Search This Blog

Sunday, August 17, 2025

Arctic Refuge drilling controversy

ANWR and known oil deposits in northern Alaska

The question of whether to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been an ongoing political controversy in the United States since 1977.[1] As of 2017, Republicans have attempted to allow drilling in ANWR almost fifty times, finally being successful with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

ANWR comprises 19 million acres (7.7 million ha) of the north Alaskan coast. The land is situated between the Beaufort Sea to the north, Brooks Range to the south, and Prudhoe Bay to the west. It is the largest protected wilderness in the United States and was created by Congress under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. Section 1002 of that act deferred a decision on the management of oil and gas exploration and development of 1.5 million acres (610,000 ha) in the coastal plain, known as the "1002 area". The controversy surrounds drilling for oil in this subsection of ANWR.

Much of the debate over whether to drill in the 1002 area of ANWR rests on the amount of economically recoverable oil, as it relates to world oil markets, weighed against the potential harm oil exploration might have upon the natural wildlife, in particular the calving ground of the Porcupine caribou. In their documentary Being Caribou the Porcupine herd was followed in its yearly migration by author and wildlife biologist Karsten Heuer and filmmaker Leanne Allison to provide a broader understanding of what is at stake if the oil drilling should happen and educating the public. There has been controversy over the scientific reports' methodology and transparency of information during the Trump administration. Although there have been complaints from employees within the Department of the Interior, the reports remain the central evidence for those who argue that the drilling operation will not have a detrimental impact on local wildlife.

On December 3, 2020, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) gave notice of sale for the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program in the ANWR with a livestream video drilling rights lease sale scheduled for January 6, 2021. The Trump administration issued the first leases on January 19, 2021. On President Joe Biden's first day in Office, he issued an executive order for a temporary moratorium on drilling activity in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. On June 1, 2021, Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland suspended all Trump-era oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge pending a review of how fossil fuel drilling would impact the remote landscape. On September 6, 2023, the Biden administration cancelled the leases.

As of 2025 by action of President Trump via executive order, the protected refuge has been declared open for oil and gas exploration and exploitation.

This comes after the Biden Administration reversed Trump’s Executive Orders from his first Presidential term. Not only is President Donald Trump reinstating his policy, but he has vowed to re-open an increased number of Alaskan lands than he did in his first presidency to get gas and extract oil. The framework of this policy revolves around the fact that Alaska is home to an abundant amount of natural resources that remain largely untapped. This goes beyond just drilling for oil, but additionally includes harvesting resources such as timber, minerals, energy, and even seafood. All these raw materials will contribute to improving the economy & enhancing the country for generations. Examples of these enhancements include boosting the United States’ global dominance in the energy field, increasing the government’s ability to protect against international actors who weaponize their energy supply, and eliminating the trade imbalance, therefore helping to secure higher-quality jobs for American citizens.  

Trump also aims to expedite the pace at which permits and leases are approved. This is so natural resource projects in Alaska, like developing the state’s liquified natural gas transactional process and transportation to regions of the US and to allies, can be done efficiently and effectively, hence maximizing the advancement of the economy and overall production. This emphasis and focus on the economy potentially puts the environment at risk of worsened pollution and other externalities. But the logistical reasoning by the Trump Administration is that the economic and natural security benefits are ones that the United States can matter-of-factly gain from. 

Still, there is opposition in the polarized sphere of environmental policy. The basis for one argument is that communities have already experienced the negative effects of climate change and the imposition of this Executive Order wouldn’t help the thinning sea ice, or the thawing permafrost Alaska is experiencing. These things are also may harm the United State. Additionally, some environmentalist groups have brought suits to court. They are claiming that Trump’s attempts to reverse the previous decisions that barred oil and gas drilling in specific parts of the Artic waters are unconstitutional. They argue that passage of these enforcements by past Presidents, such as former President Joe Biden, were meant to be, if not permanent, then not easily reversed by a new President. Law challenges continue to persist to question the constitutionality of Trump’s Executive Order that pushes for drilling.  

History

Mars Ice Island, a 60-day offshore exploratory well off Cape Halkett, over 30 miles (48 km) from Nuiqsut, Alaska
Area 1002 of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain, looking south toward the Brooks Range mountains

20th century

Before Alaska was granted statehood on January 3, 1959, virtually all 375 million acres (152 million ha) of the Territory of Alaska was federal land and wilderness. The act granting statehood gave Alaska the right to select 103 million acres (42 million ha) for use as an economic and tax base.

In 1966, Alaska Natives protested a federal oil and gas lease sale of lands on the North Slope claimed by Natives. Late that year, Secretary of the interior Stewart Udall ordered the lease sale suspended. Shortly thereafter announced a 'freeze' on the disposition of all federal land in Alaska, pending congressional settlement of Native land claims.

These claims were settled in 1971 by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which granted newly created Native Corporations 44 million acres (18 million ha). The act also froze development on federal lands, pending a final selection of parks, monuments, and refuges. The law was set to expire in 1978.

Toward the end of 1976, with the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System virtually complete, major conservation groups shifted their attention to how best to protect the hundreds of millions of acres of Alaskan wilderness unaffected by the pipeline. On May 16, 1979, the United States House of Representatives approved a conservationist-backed bill that would have protected more than 125 million acres (51 million ha) of federal lands in Alaska, including the calving ground of the nation's largest caribou herd. Backed by President Jimmy Carter, and sponsored by Morris K. Udall and John B. Anderson, the bill would have prohibited all commercial activity in 67 million acres (270,000 km2) designated as wilderness areas. The U.S. Senate had opposed similar legislation in the past and filibusters were threatened.

On December 2, 1980, Carter signed into law the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which created more than 104 million acres (42 million ha) of national parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas from federal holdings in that state. The bill allowed drilling in ANWR, but not without Congress's approval and the completion of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Both sides of the controversy announced they would attempt to change it in the next session of Congress.

Section 1002 of the act stated that a comprehensive inventory of fish and wildlife resources would be conducted on 1.5 million acres (0.61 million ha) of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain (1002 Area). Potential petroleum reserves in the 1002 Area were to be evaluated from surface geological studies and seismic exploration surveys. No exploratory drilling was allowed. These studies and recommendations for future management of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain were to be prepared in a report to Congress.

