document_title: Environmental impact of aviation

question_text: what percentage of global man-made co2 emissions comes from worldwide aviation

question_tokens: what percentage of global man-made co2 emissions comes from worldwide aviation

root

text: Environmental impact of aviation

text: Climate change[edit]

text: Like all human activities involving combustion, most forms of aviation release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere, contributing to the acceleration of global warming[12] and (in the case of CO2) ocean acidification.[13] These concerns are highlighted by the present volume of commercial aviation and its rate of growth. Globally, about 8.3 million people fly daily (3 billion occupied seats per year), twice the total in 1999.[14] U.S. airlines alone burned about 16.2 billion gallons of fuel during the twelve months between October 2013 and September 2014.[15]

tag: p

text: In addition to the CO2 released by most aircraft in flight through the burning of fuels such as Jet-A (turbine aircraft) or Avgas (piston aircraft), the aviation industry also contributes greenhouse gas emissions from ground airport vehicles and those used by passengers and staff to access airports, as well as through emissions generated by the production of energy used in airport buildings, the manufacture of aircraft and the construction of airport infrastructure.[16]

text: While the principal greenhouse gas emission from powered aircraft in flight is CO2, other emissions may include nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (together termed oxides of nitrogen or NOx), water vapour and particulates (soot and sulfate particles), sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide (which bonds with oxygen to become CO2 immediately upon release), incompletely burned hydrocarbons, tetraethyllead (piston aircraft only), and radicals such as hydroxyl, depending on the type of aircraft in use.[17] Emissions weighting factor (EWFs) i.e., the factor by which aviation CO2 emissions should be multiplied to get the CO2-equivalent emissions for annual fleet average conditions is in the range 1.3–2.9.[18]

text: Mechanisms and cumulative effects of aviation on climate[edit]

text: In 1999 the contribution of civil aircraft-in-flight to global CO2 emissions was estimated to be around 2%.[17] However, in the case of high-altitude airliners which frequently fly near or in the stratosphere, non-CO2 altitude-sensitive effects may increase the total impact on anthropogenic (human-made) climate change significantly.[17] A 2007 report from Environmental Change Institute / Oxford University posits a range closer to 4 percent cumulative effect.[19] Subsonic aircraft-in-flight contribute to climate change[17] in four ways:

text: Carbon dioxide (CO2)[edit]

text: CO2 emissions from aircraft-in-flight are the most significant and best understood[20] element of aviation's total contribution to climate change. The level and effects of CO2 emissions are currently believed to be broadly the same regardless of altitude (i.e. they have the same atmospheric effects as ground based emissions). In 1992, emissions of CO2 from aircraft were estimated at around 2% of all such anthropogenic emissions, and that year the atmospheric concentration of CO2 attributable to aviation was around 1% of the total anthropogenic increase since the industrial revolution, having accumulated primarily over just the last 50 years.[21]

text: Oxides of nitrogen (NOx)[edit]

text: At the high altitudes flown by large jet airliners around the tropopause, emissions of NOx are particularly effective in forming ozone (O3) in the upper troposphere. High altitude (8–13 km) NOx emissions result in greater concentrations of O3 than surface NOx emissions, and these in turn have a greater global warming effect. The effect of O3 concentrations are regional and local (as opposed to CO2 emissions, which are global).[citation needed]

text: NOx emissions also reduce ambient levels of methane, another greenhouse gas, resulting in a climate cooling effect. But this effect does not offset the O3 forming effect of NOx emissions. It is now believed that aircraft sulfur and water emissions in the stratosphere tend to deplete O3, partially offsetting the NOx-induced O3 increases. These effects have not been quantified.[21] This problem does not apply to aircraft that fly lower in the troposphere, such as light aircraft or many commuter aircraft.

text: Water vapor (H2O), and contrails[edit]

text: One of the products of burning hydrocarbons in oxygen is water vapour, a greenhouse gas. Water vapour produced by aircraft engines at high altitude, under certain atmospheric conditions, condenses into droplets to form Condensation trails, or contrails. Contrails are visible line clouds that form in cold, humid atmospheres and are thought to have a global warming effect (though one less significant than either CO2 emissions or NOx induced effects).[22] Contrails are uncommon (though by no means rare) from lower-altitude aircraft, or from propeller-driven aircraft or rotorcraft.

text: Cirrus clouds have been observed to develop after the persistent formation of contrails and have been found to have a global warming effect over-and-above that of contrail formation alone. There is a degree of scientific uncertainty about the contribution of contrail and cirrus cloud formation to global warming and attempts to estimate aviation's overall climate change contribution do not tend to include its effects on cirrus cloud enhancement.[20] However, a 2015 study found that artificial cloudiness caused by contrail "outbreaks" reduce the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures. The former are decreased and the latter are increased, in comparison to temperatures the day before and the day after such outbreaks.[23] On days with outbreaks the day/night temperature difference was diminished by about 6F° in the U.S. South and 5F° in the Midwest.[24]

text: Particulates[edit]

text: Least significant on a mass basis is the release of soot and sulfate particles. Soot absorbs heat and has a warming effect; sulfate particles reflect radiation and have a small cooling effect. In addition, particles can influence the formation and properties of clouds,[25] including both line-shaped contrails and naturally-occurring cirrus clouds. The impact of "spreading contrails and cirrus clouds that evolve from them -- collectively known as contrail cirrus -- have a greater radiative forcing (RF) today than all aviation CO2 emissions since the first powered airplane flight".[26] Of the particles emitted by aircraft engines, the soot particles are thought to be most important for contrail formation since they are large enough to serve as condensation nuclei for water vapor. All aircraft powered by combustion will release some amount of soot; although, recent studies suggest that reducing the aromatic content of jet fuel decreases the amount of soot produced.[27][28][29]

