginning a two-year moratorium on proposals for new coal-fired power plants while it undertook more aggressive efficiency and conservation programs. The company added, "Additional reductions in future electricity demand growth through energy efficiency could push the need for new power plants farther into the future."
  • Public Service of Colorado concluded in its November 2007 Resource Plan: "In sum, in light of the now likely regulation of CO2 emissions in the future due to broader interest in climate change issues, the increased costs of constructing new coal facilities, and the increased risk of timely permitting to meet planned in-service dates, Public Service does not believe it would not be prudent to consider at this time any proposals for new coal plants that do not include CO2 capture and sequestration.
  • Xcel Energy noted in its 2007 Resource Plan that "given the likelihood of future carbon regulation, we have only modeled a future coal-based resource option that includes carbon capture and storage."
  • Minnesota Power Company announced in December 2007 that it would not consider a new coal resource without a carbon solution.
  • Avista Utilities announced that it does not anticipate pursuing coal-fired power plants in the foreseeable future.
  • NorthWestern Energy announced on 17 December 2007, that it planned to double its wind power capacity over the next seven years and steer away from new baseload coal plants. The plans are detailed in the company's 2007 Montana Electric Supply Resource Plan.
  • California Energy Commission (CEC) has initiated its review of two 53.4-megawatt solar thermal power plants that will each include a 40-megawatt biomass power plant to supplement the solar power.

Asia

China

China is confident of achieving a rich zero carbon economy by 2050.

China's exceedingly high energy demand has pushed the demand for relatively cheap coal-fired power. Each week, another 2 GW of coal-fired power is put online in China. Coal supplies about 80% of China's energy needs today, and that ratio is expected to continue, even as overall power usage grows rapidly. Serious air quality deterioration has resulted from the massive use of coal and many Chinese cities suffer severe smog events.

As a consequence the region of Beijing has decided to phase out all its coal-fired power generation by the end of 2015.

In 2009, China had 172 GW of installed hydro capacity the largest in the world, producing 16% of China's electricity, the Eleventh Five-Year Plan has set a 300 GW target for 2020. China built the world's largest power plant of any kind, the Three Gorges Dam.

In addition to the huge investments in coal power, China has 32 nuclear reactors under construction, the highest number in the world.

Analysis in 2016, showed that China's coal consumption appears to have peaked in 2014.

India

Coal Production in India, with a 1959-2020 axis (appears to end at 2012)

India is the third largest consumer of coal in the world. India's federal energy minister is planning to stop importing thermal coal by 2018. The annual report of India's Power Ministry has a plan to grow power by about 80 GW as part of their 11th 5-year plan, and 79% of that growth will be in fossil fuel–fired power plants, primarily coal. India plans four new "ultra mega" coal-fired power plants as part of that growth, each 4000 MW in capacity. As of 2015, there are six nuclear reactors under construction. In the first half of 2016, the amount of coal-fired generating capacity in pre-construction planning in India fell by 40,000 MW, according to results released by the Global Coal Plant Tracker. In June 2016, India's Ministry of Power stated that no further power plants would be required in the next three years, and "any thermal power plant that has yet to begin construction should back off."

In cement production, carbon neutral biomass is being used to replace coal for reducing carbon foot print drastically.

Japan

Japan, the world's third-largest economy, made a major move to use more fossil fuels in 2012, when the nation shut down nuclear reactors following the Fukishima accident. Nuclear, which had supplied 30 percent of Japanese electricity from 1987 to 2011, supplied only 2 percent in 2012 (hydropower supplied 8 percent). Nuclear electricity was replaced with electricity from petroleum, coal, and liquified natural gas. As a result, electricity generation from fossil fuels rose to 90 percent in 2012.

In January 2017, the Japanese government announced plans to build 45 new coal-fired power plants in the next ten years, largely to replace expensive electricity from petroleum power plants.

Europe

In July 2014, CAN Europe, WWF European Policy Office, HEAL, EEB and Climate-Alliance Germany published a report calling for the decommissioning of the thirty most polluting coal-fired power plants in Europe.

Austria

Austria closed its last coal power plant in 2020.

Belgium

After the government denied a 2009 application to build a new power plant in Antwerp, the Langerlo power station burned its last ton of coal in March 2016, ending the use of coal fired power plants in Belgium.