In 1985, Chevron drilled a 15,000 foot (4,600 m) test bore, known as KIC-1, on a private tract inside the border of ANWR. The well was capped, and the drilling platform, dismantled. The results are a closely held secret.

Caribou calving grounds, 1983–2001

In November 1986, a draft report by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that all of the coastal plain within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be opened for oil and gas development. It also proposed to trade the mineral rights of 166,000 acres (67,000 ha) in the refuge for surface rights to 896,000 acres (363,000 ha) owned by corporations of six Alaska native groups, including Aleuts, Eskimos and Tlingits. The report said that the oil and gas potentials of the coastal plain were needed for the country's economy and national security.

Conservationists said that oil development would unnecessarily threaten the existence of the Porcupine caribou by cutting off the herd from calving areas. They also expressed concerns that oil operations would erode the fragile ecological systems that support wildlife on the tundra of the Arctic plain. The proposal faced stiff opposition in the House of Representatives. Morris Udall, chairman of the House Interior Committee, said he would reintroduce legislation to turn the entire coastal plain into a wilderness area, effectively giving the refuge permanent protection from development.

The ANWR 1002 area coastal plain

On July 17, 1987, the United States and the Canadian government signed the "Agreement on the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd," a treaty designed to protect the species from damage to its habitat and migration routes. Canada has a special interest in the region because its Ivvavik National Park and Vuntut National Park borders the refuge. The treaty required an impact assessment and required that where activity in one country is "likely to cause significant long-term adverse impact on the Porcupine Caribou Herd or its habitat, the other Party will be notified and given an opportunity to consult prior to final decision". This focus on the Porcupine caribou led to the animal becoming a visual rhetoric or symbol of the drilling issue much in the same way the polar bear has become the image of global warming.

In March 1989, a bill permitting drilling in the reserve was "sailing through the Senate and had been expected to come up for a vote" when the Exxon Valdez oil spill delayed and ultimately derailed the process.

In 1996, the Republican-majority House and Senate voted to allow drilling in ANWR, but this legislation was vetoed by President Bill Clinton. Toward the end of his presidential term, environmentalists pressed Clinton to declare the Arctic Refuge a U.S. National Monument. Doing so would have permanently closed the area to oil exploration. While Clinton did create several refuge monuments, the Arctic Refuge was not among them.

Oil-stained sandstone near crest of Marsh Creek anticline, 1002 area

A 1998 report by the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that there was between 5.7 billion barrels (910,000,000 m3) and 16.0 billion barrels (2.54×109 m3) of technically recoverable oil in the designated 1002 area, and that most of the oil would be found west of the Marsh Creek anticline. The term technically recoverable oil is based on the price per barrel where oil that is more costly to drill becomes viable with rising prices. When non-federal and Native areas are excluded, the estimated amounts of technically recoverable oil are reduced to 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m3) and 11.8 billion barrels (1.88×109 m3). These figures differed from an earlier 1987 USGS report that estimated smaller quantities of oil and that it would be found in the southern and eastern parts of the 1002 area. However, the 1998 report warned that the "estimates cannot be compared directly because different methods were used in preparing those parts of the 1987 Report to Congress".

21st century

In the 2000s, the House of Representatives and Senate repeatedly voted on the status of the refuge. President George W. Bush pushed to perform exploratory drilling for crude oil and natural gas in and around the refuge. The House of Representatives voted in August 2001 to allow drilling. In April 2002, the Senate rejected it. In 2001, Time's Douglas C. Waller said the Arctic Refuge drilling issue has been used by both Democrats and Republicans as a political device, especially through contentious election cycles.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives again approved Arctic Refuge drilling as part of the 2005 energy bill on April 21, 2005, but the House-Senate conference committee later removed the Arctic Refuge provision. The Republican-controlled Senate passed Arctic Refuge drilling on March 16, 2005, as part of the federal budget resolution for the fiscal year 2006. That Arctic Refuge provision was removed during the reconciliation process due to Democrats in the House of Representatives who signed a letter stating they would oppose any version of the budget that had Arctic Refuge drilling in it.

On December 15, 2005, Republican Alaska Senator Ted Stevens attached an Arctic Refuge drilling amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill. A group of Democratic senators led a successful filibuster of the bill on December 21, and the language was subsequently removed.

On June 18, 2008, President George W. Bush pressed Congress to reverse the ban on offshore drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in addition to approving the extraction of oil from shale on federal lands. Despite his previous stance on the issue, George W. Bush said the growing energy crisis was a major factor for reversing the presidential executive order issued by his father President George H. W. Bush in 1990, which banned coastal oil exploration, and oil and gas leasing on most of the outer continental shelf. In conjunction with the presidential order, the Congress had enacted a moratorium on drilling in 1982 and renewed it annually.

In 2014, President Barack Obama proposed declaring an additional 5 million acres of the refuge as a wilderness area, which would put a total of 12.8 million acres (5.2 million ha) of the refuge permanently off-limits to drilling or other development, including the coastal plain where oil exploration has been sought.

In 2017, the Republican-controlled House and Senate included in tax legislation a provision that would open the 1002 area of ANWR to oil and gas drilling. It passed both the Senate and House of Representatives on December 20, 2017. President Trump signed it into law on December 22, 2017.

In September 2019, the Trump administration said they would like to see the entire coastal plain opened for gas and oil exploration, the most aggressive of the suggested development options. The Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management BLM filed a final environmental impact statement and planned to start granting leases by the end of 2019. In a review of the statement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said the BLM's final statement underestimated the climate impacts of the oil leases because they viewed global warming as cyclical rather than human-made. The administration's plan calls for "the construction of as many as four places for airstrips and well pads, 175 miles of roads, vertical supports for pipelines, a seawater-treatment plant and a barge landing and storage site."