text: Greenhouse gas emissions per passenger kilometre[edit]

text: Averaged emissions[edit]

text: Emissions of passenger aircraft per passenger kilometre vary extensively because of differing factors such as the size and type aircraft, the altitude and the percentage of passenger or freight capacity of a particular flight, and the distance of the journey and number of stops en route. Also, the effect of a given amount of emissions on climate (radiative forcing) is greater at higher altitudes: see below. Some representative figures for CO2 emissions are provided by LIPASTO's survey of average direct emissions (not accounting for high-altitude radiative effects) of airliners expressed as CO2 and CO2 equivalent per passenger kilometre:[30]

text:
Domestic, short distance, less than 463 km (288 mi): 257 g/km CO2 or 259 g/km (14.7 oz/mile) CO2e
Domestic, long distance, greater than 463 km (288 mi): 177 g/km CO2 or 178 g/km (10.1 oz/mile) CO2e
Long distance flights: 113 g/km CO2 or 114 g/km (6.5 oz/mile) CO2e

tag: ul

text: These emissions are similar to a four-seat car with one person on board;[31] however, flying trips often cover longer distances than would be undertaken by car, so the total emissions are much higher. For perspective, per passenger a typical economy-class New York to Los Angeles round trip produces about 715 kg (1574 lb) of CO2 (but is equivalent to 1,917 kg (4,230 lb) of CO2 when the high altitude "climatic forcing" effect is taken into account).[32] Within the categories of flights above, emissions from scheduled jet flights are substantially higher than turboprop or chartered jet flights. About 60% of aviation emissions arise from international flights, and these flights are not covered by the Kyoto Protocol and its emissions reduction targets.[33] However, in a more recent development:

text: The United Nations’ aviation arm overwhelmingly ratified an agreement Thursday (06.Oct.2016) to control global warming emissions from international airline flights, the first climate-change pact to set worldwide limits on a single industry. The agreement, adopted overwhelmingly by the 191-nation International Civil Aviation Organization at a meeting in Montreal, sets airlines’ carbon emissions in the year 2020 as the upper limit of what carriers are allowed to discharge.[34]

text: Figures from British Airways suggest carbon dioxide emissions of 100g per passenger kilometre for large jet airliners (a figure which does not account for the production of other pollutants or condensation trails).[35]

text: Emissions by passenger class, and effects of seating configuration[edit]

text: In 2013 the World Bank published a study of the effect on CO2 emissions of its staff's travel in business class or first class, versus using economy class.[36] Among the factors considered was that these premium classes displace proportionately more economy seats for the same total aircraft space capacity, and the associated differing load factors and weight factors. This was not accounted for in prior standard carbon accounting methods. The study concluded that when considering respective average load factors (percent of occupied seats) in each of the seating classes, the carbon footprints of business class and first class are three-times and nine-times higher than economy class.[36][37][38] A related article by the International Council on Clean Transport notes further regarding the effect of seating configurations on carbon emissions that:[38]

text: The A380 is marketed as a "green giant" and one of the most environmentally advanced aircraft out there. But that spin is based on a maximum-capacity aircraft configuration, or about 850 economy passengers. In reality, a typical A380 aircraft has 525 seats. Its fuel performance is comparable to that of a B747-400 ER and even about 15% worse than a B777-300ER on a passenger-mile basis (calculated using Piano-5 on a flight from AUH to LHR, assuming an 80% passenger load factor, and in-service fleet average seat counts).

text: Total climate effects[edit]

text: In attempting to aggregate and quantify the total climate impact of aircraft emissions the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that aviation's total climate impact is some 2–4 times that of its direct CO2 emissions alone (excluding the potential impact of cirrus cloud enhancement).[17] This is measured as radiative forcing. While there is uncertainty about the exact level of impact of NOx and water vapour, governments have accepted the broad scientific view that they do have an effect. Globally in 2005, aviation contributed "possibly as much as 4.9% of radiative forcing."[33] UK government policy statements have stressed the need for aviation to address its total climate change impacts and not simply the impact of CO2.[39]

text: The IPCC has estimated that aviation is responsible for around 3.5% of anthropogenic climate change, a figure which includes both CO2 and non-CO2 induced effects. The IPCC has produced scenarios estimating what this figure could be in 2050. The central case estimate is that aviation's contribution could grow to 5% of the total contribution by 2050 if action is not taken to tackle these emissions, though the highest scenario is 15%.[17] Moreover, if other industries achieve significant cuts in their own greenhouse gas emissions, aviation's share as a proportion of the remaining emissions could also rise.

text: Future emission levels[edit]

text: Even though there have been significant improvements in fuel efficiency through aircraft technology and operational management as described here, these improvements are being continually eclipsed by the increase in air traffic volume.

text: A December 2015 report finds that aircraft could generate 7013430000000000000♠43 Gt of carbon pollution through to 2050, consuming almost 5% of the remaining global climate budget. Without regulation, global aviation emissions may triple by mid-century and could emit more than 7012300000000000000♠3 Gt of carbon annually under a high-growth, business-as-usual scenario. Efforts to bring aviation emissions under an effective global accord have so far largely failed, despite there being a number of technological and operational improvements on offer.[40][41]

text: Continual increases in travel and freight[edit]

text: From 1992 to 2005, passenger kilometers increased 5.2% per year, even with the disruptions of 9/11 and two significant wars. Since the onset of the current recession:

text: During the first three quarters of 2010, air travel markets expanded at an annualized rate approaching 10%. This is similar to the rate seen in the rapid expansion prior to the recession. November's results mean the annualized rate of growth so far in Q4 drops back to around 6%. But this is still in line with long run rates of traffic growth seen historically. The level of international air travel is now 4% above the pre-recession peak of early 2008 and the current expansion looks to have further to run.[42]