Denmark

As part of their Climate Policy Plan, Denmark stated that it will phase out oil for heating purposes and coal by 2030. Additionally, their goal is to supply a 100% of their electricity and heating needs with renewable energy five years later (i.e. 2035).

Finland

In 2019, Finland enacted a ban of coal use for energy purposes starting in May 1st of 2029, ahead of the 2030 schedule discussed earlier. As of 2020, coal represented only 4.4 % of electricity generated in the country. Finland is a founding member of the Powering Past Coal Alliance along 18 other countries.

France

On 30 December 2017, Emmanuel Macron signed a law planning the end of fossil-fuel extraction in French territories.

In December 2017, to fight against global warming, France adopted a law banning new fossil fuel exploitation projects and closing current ones by 2040 in all of its territories. France thus became the first country to programme the end of fossil fuel exploitation.

Germany

3,500-4,000 environmental activists blocking a coal mine to limit climate change (Ende Gelände 2016).
German electricity generation by source, 2000–2017

Hard coal mining has long been subsidized in Germany, reaching a peak of €6.7 billion in 1996 and dropping to €2.7 billion in 2005 due to falling output. These subsidies represent a burden on public finances and imply a substantial opportunity cost, diverting funds away from other, more beneficial public investments.

In 2007, Germany announced plans to phase out hard coal-industry subsidies by 2018, a move which is expected to end hard coal mining in Germany. This exit is later than the EU-mandated end by 2014. Solar and wind are major sources of energy and renewable energy generation, around 15% as of December 2013, and growing. Coal is still the largest source of power in Germany.

In 2007, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her party agreed to legislation to phase out Germany's hard coal mining sector. That does not mean that they support phasing out coal in general. There were plans to build about 25 new plants in the coming years. Most German coal power plants were built in the 1960s, and have a low energy efficiency. Public sentiment against coal power plants is growing and the construction or planning of some plants has been stopped. A number are under construction and still being built. No concrete plan is in place to reduce coal-fired electricity generation. As of October 2015, the remaining coal plants still under planning include: Niederaussem, Profen, and Stade. The coal plants currently under construction include: Mannheim, Hamm D, Datteln, and Willhelmshaven. Between 2012 and 2015, six new plants went online. All of these plants are 600–1800  MWe.

In 2014, Germany's coal consumption dropped for the first time, having risen each year since the low during the 2009 recession.

A 2014 study, found that coal is not making a comeback in Germany, as is sometimes claimed. Rather renewables have more than offset the nuclear facilities that have been shut down as a result of Germany's nuclear phase-out (Atomausstieg). Hard coal plants now face financial stringency as their operating hours are cut back by the market. But in contrast, lignite-fired generation is in a safe position until the mid-2020s unless government policies change. To phase-out coal, Germany should seek to strength the emissions trading system (EU-ETS), consider a carbon tax, promote energy efficiency, and strengthen the use of natural gas as a bridge fuel.

In 2016, the German government and affected lignite power plant operators Mibrag, RWE, and Vattenfall reached an understanding (Verständigung) on the transfer of lignite power plant units into security standby (Überführung von Braunkohlekraftwerksblöcken in die Sicherheitsbereitschaft). As a result, eight lignite-fired power plants are to be mothballed and later closed, with the first plant scheduled to cease operation in October 2016 and the last in October 2019. The affected operators will receive state compensation for foregone profits. The European Commission has declared government plans to use €1.6 billion of public financing for this purpose to be in line with EU state aid rules.

A 2016 study, found that the phase-out of lignite in Lusatia (Lausitz) by 2030 can be financed by future owner EPH in a manner that avoids taxpayer involvement. Instead, liabilities covering decommissioning and land rehabilitation could be paid by EPH directly into a foundation, perhaps run by the public company LMBV. The study calculates the necessary provisions at €2.6 billion.

In November 2016, the German utility STEAG announced it will be decommissioning five coal-fired generating units in North Rhine-Westphalia and Saarland due to low wholesale electricity prices.

A coal phase-out for Germany is implied in Germany's Climate Action Plan 2050, environment minister Barbara Hendricks said in an interview on 21 November 2016. "If you read the Climate Action Plan carefully, you will find that the exit from coal-fired power generation is the immanent consequence of the energy sector target. ... By 2030 ... half of the coal-fired power production must have ended, compared to 2014", she said.