On August 17, 2020, the Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt announced that the required reviews were complete and oil and gas drilling leases in the ANWR's coastal plain could now be put up for auction. Both the Republican governor Mike Dunleavy and the Republican senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan approved the sales of the leases. There have been no recent seismic studies of how much oil there is in the area. Previous studies undertaken in the 1980s used older technologies that were "relatively primitive", according to the New York Times. It is also unknown how many oil and gas companies would bid on the leases, which would involve years of litigation. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and other banks stated they would not finance drilling in the ANWR, after a public outcry in support of the native Gwichʼin people and against the potential impact it would have on climate change. In September 2020, the attorneys general of 15 states, led by Bob Ferguson, filed a federal lawsuit to stop any drilling, alleging that the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act had been violated.

On December 3, 2020, the Bureau of Land Management gave notice of sale for the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program in the ANWR, with the Federal Register Notice published on December 7. The livestream video drilling rights lease sale was scheduled for January 6, 2021. Of the twenty-two tracts up for auction, full bids were offered for only eleven tracts. An Alaskan state entity, the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), won the bids on nine tracts. Two small independent companies, Knik Arm Services LLC and Regenerate Alaska Inc, won one tract each. Less than 2 weeks after the initial auction results were announced, AIDEA announced it would not pursue two of the nine parcels they bid on. In total, 437,804 acres were leased across the 9 parcels, generating $11.5 billion in bid revenue and $16.5 million in total auction revenue (including first year rent and 20% of bids AIDEA was required to put down for tracts 22 and 23, even though they did not pursue those leases). The auction generated less than the $1.8 billion estimate from the Congressional Budget Office in 2019, and the auction did not receive bids from any oil and gas companies. A second auction in December 2024 and January 2025 also did not receive bids from any oil and gas companies.

On June 1, 2021, Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland suspended all Trump-era oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge pending a review of how fossil fuel drilling would impact the remote landscape. Indigenous and conservation groups urged Biden to make the suspension permanent. Regenerate Alaska and Knik Arm Services LLC requested to rescind their leases in May 2022 and August 2022, respectively. On September 6, 2023, the Biden administration cancelled the leases.

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring that the protected wildlife refuge will be open for gas and oil exploration.

Department of Energy projections and estimates

Estimates of oil reserves

Projected levels of increased oil production from ANWR to mean Alaskan production volumes

In 1998, the USGS estimated that between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (2.54×109 m3) of technically recoverable crude oil and natural gas liquids are in the coastal plain area of ANWR, with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels (1.65×109 m3), of which 7.7 billion barrels (1.22×109 m3) lie within the Federal portion of the ANWR 1002 Area. In comparison, the estimated volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in the rest of the United States is about 120 billion barrels (1.9×1010 m3).

The ANWR and undiscovered estimates are categorized as prospective resources and therefore, not proven oil reserves. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) reports U.S. proved reserves are roughly 29 billion barrels (4.6×109 m3) of crude and natural gas liquids, of which 21 billion barrels (3.3×109 m3) are crude. A variety of sources compiled by the DOE estimate world proved oil and gas condensate reserves to range from 1.1 to 1.3 trillion barrels (170×109 to 210×109 m3).

The DOE reported there is uncertainty about the underlying resource base in ANWR. "The USGS oil resource estimates are based largely on the oil productivity of geologic formations that exist in the neighboring State lands and which continue into ANWR. Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR. Thus, the potential ultimate oil recovery and potential yearly production are highly uncertain."

In 2010, the USGS revised an estimate of the oil in the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska (NPRA), concluding that it contained approximately "896 million barrels of conventional, undiscovered oil". The NPRA is west of ANWR. The reason for the decrease is because of new exploratory drilling, which showed that many areas that were believed to hold oil actually hold natural gas.

The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase U.S. crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day (124,000 m3/d) in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day (113,000 m3/d) in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day (231,000 m3/d), respectively.

Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is projected to be 2.6 billion barrels (410,000,000 m3) for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m3), respectively. In 2017, the United States consumed 19.877 million barrels per day (3,160,200 m3/d) of petroleum products. It produced roughly 9.355 million barrels per day (1,487,300 m3/d) of crude oil, and imported 7.912 million barrels per day (1,257,900 m3/d) of crude and 2.163 million barrels per day (343,900 m3/d) of petroleum products.

Projected impact on global oil price

The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have any significant impact on world oil prices. Furthermore, the Energy Information Administration does not feel ANWR will affect the global price of oil when past behaviors of the oil market are considered. "The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case." "Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."

Support for drilling

President Donald Trump said that he had little interest in drilling in the Arctic Refuge until a friend "who's in that world and in that business" called and told him Republicans have been trying to do so for decades — so he had it included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. "After that I said, 'Oh, make sure that's in the [tax] bill,'" he said in a speech at the GOP congressional retreat.

President George W. Bush's administration supported drilling in the Arctic Refuge, saying that it could "keep [America]'s economy growing by creating jobs and ensuring that businesses can expand [and] it will make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy", and that "scientists have developed innovative techniques to reach ANWR's oil with virtually no impact on the land or local wildlife."

Both of Alaska's U.S. senators, Republicans Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, have indicated they support ANWR drilling.

Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat, a nonprofit organization that advocates for Iñupiaq people and culture, supports ANWR development.

A June 29, 2008, Pew Research Poll reported that 50% of Americans favor drilling of oil and gas in ANWR while 43% oppose (compared to 42% in favor and 50% opposed in February of the same year). A CNN opinion poll conducted on August 31, 2008, reported 59% favor drilling for oil in ANWR, while 39% oppose it. In the state of Alaska, residents receive annual dividends from a permanent fund funded partially by oil-lease revenues. In 2013, the dividend came to $900 per resident.

Opposition to drilling

Boundary of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in yellow

President Joe Biden signed an executive order to halt new Arctic drilling on his first day in office. Biden subsequently suspended oil drilling leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in June 2021. "President Biden believes America's national treasures are cultural and economic cornerstones of our country," White House National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy said in a statement. On September 6, 2023, the Biden administration cancelled the leases.

Former president Barack Obama also opposed drilling in the Arctic Refuge. In a League of Conservation Voters questionnaire, Obama said, "I strongly reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernible impact on U.S. energy security." Senator John McCain, while running for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, said, "As far as ANWR is concerned, I don't want to drill in the Grand Canyon, and I don't want to drill in the Everglades. This is one of the most pristine and beautiful parts of the world."