text: Air freight reached a new high point in May (2010) but, following the end of inventory restocking activity, volumes have slipped back to settle at a similar level seen just before the onset of recession. Even so, that means an expansion of air freight during 2010 of 5–6% on an annualized basis – close to historical trend. With the stimulus of inventory restocking activity removed, further growth in air freight demand will be driven by end consumer demand for goods which utilize the air transport supply chain. ... The end of the inventory cycle does not mean the end of volume expansion but markets are entering a slower growth phase.[42]

text: In a 2008 presentation[12] and paper [43] Professor Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research showed how continued aviation growth in the UK threatens the ability of that nation to meet CO2 emission reduction goals necessary to contain the century-end temperature increase to even 4 or 6C°. (See also: the 4 Degrees and Beyond International Climate Conference (2009)[44] and its proceedings.)[45] His charts show the projected domestic aviation carbon emission increase for the UK as growing from 11 MT in 2006 to 17 MT in 2012, at the UK's historic annual emission growth rate of 7%. Beyond 2012 if the growth rate were reduced to 3% yearly, carbon emissions in 2030 would be 28 MT, which is 70% of the UK's entire carbon emissions budget that year for all sectors of society. This work also suggests the foreseeable future which confronts many other nations that have high dependency on aviation. "Hypermobile Travelers",[46] an academic study by Stefan Gössling et al. (2009) in the book "Climate Change and Aviation",[47] also points to the dilemma caused by the increasing hypermobility of air travelers both in particular nations and globally.[48]

text: Scope for improvement[edit]

text: Aircraft efficiency[edit]

text: While it is true that late model jet aircraft are significantly more fuel efficient (and thus emit less CO2 in particular) than the earliest jet airliners,[49][50] new airliner models in the 2000s were barely more efficient on a seat-mile basis than the latest piston-powered airliners of the late 1950s (e.g. Constellation L-1649-A and DC-7C).[50] Claims for a high gain in efficiency for airliners over recent decades (while true in part) has been biased high in most studies, by using the early inefficient models of jet airliners as a baseline. Those aircraft were optimized for increased revenue, including increased speed and cruising altitude, and were quite fuel inefficient in comparison to their piston-powered forerunners.[50]

text: Today, turboprop aircraft – probably in part because of their lower cruising speeds and altitudes (similar to the earlier piston-powered airliners) compared to jet airliners – play an obvious role in the overall fuel efficiency of major airlines that have regional carrier subsidiaries.[51] For example, although Alaska Airlines scored at the top of a 2011–2012 fuel efficiency ranking, if its large regional carrier – turbo-prop equipped Horizon Air – were dropped from the lumped-in consideration, the airline's ranking would be somewhat lower, as noted in the ranking study.

text: Aircraft manufacturers are striving for reductions in both CO2 and NOx emissions with each new generation of design of aircraft and engine.[52] While the introduction of more modern aircraft represents an opportunity to reduce emissions per passenger kilometre flown, aircraft are major investments that endure for many decades, and replacement of the international fleet is therefore a long-term proposition which will greatly delay realizing the climate benefits of many kinds of improvements. Engines can be changed at some point, but nevertheless airframes have a long life.[citation needed] Moreover, rather than being linear from one year to the next the improvements to efficiency tend to diminish over time, as reflected in the histories of both piston and jet powered aircraft.[50]

text: A 2014 life-cycle assessment of the cradle-to-grave reduction in CO2 by a carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) airliner such as a Boeing 787 – including its manufacture, operations and eventual disposal – has shown that by 2050 such aircraft could reduce the airline industry's CO2 emissions by 14–15%, compared use of conventional airliners.[53] The benefit of CFRP technology is not higher than that amount of reduction, despite the lighter weight and substantially lower fuel consumption of such aircraft, "because of the limited fleet penetration by 2050 and the increased demand for air travel due to lower operating costs." [53]

text: Operations efficiency[edit]

text: Research projects such as Boeing's ecoDemonstrator program have sought to identify ways of improving the efficiency of commercial aircraft operations. The U.S. government has encouraged such research through grant programs, including the FAA's Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program, and NASA's Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project.

text: Adding an electric drive to the airplane's nose wheel may improve fuel efficiency during ground handling. This addition would allow taxiing without the use of the main engines.[54][55][56]

text: Another proposed change is the integrating of an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System to the airstrips of airports. Some companies such as Airbus are currently researching this possibility. The adding of EMALS would allow the civilian aircraft to use considerably less fuel (as a lot of fuel is used during take off, in comparison to cruising, when calculated per km flown). The idea is to have the aircraft take off at regular aircraft speed, and only use the catapult for take-off, not for landing.[57][58]

text: Other opportunities arise from the optimization of airline timetables, route networks and flight frequencies to increase load factors (minimize the number of empty seats flown),[59] together with the optimization of airspace. However, these are each one-time gains, and as these opportunities are successively fulfilled, diminishing returns can be expected from the remaining opportunities.

text: Another possible reduction of the climate-change impact is the limitation of cruise altitude of aircraft. This would lead to a significant reduction in high-altitude contrails for a marginal trade-off of increased flight time and an estimated 4% increase in CO2 emissions. Drawbacks of this solution include very limited airspace capacity to do this, especially in Europe and North America and increased fuel burn because jet aircraft are less efficient at lower cruise altitudes.[60]

text: While they are not suitable for long-haul or transoceanic flights, turboprop aircraft used for commuter flights bring two significant benefits: they often burn considerably less fuel per passenger mile, and they typically fly at lower altitudes, well inside the tropopause, where there are no concerns about ozone or contrail production.