Plans to cut down the ancient Hambach Forest to extend the Hambach open pit mine in 2018 have resulted in massive protests. On 5 Oct 2018 a German court ruled against the further destruction of the forest for mining purposes. The ruling states, the court needs more time to reconsider the complaint. Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, welcomed the court's ruling. The forest is located approximately 29 km west of the city center of Cologne (specifically Cologne Cathedral).

In January 2019 the German Commission on Growth, Structural Change and Employment initiates Germany's plans to entirely phase out and shut down the 84 remaining coal-fired plants on its territory by 2038.

In May 2020 Germany commissioned the 1100 megawatt Datteln 4 coal-fired power plant after nearly a 10-year delay in construction.

Italy

As of 2020, Italy has still 9 coal power plant, for a total capacity of 7702 MW. Enel, Italy's largest power generator, intends to shut down 3 power plants in early 2021.

Netherlands

On 22 September 2016, the Dutch parliament voted for a 55% cut in CO
2
emissions by 2030, a move which would require the closure of the country's five coal-fired power plants. The vote is not binding on the government however.

Portugal

On 14 January 2021 Portugal turned off The Sines coal plant. The last remaining station (Pego) will be put offline in November 2021, making Portugal coal free.

Spain

In October 2018, the Sánchez government and Spanish Labour unions settled an agreement to close ten Spanish coal mines at the end of 2018. The government pre-engaged to spend 250 million Euro to pay for early retirements, occupational retraining and structural change. In 2018, about 2.3 percent of the electric energy produced in Spain was produced in coal-burning power plants.

Sweden

As of 2019 coal is used to a limited extent to fuel three co-generation plants in Sweden that produces electricity and district heating. The operators of these plants plan to phase out coal by 2020, 2022 and 2025 respectively. In August 2019 one of the three remaining coal burning power producers announced that they had phased out coal prematurely in 2019 instead of 2020. Värtaverket was scheduled to close in 2022, but closed in 2020.

In addition to heat and power coal is also used for steel production, there are long-term plans to phase out coal from steel production: Sweden is constructing hydrogen-based pilot steel plant to replace coke and coal usage in steel production. Once this technology is commercialized with the hydrogen generated from renewable energy sources (biogas or electricity), the carbon foot print of steel production would reduce drastically.

United Kingdom

The remaining 4 coal-fired power stations will be closed by 2024 or earlier. This will not be a complete phase-out of fossil fuels because gas-fired power stations will continue to provide some firm power.

Scotland's last coal power station closed in 2016 and Wales' last coal power station closed in December 2019.

Coal power in England has also reduced substantially. In generating capability there has been the closure of the Hinton Heavies, and closure or conversion to biomass of the remaining coal plants will be completed by 2024. In terms of actual production, in 2018 it was less than at any time since the industrial revolution. The first "coal free day" took place in 2017. Coal supplied 5.4% of UK electricity in 2018, down from 30% in 2014, and 70% in 1990.

Oceania

Australia

Electricity generation from renewable sources in Australia in 2010

The Australian Greens party have proposed to phase out coal power stations. The NSW Greens proposed an immediate moratorium on coal-fired power stations and want to end all coal mining and coal industry subsidies. The Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party also oppose nuclear power. The Federal Government and Victorian State Government want to modify existing coal-fired power stations into clean coal power stations. The Federal Labor government extended the mandatory renewable energy targets, an initiative to ensure that new sources of electricity are more likely to be from wind power, solar power and other sources of renewable energy in Australia. Australia is one of the largest consumers of coal per capita, and also the largest exporter. The proposals are strongly opposed by industry, unions and the main Opposition Party in Parliament (now forming the party in government after the September 2013 election).

New Zealand

In October 2007, the Clark Labour government introduced a 10 year moratorium on new fossil fuel thermal power generation. The ban was limited to state-owned utilities, although an extension to the private sector was considered. The new government under MP John Key (NZNP) elected in November 2008 repealed this legislation.

In 2014, almost 80 percent of the electricity produced in New Zealand was from sustainable energy. On 6 August 2015, Genesis Energy Limited announced that it would close its two last coal-fired power stations.

Hate speech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...