In 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy reported uncertainties about the USGS oil estimates for ANWR and the projected effects on oil price and supplies. "There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region. ... ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. ... Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States."

The DOE reported that annual United States consumption of crude oil and petroleum products was 7.55 billion barrels (1.200×109 m3) in 2006. In comparison, the USGS estimated that the ANWR reserve contains 10.4 billion barrels (1.65×109 m3), although only 7.7 billion barrels (1.22×109 m3) were thought to be within the proposed drilling region.

"Environmentalists and most congressional Democrats have resisted drilling in the area because the required network of oil platforms, pipelines, roads and support facilities, not to mention the threat of foul spills, would play havoc on wildlife. The coastal plain, for example, is a calving home for some 129,000 caribou."

The NRDC has said that drilling would not take place in a compact, 2,000-acre (810 ha) space as proponents say, but would create "a spiderweb of industrial sprawl across the whole of the refuge's 1.5-million-acre (0.61-million ha) coastal plain, including drill sites, airports and roads, and gravel mines, spreading across more than 640,000 acres (260,000 ha). The NRDC also said there is danger of oil spills in the region.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said that the 1002 area has a "greater degree of ecological diversity than any other similar sized area of Alaska's north slope". The FWS also states, "Those who campaigned to establish the Arctic Refuge recognized its wild qualities and the significance of these spatial relationships. Here lies an unusually diverse assemblage of large animals and smaller, less-appreciated life forms, tied to their physical environments and to each other by natural, undisturbed ecological and evolutionary processes."

Prior to 2008, 39% of the residents of the United States and a majority of Canadians opposed drilling in the refuge.

The Alaska Inter-Tribal Council (AI-TC), which represents 229 Native Alaskan tribes, officially opposes any development in ANWR. In March 2005, Luci Beach, the executive director of the steering committee for the Native Alaskan and Canadian Gwich'in tribe (a member of the AI-TC), during a trip to Washington D.C., while speaking for a unified group of 55 Alaskan and Canadian indigenous peoples, said that drilling in ANWR is "a human rights issue and it's a basic Aboriginal human rights issue". The Gwich'in tribe adamantly believes that drilling in ANWR would have serious negative effects on the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd that they partially rely on for food.

A part of the Inupiat population of Kaktovik, and 5,000 to 7,000 Gwich'in peoples feel their lifestyle would be disrupted or destroyed by drilling. The Inupiat from Point Hope, Alaska recently passed resolutions recognizing that drilling in ANWR would allow resource exploitation in other wilderness areas. The Inupiat, Gwitch'in, and other tribes are calling for sustainable energy practices and policies. The Tanana Chiefs Conference (representing 42 Alaska Native villages from 37 tribes) opposes drilling, as do at least 90 Native American tribes. The National Congress of American Indians (representing 250 tribes), the Native American Rights Fund as well as some Canadian tribes also oppose drilling in the 1002 area.

In May 2006, a resolution was passed in the village of Kaktovik calling Shell Oil Company "a hostile and dangerous force" that authorized the mayor to take legal and other actions necessary to "defend the community". The resolution also calls on all North Slope communities to oppose Shell owned offshore leases unrelated to the ANWR controversy until the company becomes more respectful of the people. Mayor Sonsalla says Shell has failed to work with the villagers on how the company would protect bowhead whales, which are part of Native culture, subsistence life, and diet.

Moderate Republican House of Representatives member Carlos Curbelo and eleven others sent a letter to the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, urging him to not include drilling in the December 2017 major tax rewrite, but the language remained in Senate-passed bill. Rep. Curbelo still voted for the final bill that included drilling.

Superconductivity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A high-temperature superconductor levitating above a magnet. Persistent electric current flows on the surface of the superconductor, acting to exclude the magnetic field of the magnet (Meissner effect). This current effectively forms an electromagnet that repels the magnet.

Superconductivity is a set of physical properties observed in superconductors: materials where electrical resistance vanishes and magnetic fields are expelled from the material. Unlike an ordinary metallic conductor, whose resistance decreases gradually as its temperature is lowered, even down to near absolute zero, a superconductor has a characteristic critical temperature below which the resistance drops abruptly to zero. An electric current through a loop of superconducting wire can persist indefinitely with no power source.

The superconductivity phenomenon was discovered in 1911 by Dutch physicist Heike Kamerlingh Onnes. Like ferromagnetism and atomic spectral lines, superconductivity is a phenomenon which can only be explained by quantum mechanics. It is characterized by the Meissner effect, the complete cancellation of the magnetic field in the interior of the superconductor during its transitions into the superconducting state. The occurrence of the Meissner effect indicates that superconductivity cannot be understood simply as the idealization of perfect conductivity in classical physics.

In 1986, it was discovered that some cuprate-perovskite ceramic materials have a critical temperature above 35 K (−238 °C). It was shortly found (by Ching-Wu Chu) that replacing the lanthanum with yttrium, i.e. making YBCO, raised the critical temperature to 92 K (−181 °C), which was important because liquid nitrogen could then be used as a refrigerant. Such a high transition temperature is theoretically impossible for a conventional superconductor, leading the materials to be termed high-temperature superconductors. The cheaply available coolant liquid nitrogen boils at 77 K (−196 °C) and thus the existence of superconductivity at higher temperatures than this facilitates many experiments and applications that are less practical at lower temperatures.

History

Timeline of superconducting materials. Colors represent different classes of materials:
Heike Kamerlingh Onnes (right), the discoverer of superconductivity. Paul Ehrenfest, Hendrik Lorentz, Niels Bohr stand to his left.

Superconductivity was discovered on April 8, 1911, by Heike Kamerlingh Onnes, who was studying the resistance of solid mercury at cryogenic temperatures using the recently produced liquid helium as a refrigerant. At the temperature of 4.2 K, he observed that the resistance abruptly disappeared. In the same experiment, he also observed the superfluid transition of helium at 2.2 K, without recognizing its significance. The precise date and circumstances of the discovery were only reconstructed a century later, when Onnes's notebook was found. In subsequent decades, superconductivity was observed in several other materials. In 1913, lead was found to superconduct at 7 K, and in 1941 niobium nitride was found to superconduct at 16 K.