text: Alternative fuels[edit]

text: Some scientists and companies such as GE Aviation and Virgin Fuels are researching biofuel technology for use in jet aircraft.[61] Some aircraft engines, like the Wilksch WAM120 can (being a 2-stroke Diesel engine) run on straight vegetable oil. Also, a number of Lycoming engines run well on ethanol.

text: In addition, there are also several tests done combining regular petrofuels with a biofuel. For example, as part of this test Virgin Atlantic Airways flew a Boeing 747 from London Heathrow Airport to Amsterdam Schiphol Airport on 24 February 2008, with one engine burning a combination of coconut oil and babassu oil.[61] Greenpeace's chief scientist Doug Parr said that the flight was "high-altitude greenwash" and that producing organic oils to make biofuel could lead to deforestation and a large increase in greenhouse gas emissions.[61] Also, the majority of the world's aircraft are not large jetliners but smaller piston aircraft, and with major modifications many are capable of using ethanol as a fuel.[62] Another consideration is the vast amount of land that would be necessary to provide the biomass feedstock needed to support the needs of aviation, both civil and military.[63]

text: In December 2008, an Air New Zealand jet completed the world's first commercial aviation test flight partially using jatropha-based fuel. Jatropha, used for biodiesel, can thrive on marginal agricultural land where many trees and crops won't grow, or would produce only slow growth yields.[64][65] Air New Zealand set several general sustainability criteria for its Jatropha, saying that such biofuels must not compete with food resources, that they must be as good as traditional jet fuels, and that they should be cost competitive with existing fuels.[66]

text: In January 2009, Continental Airlines used a sustainable biofuel to power a commercial aircraft for the first time in North America. This marks the first sustainable biofuel demonstration flight by a commercial carrier using a twin-engined aircraft, a Boeing 737-800, powered by CFM International CFM56-7B engines. The biofuel blend included components derived from algae and jatropha plants.[67]

text: One fuel biofuel alternative to avgas that is under development is Swift Fuel. Swift fuel was approved as a test fuel by ASTM International in December 2009, allowing the company to continue their research and to pursue certification testing. Mary Rusek, president and co-owner of Swift Enterprises predicted at that time that "100SF will be comparably priced, environmentally friendlier and more fuel-efficient than other general aviation fuels on the market".[68][69]

text: As of June 2011, revised international aviation fuel standards officially allow commercial airlines to blend conventional jet fuel with up to 50 percent biofuels. The renewable fuels "can be blended with conventional commercial and military jet fuel through requirements in the newly issued edition of ASTM D7566, Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons".[70]

text: In December 2011, the FAA announced it is awarding $7.7 million to eight companies to advance the development of drop-in commercial aviation biofuels, with a special focus on ATJ (alcohol to jet) fuel. As part of its CAAFI (Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative) and CLEEN (Continuous Lower Emissions, Energy and Noise) programs, the FAA plans to assist in the development of a sustainable fuel (from alcohols, sugars, biomass, and organic matter such as pyrolysis oils) that can be "dropped in" to aircraft without changing current infrastructure. The grant will also be used to research how the fuels affect engine durability and quality control standards.[71]

text: Finally, liquified natural gas is another fuel that is used in some airplanes. Besides the lower GHG emissions (depending from where the natural gas was obtained from), another major benefit to airplane operators is the price, which is far lower than the price for jet fuel.

text: Reducing air travel[edit]

text: Personal choices and social pressure[edit]

text: The German video short The Bill[72] explores how travel and its impacts are commonly viewed in everyday developed-world life, and the social pressures that are at play. British writer George Marshall has investigated common rationalizations that act as barriers to making personal choices to travel less, or to justify recent trips. In an informal research project, "one you are welcome to join", he says, he deliberately steered conversations with people who are attuned to climate change problems to questions about recent long-distance flights and why the travel was justified. Reflecting on actions contrary to their beliefs, he noted, "(i)ntriguing as their dissonance may be, what is especially revealing is that every one of these people has a career that is predicated on the assumption that information is sufficient to generate change – an assumption that a moment's introspection would show them was deeply flawed."[73]

text: Business and professional choices[edit]

text: With most international conferences having hundreds if not thousands of participants, and the bulk of these usually traveling by plane, conference travel is an area where significant reductions in air-travel-related GHG emissions could be made. ... This does not mean non-attendance. (Reay 2004)[74]

text: For example, by 2003 Access Grid technology has already been successfully used to host several international conferences,[74] and technology has likely progressed substantially since then. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research has been systematically studying means to change common institutional and professional practices that have led to large carbon footprints of travel by research scientists, and issued a report. (Le Quéré et al. 2015).[75][76][77]

text: Ending incentives to fly—frequent flyer programs[edit]

text: Over 130 airlines have "frequent flyer programs" based at least in part on miles, kilometers, points or segments for flights taken. Globally, such programs included about 163 million people as reported in 2006.[78] These programs benefit airlines by habituating people to air travel and, through the mechanics of partnerships with credit card companies and other businesses, in which high profit margin revenue streams can amount to selling free seats for a high price.[78] The only part of United Airlines business that was making money when the company filed for bankruptcy in 2002 was its frequent flyer program.[78]

text: Concerning business travel, "The ease of international air travel and the fact that, for most of us, the costs are met by our employers, means that ... globe trotting conference travel is often regarded as a perk of the job."[74] However, the perk usually is not only the business trip itself, but also the frequent flyer points which the individual accrues by taking the trip, and which can be redeemed later for personal air travel. Thus a conflict of interest is established, whereby bottom-up pressure may be created within a firm or government agency for travel that is really not necessary. Even when such conflict is not a motivation, the perk of frequent flyer miles can be expected to lead in many cases to personal trips that would not be taken if a ticket had to be paid for with personal funds.[79]

text: By just using an airline-sponsored credit card to pay one's household expenses, personal or business bills, or even expense bills charged to an employer, frequent flyer points can be racked up quickly.[78] Thus, free travel—for which the individual has to pay nothing extra—becomes a reality. Across society, this too can be expected to lead to much air travel—and greenhouse gas emissions—that otherwise would not occur.[80]

text: Several studies have contemplated the elimination of frequent flyer programmes (FFPs), on the grounds of anti-competitiveness,[81] ethics,[82] conflict with society's overall well-being,[83] or climate effects.[84] There is a record of governments disallowing or banning FFPs and of industry players requesting bans. Denmark did not allow the programs until 1992, then changing its policy because its airlines were disadvantaged.[81] In 2002, Norway banned domestic FFPs in order to promote competition among its airlines.[85] In the U.S. in 1989, a vice president of Braniff "said the government should consider ordering an end to frequent-flyer programs, which he said allow unfair competition."[86]

text: A Canadian study said that because of competition no airline could unilaterally end its FFP, but that a national government could use its regulatory power to end the programs broadly, which in Canada's case would also require North America-wide cooperation.[83] In further analysis, a Scandinavian study which recommended an end to frequent flyer plans said, "the only possible way of prohibiting FFPs successfully now that they have spread from the US to Europe to the Far East would be to do so on a global basis. The basis exists: it could be done by the World Trade Organization."[81] A recent study which surveyed frequent flyers in the U.K. and Norway, looked into behavioral addition to frequent flying and the "flyer's dilemma" of the conflict between "the social and personal benefits of flying and air travel's impact on climate change."[84] It concluded that:

text: Continued growth in both frequent flying practices and concern over air travel's climate impacts are in a dynamic relationship and the question of whether one or the other will reach a tipping point cannot yet be determined. Self-regulation, external regulation, social norms, technology and physical resources will continue to co-constitute the balance. An increasing stigmatisation of 'excessive' air travel may (re)frame flying as more open to collective external mitigation.[84]

text: This means government action.

text: Potential for governmental constraints on demand[edit]

text: One means for reducing the environmental impact of aviation is to constrain demand for air travel, through increased fares in place of expanded airport capacity. Several studies have explored this:

text:
The UK study Predict and Decide – Aviation, climate change and UK policy, notes that a 10% increase in fares generates a 5% to 15% reduction in demand, and recommends that the British government should manage demand rather than provide for it.[87] This would be accomplished via a strategy that presumes "… against the expansion of UK airport capacity" and constrains demand by the use of economic instruments to price air travel less attractively.[88]
A study published by the campaign group Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) concludes that by levying £9 billion of additional taxes, the annual rate of growth in demand in the UK for air travel would be reduced to 2%.[89]
The ninth report of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee, published in July 2006, recommends that the British government rethinks its airport expansion policy and considers ways, particularly via increased taxation, in which future demand can be managed in line with industry performance in achieving fuel efficiencies, so that emissions are not allowed to increase in absolute terms.[90]

text: International regulation of air travel GHG emissions[edit]

text: Kyoto Protocol 2005[edit]

text: Greenhouse gas emissions from fuel consumption in international aviation, in contrast to those from domestic aviation and from energy use by airports, are excluded from the scope of the first period (2008–2012) of the Kyoto Protocol, as are the non-CO2 climate effects. Instead, governments agreed to work through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to limit or reduce emissions and to find a solution to the allocation of emissions from international aviation in time for the second period of the Kyoto Protocol starting from 2009; however, the Copenhagen climate conference failed to reach an agreement.[91]

text: Recent research points to this failure as a substantial obstacle to global policy including a CO2 emissions reduction pathway that would avoid dangerous climate change by keeping the increase in the average global temperature below a 2 °C rise.[92][93][94]

text: Approaches toward emissions trading[edit]

text: As part of that process the ICAO has endorsed the adoption of an open emissions trading system to meet CO2 emissions reduction objectives. Guidelines for the adoption and implementation of a global scheme are currently being developed, and will be presented to the ICAO Assembly in 2007,[95] although the prospects of a comprehensive inter-governmental agreement on the adoption of such a scheme are uncertain.

text: Within the European Union, however, the European Commission has resolved to incorporate aviation in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).[96] A new directive was adopted by the European Parliament in July 2008 and approved by the Council in October 2008. It became effective on 1 January 2012.[97]

text: Researchers at the Overseas Development Institute investigated the possible effects on Small Island Developing States (SIDS) of the European Union's decision to limit the supply of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) to its ETS market to Least Developed Countries (LDCs) from 2013.[98] Most SIDS are highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and rely heavily on tourism as a basis for their economies, so this decision could place them at some disadvantage. The researchers therefore highlight the need to ensure that any regulatory frameworks put in place to tackle climate change take into account the development needs of the most vulnerable countries affected.

text: A report published by researchers at the Centre for Aviation, Transport and Environment at Manchester Metropolitan University found that the only way to have a significant impact on emissions was to put a price on carbon and to use a market-based measure (MBM), such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).[99]

text: International Civil Aviation Organization agreement 2016[edit]

text: In October 2016 the UN agency International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) finalized an agreement among its 191 member nations to address the more than 7011458000000000000♠458 Mt (2010)[100] of carbon dioxide emitted annually by international passenger and cargo flights. The agreement will use an offsetting scheme called CORSIA (the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation) under which forestry and other carbon-reducing activities are directly funded, amounting to about 2% of annual revenues for the sector. Rules against 'double counting' should ensure that existing forest protection efforts are not recycled. The scheme does not take effect until 2021 and will be voluntary until 2027, but many countries, including the US and China, have promised to begin at its 2020 inception date. Under the agreement, the global aviation emissions target is an 80% reduction by 2035 relative to 2020. NGO reaction to the deal was mixed.[101]