Great efforts have been devoted to finding out how and why superconductivity works; the important step occurred in 1933, when Meissner and Ochsenfeld discovered that superconductors expelled applied magnetic fields, a phenomenon which has come to be known as the Meissner effect. In 1935, Fritz and Heinz London showed that the Meissner effect was a consequence of the minimization of the electromagnetic free energy carried by superconducting current.

London constitutive equations

The theoretical model that was first conceived for superconductivity was completely classical: it is summarized by London constitutive equations. It was put forward by the brothers Fritz and Heinz London in 1935, shortly after the discovery that magnetic fields are expelled from superconductors. A major triumph of the equations of this theory is their ability to explain the Meissner effect, wherein a material exponentially expels all internal magnetic fields as it crosses the superconducting threshold. By using the London equation, one can obtain the dependence of the magnetic field inside the superconductor on the distance to the surface.

The two constitutive equations for a superconductor by London are:

The first equation follows from Newton's second law for superconducting electrons.

Conventional theories (1950s)

During the 1950s, theoretical condensed matter physicists arrived at an understanding of "conventional" superconductivity, through a pair of remarkable and important theories: the phenomenological Ginzburg–Landau theory (1950) and the microscopic BCS theory (1957).

In 1950, the phenomenological Ginzburg–Landau theory of superconductivity was devised by Landau and Ginzburg. This theory, which combined Landau's theory of second-order phase transitions with a Schrödinger-like wave equation, had great success in explaining the macroscopic properties of superconductors. In particular, Abrikosov showed that Ginzburg–Landau theory predicts the division of superconductors into the two categories now referred to as Type I and Type II. Abrikosov and Ginzburg were awarded the 2003 Nobel Prize for their work (Landau had received the 1962 Nobel Prize for other work, and died in 1968). The four-dimensional extension of the Ginzburg–Landau theory, the Coleman-Weinberg model, is important in quantum field theory and cosmology.

Also in 1950, Maxwell and Reynolds et al. found that the critical temperature of a superconductor depends on the isotopic mass of the constituent element. This important discovery pointed to the electronphonon interaction as the microscopic mechanism responsible for superconductivity.

The complete microscopic theory of superconductivity was finally proposed in 1957 by Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer. This BCS theory explained the superconducting current as a superfluid of Cooper pairs, pairs of electrons interacting through the exchange of phonons. For this work, the authors were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1972.

The BCS theory was set on a firmer footing in 1958, when N. N. Bogolyubov showed that the BCS wavefunction, which had originally been derived from a variational argument, could be obtained using a canonical transformation of the electronic Hamiltonian. In 1959, Lev Gor'kov showed that the BCS theory reduced to the Ginzburg–Landau theory close to the critical temperature.

Generalizations of BCS theory for conventional superconductors form the basis for the understanding of the phenomenon of superfluidity, because they fall into the lambda transition universality class. The extent to which such generalizations can be applied to unconventional superconductors is still controversial.

Niobium

The first practical application of superconductivity was developed in 1954 with Dudley Allen Buck's invention of the cryotron. Two superconductors with greatly different values of the critical magnetic field are combined to produce a fast, simple switch for computer elements.

Soon after discovering superconductivity in 1911, Kamerlingh Onnes attempted to make an electromagnet with superconducting windings but found that relatively low magnetic fields destroyed superconductivity in the materials he investigated. Much later, in 1955, G. B. Yntema succeeded in constructing a small 0.7-tesla iron-core electromagnet with superconducting niobium wire windings. Then, in 1961, J. E. Kunzler, E. Buehler, F. S. L. Hsu, and J. H. Wernick made the startling discovery that, at 4.2 kelvin, niobium–tin, a compound consisting of three parts niobium and one part tin, was capable of supporting a current density of more than 100,000 amperes per square centimeter in a magnetic field of 8.8 tesla. The alloy was brittle and difficult to fabricate, but niobium–tin proved useful for generating magnetic fields as high as 20 tesla.

In 1962, T. G. Berlincourt and R. R. Hake discovered that more ductile alloys of niobium and titanium are suitable for applications up to 10 tesla. Commercial production of niobium–titanium supermagnet wire immediately commenced at Westinghouse Electric Corporation and at Wah Chang Corporation. Although niobium–titanium boasts less-impressive superconducting properties than those of niobium–tin, niobium–titanium became the most widely used "workhorse" supermagnet material, in large measure a consequence of its very high ductility and ease of fabrication. However, both niobium–tin and niobium–titanium found wide application in MRI medical imagers, bending and focusing magnets for enormous high-energy-particle accelerators, and other applications. Conectus, a European superconductivity consortium, estimated that in 2014, global economic activity for which superconductivity was indispensable amounted to about five billion euros, with MRI systems accounting for about 80% of that total.

Josephson effect

In 1962, Josephson made the important theoretical prediction that a supercurrent can flow between two pieces of superconductor separated by a thin layer of insulator. This phenomenon, now called the Josephson effect, is exploited by superconducting devices such as SQUIDs. It is used in the most accurate available measurements of the magnetic flux quantum Φ0 = h/(2e), where h is the Planck constant. Coupled with the quantum Hall resistivity, this leads to a precise measurement of the Planck constant. Josephson was awarded the Nobel Prize for this work in 1973.

In 2008, it was proposed that the same mechanism that produces superconductivity could produce a superinsulator state in some materials, with almost infinite electrical resistance. The first development and study of superconducting Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) in 2020 suggested a "smooth transition between" BEC and Bardeen-Cooper-Shrieffer regimes.

2D materials

Multiple types of superconductivity are reported in devices made of single-layer materials. Some of these materials can switch between conducting, insulating, and other behaviors.

Twisting materials imbues them with a “moiré” pattern involving tiled hexagonal cells that act like atoms and host electrons. In this environment, the electrons move slowly enough for their collective interactions to guide their behavior. When each cell has a single electron, the electrons take on an antiferromagnetic arrangement; each electron can have a preferred location and magnetic orientation. Their intrinsic magnetic fields tend to alternate between pointing up and down. Adding electrons allows superconductivity by causing Cooper pairs to form. Fu and Schrade argued that electron-on-electron action was allowing both antiferromagnetic and superconducting states.