text: The agreement has critics. It is not aligned with the 2015 Paris climate agreement, which set the objective of restricting global warming to 1.5 to 2 °C. A late draft of the agreement would have required the air transport industry to assess its share of global carbon budgeting to meet that objective, but the text was removed in the agreed version.[102][103] CORSIA will regulate only about 25 percent of aviation's international emissions, since it grandfather's all emissions below the 2020 level, allowing unregulated growth until then.[104] Only 65 nations will participate in the initial voluntary period, not including significant emitters Russia, India and perhaps Brazil. The agreement does not cover domestic emissions, which are 40% of the global industry's overall emissions.[103] One observer of the ICAO convention made this summary:

text: Airline claims that flying will now be green are a myth. Taking a plane is the fastest and cheapest way to fry the planet and this deal won't reduce demand for jet fuel one drop. Instead offsetting aims to cut emissions in other industries,

text: although another critic called it "a timid step in the right direction."[105]

text: Effects of climate change on aviation[edit]

text: Increased turbulence[edit]

text: A report published in the science journal Nature Climate Change forecasts that increasing CO2 levels will result in a significant increase in in-flight turbulence experienced by transatlantic airline flights by the middle of the 21st century. The lead author of the study, Paul Williams, a researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Science, at the University of Reading stated, "air turbulence does more than just interrupt the service of in-flight drinks. It injures hundreds of passengers and aircrew every year – sometimes fatally. It also causes delays and damage to planes."[106]

text: Noise[edit]

text: Aircraft noise is seen by advocacy groups as being very hard to get attention and action on. The fundamental issues are increased traffic at larger airports and airport expansion at smaller and regional airports.[107]

text: Water pollution[edit]

text: Airports can generate significant water pollution due to their extensive use and handling of jet fuel, lubricants and other chemicals. Airports install spill control structures and related equipment (e.g., vacuum trucks, portable berms, absorbents) to prevent chemical spills, and mitigate the impacts of spills that do occur.[108]

text: In cold climates, the use of deicing fluids can also cause water pollution, as most of the fluids applied to aircraft subsequently fall to the ground and can be carried via stormwater runoff to nearby streams, rivers or coastal waters.[109]:101 Airlines use deicing fluids based on ethylene glycol or propylene glycol as the active ingredient.[109]:4

text: Ethylene glycol and propylene glycol are known to exert high levels of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) during degradation in surface waters. This process can adversely affect aquatic life by consuming oxygen needed by aquatic organisms for survival. Large quantities of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column are consumed when microbial populations decompose propylene glycol.[110]:2–23

text: Sufficient dissolved oxygen levels in surface waters are critical for the survival of fish, macroinvertebrates, and other aquatic organisms. If oxygen concentrations drop below a minimum level, organisms emigrate, if able and possible, to areas with higher oxygen levels or eventually die. This effect can drastically reduce the amount of usable aquatic habitat. Reductions in DO levels can reduce or eliminate bottom feeder populations, create conditions that favor a change in a community’s species profile, or alter critical food-web interactions.[110]:2–30

text: Air quality[edit]

text: Particulate Emissions[edit]

text: Ultrafine particles (UFPs) are emitted by aircraft engines during near-surface level operations including taxi, takeoff, climb, descent, and landing, as well as idling at gates and on taxiways. Other sources of UFPs include ground support equipment operating around the terminal areas. In 2014, an air quality study found the area impacted by ultrafine particles from the takeoffs and landings downwind of Los Angeles International Airport to be of much greater magnitude than previously thought.[111] Typical UFP emissions during takeoff are on the order of 1015-1017 particles emitted per kilogram of fuel burned. Non-volatile soot particle emissions are 1014-1016 particles per kilogram fuel on a number basis and 0.1-1 gram per kilogram fuel on a mass basis, depending on the engine and fuel characteristics.[112][113][114][115][116]

text: Lead emissions[edit]

text: Some 167,000 piston engine aircraft—about three-quarters of private planes in the United States—release lead (Pb) into the air due to leaded aviation fuel.[117] From 1970 to 2007, general aviation aircraft emitted about 34,000 tons of lead into the atmosphere according to the Environmental Protection Agency.[118] Lead is recognized as a serious environmental threat by the Federal Aviation Administration if inhaled or ingested leading to adverse effects on the nervous system, red blood cells and cardiovascular and immune systems with infants and young children especially sensitive to even low levels of lead, which may contribute to behavioral and learning problems, lower IQ[119] and autism.[120]

text: Radiation exposure[edit]

text: Flying 12 kilometres (39,000 ft) high, passengers and crews of jet airliners are exposed to at least 10 times the cosmic ray dose that people at sea level receive. Every few years, a geomagnetic storm permits a solar particle event to penetrate down to jetliner altitudes. Aircraft flying polar routes near the geomagnetic poles are at particular risk.[121][122][123][124]


document_title: Elimination Chamber (2018)

question_text: who won the 7 man elimination chamber match

text: Elimination Chamber (2018)

text: Storylines[edit]

text: The card comprised six matches, including one on the pre-show, that resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by WWE on the Raw brand.[7][8] Storylines were produced on WWE's weekly television show Monday Night Raw.[9] The card was highlighted by two Elimination Chamber matches, one of which was the first to involve women, and the men's chamber match was the first to have seven participants.