The first success with 2D materials involved a twisted bilayer graphene sheet (2018, Tc ~1.7 K, 1.1° twist). A twisted three-layer graphene device was later shown to superconduct (2021, Tc ~2.8 K). Then an untwisted trilayer graphene device was reported to superconduct (2022, Tc 1-2 K). The latter was later shown to be tunable, easily reproducing behavior found in millions of other configurations. Directly observing what happens when electrons are added to a material or slightly weakening its electric field enables quick testing of an unprecedented number of recipes to see which lead to superconductivity.

In four and five layer rhombohedral graphene, a form of superconductivity with spontaneously broken time reversal symmetry known as "chiral superconductivity" was recently observed. These systems were not observed to have any superlattice effects, and they can flip between two possible magnetic states without exiting the superconducting phase. This is in strong contrast to other observations of superconductivity and magnetic fields.

These devices have applications in quantum computing.

2D materials other than graphene have also been made to superconduct. Transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) sheets twisted at 5 degrees intermittently achieved superconduction by creating a Josephson junction. The device used used thin layers of palladium to connect to the sides of a tungsten telluride layer surrounded and protected by boron nitride. Another group demonstrated superconduction in molybdenum telluride (MoTe₂) in 2D van der Waals materials using ferroelectric domain walls. The Tc was implied to be higher than typical TMDs (~5–10 K).

A Cornell group added a 3.5-degree twist to an insulator that allowed electrons to slow down and interact strongly, leaving one electron per cell, exhibiting superconduction. Existing theories do not explain this behavior.

Fu and collaborators proposed that electrons arrange to form a repeating crystal that allows the electron grid to float independently of the background atomic nuclei and the electron grid to relax. Its ripples pair electrons the way phonons do, although this is unconfirmed.

Classification

Superconductors are classified according to many criteria. The most common are:

Response to a magnetic field

A superconductor can be Type I, meaning it has a single critical field, above which superconductivity is lost and below which the magnetic field is completely expelled from the superconductor; or Type II, meaning it has two critical fields, between which it allows partial penetration of the magnetic field through isolated points called vortices. Furthermore, in multicomponent superconductors it is possible to combine the two behaviours. In that case the superconductor is of Type-1.5.

Theory of operation

A superconductor is conventional if it is driven by electron–phonon interaction and explained by the BCS theory or its extension, the Eliashberg theory. Otherwise, it is unconventional. Alternatively, a superconductor is called unconventional if the superconducting order parameter transforms according to a non-trivial irreducible representation of the system's point group or space group.

Critical temperature

A superconductor is generally considered high-temperature if it reaches a superconducting state above a temperature of 30 K (−243.15 °C); as in the initial discovery by Georg Bednorz and K. Alex Müller. It may also reference materials that transition to superconductivity when cooled using liquid nitrogen – that is, at only Tc > 77 K, although this is generally used only to emphasize that liquid nitrogen coolant is sufficient. Low temperature superconductors refer to materials with a critical temperature below 30 K, and are cooled mainly by liquid helium (Tc > 4.2 K). One exception to this rule is the iron pnictide group of superconductors that display behaviour and properties typical of high-temperature superconductors, yet some of the group have critical temperatures below 30 K.

Material

Top: Periodic table of superconducting elemental solids and their experimental critical temperature (T)
Bottom: Periodic table of superconducting binary hydrides (0–300 GPa). Theoretical predictions indicated in blue and experimental results in red

Superconductor material classes include chemical elements (e.g. mercury or lead), alloys (such as niobium–titanium, germanium–niobium, and niobium nitride), ceramics (YBCO and magnesium diboride), superconducting pnictides (like fluorine-doped LaOFeAs), single-layer materials such as graphene and transition metal dichalcogenides, or organic superconductors (fullerenes and carbon nanotubes; though perhaps these examples should be included among the chemical elements, as they are composed entirely of carbon).

Elementary properties

Several physical properties of superconductors vary from material to material, such as the critical temperature, the value of the superconducting gap, the critical magnetic field, and the critical current density at which superconductivity is destroyed. On the other hand, there is a class of properties that are independent of the underlying material. The Meissner effect, the quantization of the magnetic flux or permanent currents, i.e. the state of zero resistance are the most important examples. The existence of these "universal" properties is rooted in the nature of the broken symmetry of the superconductor and the emergence of off-diagonal long range order. Superconductivity is a thermodynamic phase, and thus possesses certain distinguishing properties which are largely independent of microscopic details. Off diagonal long range order is closely connected to the formation of Cooper pairs.

Zero electrical DC resistance

Electric cables for accelerators at CERN. Both the massive and slim cables are rated for 12,500 A. Top: regular cables for LEP; bottom: superconductor-based cables for the LHC
Cross section of a preformed superconductor rod from the abandoned Texas Superconducting Super Collider (SSC)

The simplest method to measure the electrical resistance of a sample of some material is to place it in an electrical circuit in series with a current source I and measure the resulting voltage V across the sample. The resistance of the sample is given by Ohm's law as R = V / I. If the voltage is zero, this means that the resistance is zero.

Superconductors are also able to maintain a current with no applied voltage whatsoever, a property exploited in superconducting electromagnets such as those found in MRI machines. Experiments have demonstrated that currents in superconducting coils can persist for years without any measurable degradation. Experimental evidence points to a lifetime of at least 100,000 years. Theoretical estimates for the lifetime of a persistent current can exceed the estimated lifetime of the universe, depending on the wire geometry and the temperature. In practice, currents injected in superconducting coils persisted for 28 years, 7 months, 27 days in a superconducting gravimeter in Belgium, from August 4, 1995 until March 31, 2024. In such instruments, the measurement is based on the monitoring of the levitation of a superconducting niobium sphere with a mass of four grams.

In a normal conductor, an electric current may be visualized as a fluid of electrons moving across a heavy ionic lattice. The electrons are constantly colliding with the ions in the lattice, and during each collision some of the energy carried by the current is absorbed by the lattice and converted into heat, which is essentially the vibrational kinetic energy of the lattice ions. As a result, the energy carried by the current is constantly being dissipated. This is the phenomenon of electrical resistance and Joule heating.

The situation is different in a superconductor. In a conventional superconductor, the electronic fluid cannot be resolved into individual electrons. Instead, it consists of bound pairs of electrons known as Cooper pairs. This pairing is caused by an attractive force between electrons from the exchange of phonons. This pairing is very weak, and small thermal vibrations can fracture the bond. Due to quantum mechanics, the energy spectrum of this Cooper pair fluid possesses an energy gap, meaning there is a minimum amount of energy ΔE that must be supplied in order to excite the fluid. Therefore, if ΔE is larger than the thermal energy of the lattice, given by kT, where k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the temperature, the fluid will not be scattered by the lattice. The Cooper pair fluid is thus a superfluid, meaning it can flow without energy dissipation.

In the class of superconductors known as type II superconductors, including all known high-temperature superconductors, an extremely low but non-zero resistivity appears at temperatures not too far below the nominal superconducting transition when an electric current is applied in conjunction with a strong magnetic field, which may be caused by the electric current. This is due to the motion of magnetic vortices in the electronic superfluid, which dissipates some of the energy carried by the current. If the current is sufficiently small, the vortices are stationary, and the resistivity vanishes. The resistance due to this effect is minuscule compared with that of non-superconducting materials, but must be taken into account in sensitive experiments. However, as the temperature decreases far enough below the nominal superconducting transition, these vortices can become frozen into a disordered but stationary phase known as a "vortex glass". Below this vortex glass transition temperature, the resistance of the material becomes truly zero.

Phase transition

Behavior of heat capacity (cv, blue) and resistivity (ρ, green) at the superconducting phase transition

In superconducting materials, the characteristics of superconductivity appear when the temperature T is lowered below a critical temperature Tc. The value of this critical temperature varies from material to material. Conventional superconductors usually have critical temperatures ranging from around 20 K to less than 1 K. Solid mercury, for example, has a critical temperature of 4.2 K. As of 2015, the highest critical temperature found for a conventional superconductor is 203 K for H2S, although high pressures of approximately 90 gigapascals were required. Cuprate superconductors can have much higher critical temperatures: YBa2Cu3O7, one of the first cuprate superconductors to be discovered, has a critical temperature above 90 K, and mercury-based cuprates have been found with critical temperatures in excess of 130 K. The basic physical mechanism responsible for the high critical temperature is not yet clear. However, it is clear that a two-electron pairing is involved, although the nature of the pairing ( wave vs. wave) remains controversial.

Similarly, at a fixed temperature below the critical temperature, superconducting materials cease to superconduct when an external magnetic field is applied which is greater than the critical magnetic field. This is because the Gibbs free energy of the superconducting phase increases quadratically with the magnetic field while the free energy of the normal phase is roughly independent of the magnetic field. If the material superconducts in the absence of a field, then the superconducting phase free energy is lower than that of the normal phase and so for some finite value of the magnetic field (proportional to the square root of the difference of the free energies at zero magnetic field) the two free energies will be equal and a phase transition to the normal phase will occur. More generally, a higher temperature and a stronger magnetic field lead to a smaller fraction of electrons that are superconducting and consequently to a longer London penetration depth of external magnetic fields and currents. The penetration depth becomes infinite at the phase transition.

The onset of superconductivity is accompanied by abrupt changes in various physical properties, which is the hallmark of a phase transition. For example, the electronic heat capacity is proportional to the temperature in the normal (non-superconducting) regime. At the superconducting transition, it suffers a discontinuous jump and thereafter ceases to be linear. At low temperatures, it varies instead as eα/T for some constant, α. This exponential behavior is one of the pieces of evidence for the existence of the energy gap.

The order of the superconducting phase transition was long a matter of debate. Experiments indicate that the transition is second-order, meaning there is no latent heat. However, in the presence of an external magnetic field there is latent heat, because the superconducting phase has a lower entropy below the critical temperature than the normal phase. It has been experimentally demonstrated that, as a consequence, when the magnetic field is increased beyond the critical field, the resulting phase transition leads to a decrease in the temperature of the superconducting material.

Calculations in the 1970s suggested that it may actually be weakly first-order due to the effect of long-range fluctuations in the electromagnetic field. In the 1980s it was shown theoretically with the help of a disorder field theory, in which the vortex lines of the superconductor play a major role, that the transition is of second order within the type II regime and of first order (i.e., latent heat) within the type I regime, and that the two regions are separated by a tricritical point. The results were strongly supported by Monte Carlo computer simulations.

Meissner effect

When a superconductor is placed in a weak external magnetic field H, and cooled below its transition temperature, the magnetic field is ejected. The Meissner effect does not cause the field to be completely ejected but instead, the field penetrates the superconductor but only to a very small distance, characterized by a parameter λ, called the London penetration depth, decaying exponentially to zero within the bulk of the material. The Meissner effect is a defining characteristic of superconductivity. For most superconductors, the London penetration depth is on the order of 100 nm.

The Meissner effect is sometimes confused with the kind of diamagnetism one would expect in a perfect electrical conductor: according to Lenz's law, when a changing magnetic field is applied to a conductor, it will induce an electric current in the conductor that creates an opposing magnetic field. In a perfect conductor, an arbitrarily large current can be induced, and the resulting magnetic field exactly cancels the applied field.

The Meissner effect is distinct from this – it is the spontaneous expulsion that occurs during transition to superconductivity. Suppose we have a material in its normal state, containing a constant internal magnetic field. When the material is cooled below the critical temperature, we would observe the abrupt expulsion of the internal magnetic field, which we would not expect based on Lenz's law.

The Meissner effect was given a phenomenological explanation by the brothers Fritz and Heinz London, who showed that the electromagnetic free energy in a superconductor is minimized provided where H is the magnetic field and λ is the London penetration depth.

This equation, which is known as the London equation, predicts that the magnetic field in a superconductor decays exponentially from whatever value it possesses at the surface.

A superconductor with little or no magnetic field within it is said to be in the Meissner state. The Meissner state breaks down when the applied magnetic field is too large. Superconductors can be divided into two classes according to how this breakdown occurs. In Type I superconductors, superconductivity is abruptly destroyed when the strength of the applied field rises above a critical value Hc. Depending on the geometry of the sample, one may obtain an intermediate state consisting of a baroque pattern of regions of normal material carrying a magnetic field mixed with regions of superconducting material containing no field. In Type II superconductors, raising the applied field past a critical value Hc1 leads to a mixed state (also known as the vortex state) in which an increasing amount of magnetic flux penetrates the material, but there remains no resistance to the flow of electric current as long as the current is not too large. At a second critical field strength Hc2, superconductivity is destroyed. The mixed state is actually caused by vortices in the electronic superfluid, sometimes called fluxons because the flux carried by these vortices is quantized. Most pure elemental superconductors, except niobium and carbon nanotubes, are Type I, while almost all impure and compound superconductors are Type II.

London moment

Conversely, a spinning superconductor generates a magnetic field, precisely aligned with the spin axis. The effect, the London moment, was put to good use in Gravity Probe B. This experiment measured the magnetic fields of four superconducting gyroscopes to determine their spin axes. This was critical to the experiment since it is one of the few ways to accurately determine the spin axis of an otherwise featureless sphere.

High-temperature superconductivity

A sample of bismuth strontium calcium copper oxide (BSCCO), which is currently one of the most practical high-temperature superconductors. Notably, it does not contain rare-earths. BSCCO is a cuprate superconductor based on bismuth and strontium. Thanks to its higher operating temperature, cuprates are now becoming competitors for more ordinary niobium-based superconductors, as well as magnesium diboride superconductors.

High-temperature superconductivity (high-Tc or HTS) is superconductivity in materials with a critical temperature (the temperature below which the material behaves as a superconductor) above 77 K (−196.2 °C; −321.1 °F), the boiling point of liquid nitrogen. They are "high-temperature" only relative to previously known superconductors, which function only closer to absolute zero. The first high-temperature superconductor was discovered in 1986 by IBM researchers Georg Bednorz and K. Alex Müller. Although the critical temperature is around 35.1 K (−238.1 °C; −396.5 °F), this material was modified by Ching-Wu Chu to make the first high-temperature superconductor with critical temperature 93 K (−180.2 °C; −292.3 °F). Bednorz and Müller were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1987 "for their important break-through in the discovery of superconductivity in ceramic materials". Most high-Tc materials are type-II superconductors.

The major advantage of high-temperature superconductors is that they can be cooled using liquid nitrogen, in contrast to previously known superconductors, which require expensive and hard-to-handle coolants, primarily liquid helium. A second advantage of high-Tc materials is they retain their superconductivity in higher magnetic fields than previous materials. This is important when constructing superconducting magnets, a primary application of high-Tc materials.

The majority of high-temperature superconductors are ceramics, rather than the previously known metallic materials. Ceramic superconductors are suitable for some practical uses but encounter manufacturing issues. For example, most ceramics are brittle, which complicates wire fabrication.

The main class of high-temperature superconductors is copper oxides combined with other metals, especially the rare-earth barium copper oxides (REBCOs) such as yttrium barium copper oxide (YBCO). The second class of high-temperature superconductors in the practical classification is the iron-based compoundsMagnesium diboride is sometimes included in high-temperature superconductors: It is relatively simple to manufacture, but it superconducts only below 39 K (−234.2 °C), which makes it unsuitable for liquid nitrogen cooling.

Applications

Superconductors are promising candidate materials for devising fundamental circuit elements of electronic, spintronic, and quantum technologies. One such example is a superconducting diode, in which supercurrent flows along one direction only, that promise dissipationless superconducting and semiconducting-superconducting hybrid technologies.

Superconducting magnets are some of the most powerful electromagnets known. They are used in MRI/NMR machines, mass spectrometers, the beam-steering magnets used in particle accelerators and plasma confining magnets in some tokamaks. They can also be used for magnetic separation, where weakly magnetic particles are extracted from a background of less or non-magnetic particles, as in the pigment industries. They can also be used in large wind turbines to overcome the restrictions imposed by high electrical currents, with an industrial grade 3.6 megawatt superconducting windmill generator having been tested successfully in Denmark.

In the 1950s and 1960s, superconductors were used to build experimental digital computers using cryotron switches. More recently, superconductors have been used to make digital circuits based on rapid single flux quantum technology and RF and microwave filters for mobile phone base stations.

Superconductors are used to build Josephson junctions which are the building blocks of SQUIDs (superconducting quantum interference devices), the most sensitive magnetometers known. SQUIDs are used in scanning SQUID microscopes and magnetoencephalography. Series of Josephson devices are used to realize the SI volt. Superconducting photon detectors can be realised in a variety of device configurations. Depending on the particular mode of operation, a superconductor–insulator–superconductor Josephson junction can be used as a photon detector or as a mixer. The large resistance change at the transition from the normal to the superconducting state is used to build thermometers in cryogenic micro-calorimeter photon detectors. The same effect is used in ultrasensitive bolometers made from superconducting materials. Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors offer high speed, low noise single-photon detection and have been employed widely in advanced photon-counting applications.

Other early markets are arising where the relative efficiency, size and weight advantages of devices based on high-temperature superconductivity outweigh the additional costs involved. For example, in wind turbines the lower weight and volume of superconducting generators could lead to savings in construction and tower costs, offsetting the higher costs for the generator and lowering the total levelized cost of electricity (LCOE).

Promising future applications include high-performance smart grid, electric power transmission, transformers, power storage devices, compact fusion power devices, electric motors (e.g. for vehicle propulsion, as in vactrains or maglev trains), magnetic levitation devices, fault current limiters, enhancing spintronic devices with superconducting materials, and superconducting magnetic refrigeration. However, superconductivity is sensitive to moving magnetic fields, so applications that use alternating current (e.g. transformers) will be more difficult to develop than those that rely upon direct current. Compared to traditional power lines, superconducting transmission lines are more efficient and require only a fraction of the space, which would not only lead to a better environmental performance but could also improve public acceptance for expansion of the electric grid. Another attractive industrial aspect is the ability for high power transmission at lower voltages. Advancements in the efficiency of cooling systems and use of cheap coolants such as liquid nitrogen have also significantly decreased cooling costs needed for superconductivity.

Nobel Prizes

As of 2022, there have been five Nobel Prizes in Physics for superconductivity related subjects:

Arctic Refuge drilling controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy   ...