text: At the Royal Rumble, Shinsuke Nakamura won the men's Royal Rumble match and decided to stay on SmackDown to challenge for the WWE Championship at WrestleMania 34.[10] This left Brock Lesnar, who at the same event retained his Universal Championship in a triple threat match against Braun Strowman and Kane,[10] without an opponent at WrestleMania. In response, Raw General Manager Kurt Angle scheduled an Elimination Chamber match to determine the number one contender for the Universal Championship at WrestleMania. Six qualification matches were scheduled. The first three were contested on the January 29 episode of Raw. In the first, Strowman defeated Kane in a last man standing match to qualify. Kane was taken to a local medical center after the match. Elias then qualified by defeating "Woken" Matt Hardy after a distraction from Bray Wyatt, and free agent John Cena defeated Finn Bálor to qualify.[11][12] The following week, Elias defeated Cena and Strowman in a triple threat match to determine who would get to enter the chamber last. That same episode, Roman Reigns and Intercontinental Champion The Miz qualified by defeating Wyatt and Apollo Crews (whose ringname was later shortened to Apollo), respectively.[13] On the next episode, Cena defeated The Miz in a match where the loser would be one of the men to start the chamber match. Later, the final qualification match took place in what was originally a second chance fatal four-way match between Bálor, Wyatt, Hardy, and Apollo. However, Angle added Seth Rollins, thus making it a fatal five-way. Rollins and Bálor both simultaneously pinned Wyatt,[14] and it was decided that both would be a part of the Elimination Chamber match, marking the first seven-man chamber match.[15] The following week, all seven men participated in a gauntlet match that began with Reigns and Rollins. Reigns was eliminated followed by Cena. Elias then eliminated Rollins, but was in turn eliminated by Bálor, who was eliminated by The Miz. Strowman won the gauntlet match by pinning The Miz in what was the longest match in WWE history, lasting nearly two hours.[16]

text: On the January 29 episode of Raw, Commissioner Stephanie McMahon convinced Asuka, who won the inaugural women's Royal Rumble match the previous night at the Royal Rumble,[10] to wait until after Elimination Chamber to pick which championship to challenge for at WrestleMania 34, as Raw Women's Champion Alexa Bliss was scheduled to defend her title in the first-ever women's Elimination Chamber match.[12] The following week, General Manager Kurt Angle announced that Bayley, Mandy Rose, Mickie James, Sasha Banks, and Sonya Deville would be the other competitors in the match. Bliss came out and questioned Angle as to why she had to defend her title in the Elimination Chamber match while Universal Champion Brock Lesnar did not and accused Angle of sexism. Angle retorted that Lesnar retained his title at the Royal Rumble, but Bliss had not defended her title since TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs in October. Bliss made the point that she was not the one who schedules matches. Angle then took an audience vote if Bliss should defend the title, and the audience agreed that she should.[13] The following week, Bayley defeated Banks, and Rose and Deville defeated Bliss and James, who Bliss tried to befriend.[14] The next episode, Bayley, Banks, and James defeated Bliss, Rose, and Deville by submission, after which, the woman brawled.[16]

text: On the January 15 episode of Raw, Asuka defeated Nia Jax after the referee stopped the match, who deemed Jax unable to continue.[17] Both then competed in the inaugural women's Royal Rumble match at the Royal Rumble, which Asuka won for the right to challenge for either the Raw Women's Championship or SmackDown Women's Championship at WrestleMania 34.[10] On the February 5 episode of Raw, General Manager Kurt Angle announced that Jax would face Asuka at Elimination Chamber and if she were to defeat Asuka, Jax would be added to Asuka's championship match at WrestleMania to make it a triple threat match.[13] The following week, after a match between Bayley and Sasha Banks, Jax attacked both women to send a message to Asuka. Whilst walking up the ramp, she proclaimed that she would be the one to end Asuka's undefeated streak.[14] The following week, Jax attacked and laid out Asuka during her interview with Renee Young.[16]

text: Following Asuka's Royal Rumble match victory at the Royal Rumble, former UFC star Ronda Rousey made an appearance and interrupted Asuka, Raw Women's Champion Alexa Bliss, and SmackDown Women's Champion Charlotte Flair. Rousey's appearance confirmed that she had signed full-time with WWE.[10] On the February 12 episode of Raw, it was announced that Rousey would sign her Raw contract at Elimination Chamber.[14][18]

text: After losing a feud to Elias, Matt Hardy was defeated by Bray Wyatt on the November 27, 2017 episode of Raw. Following the match, Hardy had a mental breakdown where he sat in the corner and repeatedly shouted "delete" with an arm gesture.[19] This would be the genesis of Hardy's transition into "Woken" Matt Hardy (WWE's version of his "Broken" gimmick from Total Nonstop Action Wrestling) where he debuted as the character the following week, interrupting a promo by Wyatt.[20] Over the following month, the two went back and forth in promos as well as a couple of in-ring confrontations, and they finally had a match on Raw 25 on January 22, 2018 in which Wyatt again defeated Hardy.[21] The two then faced off in the Royal Rumble match, where they eliminated each other.[10] On the February 19 episode of Raw, another match between the two was scheduled for Elimination Chamber.[16]

text: Prior to the Royal Rumble, Titus Worldwide (Apollo and Titus O'Neil) gained two consecutive wins over number one contenders Cesaro and Sheamus,[17] who at the Royal Rumble, won the Raw Tag Team Championship from Jason Jordan and Seth Rollins to become record four-time champions as a team, and a record fifth reign for Cesaro individually.[10] Titus Worldwide received a title opportunity on Raw immediately following the Royal Rumble, but were unsuccessful, and Cesaro and Sheamus also retained their titles in Jordan and Rollins' contractual rematch, though Roman Reigns subbed for an injured Jordan.[13] On the February 19 episode of Raw, Titus Worldwide had a non-title match against Cesaro and Sheamus and again defeated the champions.[16] Afterwards, they challenged Cesaro and Sheamus for the Raw Tag Team Championship at Elimination Chamber for being 3-1 over the champions,[22] which was made official on February 23.[23]

text: On February 23, Bálor Club members Luke Gallows and Karl Anderson were scheduled to face The Miztourage (Bo Dallas and Curtis Axel) on the Elimination Chamber pre-show.[23]

text: Event[edit]

text:
Other on-screen personnel

Role:
Name:

English commentators
Michael Cole

Corey Graves

Jonathan Coachman

Spanish commentators
Carlos Cabrera

Marcelo Rodríguez

German commentators
Carsten Schaefer

Tim Haber

Calvin Knie

Chinese commentators
Meng Ai

Shawn Deng

Japanese commentators
Shun Yamaguchi

Funaki

Ring announcer
JoJo

Referees
Jason Ayers

Shawn Bennett

John Cone

Dan Engler

Chad Patton

Interviewers
Renee Young

Charly Caruso

Mike Rome

Pre-show panel
Renee Young

Booker T

Peter Rosenberg

David Otunga

tag: table

text: Pre-show[edit]

text: During the pre-show, Luke Gallows and Karl Anderson of the Bálor Club faced The Miztourage (Bo Dallas and Curtis Axel). In the climax, Gallows and Anderson performed the Magic Killer on Axel for the win.[24]

text: Preliminary matches[edit]

text: The actual pay-per-view opened with the first-ever women's Elimination Chamber match in which Alexa Bliss defended the Raw Women's Championship against Bayley, Sonya Deville, Sasha Banks, Mandy Rose, and Mickie James. Bayley and Deville were the first two contestants. Rose entered next, assisting Deville in attacking Bayley. Banks entered third and immediately attacked both Deville and Rose. Rose was eliminated by Banks after submitting to the Bank Statement by Banks. James then entered and eliminated Deville after a Diving Seated Senton off a pod. Following this, Bayley performed a Bayley-to-Belly on James to eliminate her. Defending champion Bliss entered last and was hesitant to enter so Bliss climbed the pod instead; Banks was able to knock her down on top of a pod. Banks then turned her attention to Bayley and Bayley subsequently gave Banks a Bayley to Belly. Bliss eliminated Bayley with a roll-up. Bliss then performed Twisted Bliss off a pod on Banks, who applied the Banks Statement on Bliss; Bliss was able to escape. Bliss then won the match after performing a Spike DDT on Banks to retain her title. After the match, an elated Bliss said that nobody thought that she would remain champion and that she proved why she is the ultimate goddess of the Women's Division.[25]

text: Next, Cesaro and Sheamus defended the Raw Tag Team Championship against Titus Worldwide (Apollo and Titus O'Neil). In the end, Cesaro and Sheamus performed a White Noise/Diving Neckbreaker combination on Apollo to retain the title.[25]

text: After that, Asuka faced Nia Jax where if Jax won, she would be added to Asuka's championship match at WrestleMania 34. After dominating most of the match, Jax attempted a powerbomb but Asuka countered into a roll up for the win, keeping Jax out of her WrestleMania championship match. After the match, Jax tackled Asuka through the barricade. Bliss was later interviewed and looked pleased with what transpired between Asuka and Jax. Bliss then mocked Asuka by declaring that no one is ready for her.[25]

text: In the fourth match, "Woken" Matt Hardy fought Bray Wyatt. Hardy won after a Twist of Fate on Wyatt. [25]

text: Next was the Raw contract signing of Ronda Rousey. General Manager Kurt Angle, Commissioner Stephanie McMahon, and WWE's Chief Operating Officer Triple H bragged about Rousey before introducing her. However, before Rousey signed her contract, Triple H confirmed that there were no special stipulations in Rousey's contract, but she would compete in a match at WrestleMania 34. Angle then brought up the incident from WrestleMania 31 where Rousey and The Rock embarrassed Stephanie and Triple H, and said that Triple H and Stephanie were now glad that they owned Rousey so they could manipulate her. Triple H and Stephanie tried to calm the situation, however, Angle instigated the tension more, which resulted in Rousey throwing Triple H through a table. Stephanie then slapped Rousey, but retreated before Rousey could attack her. Rousey then signed her contract.[25]

text: Main event[edit]

text: The main event was the first-ever seven-man Elimination Chamber match with the victor becoming the number one contender against Brock Lesnar for the Universal Championship at WrestleMania 34. Due to the extra participant, three men began the match instead of two, which were The Miz, Seth Rollins, and Finn Bálor. John Cena entered the match as the fourth entrant, followed by Roman Reigns and Braun Strowman. Strowman performed a Running Powerslam on The Miz to eliminate him. The last man to enter the match was Elias. Strowman then eliminated Elias, Cena, Bálor, and Rollins by performing a running powerslam on each of them. The final two were Strowman and Reigns. In the climax, Reigns performed three superman punches and two spears on Strowman to win the match and earn the right to challenge Brock Lesnar for the Universal Championship at WrestleMania 34. After the match, Strowman attacked Reigns with two running powerslams and tackled Reigns through a pod.[25]

text: Aftermath[edit]

text: Universal Champion Brock Lesnar and his advocate Paul Heyman were advertised to be on the following night's episode of Raw to confront the winner of the Elimination Chamber match, but no-showed. Roman Reigns cut a promo on his WrestleMania 34 opponent, calling Lesnar entitled and that he hides behind his contract, which allows him to show up whenever he wants. He said Lesnar does not respect the WWE and that he has no respect for Lesnar, but he would defeat Lesnar at WrestleMania and become the Universal Champion.[26]

text: Raw Women's Champion Alexa Bliss, along with Mickie James, gloated about retaining her title in the first-ever women's Elimination Chamber match. She said at WrestleMania 34, if Asuka chose her, she would end her undefeated streak. Asuka then came out, but Nia Jax was close behind and the three women teamed up on Asuka until Bayley and Sasha Banks came out for the save, with James turning heel in the process. Asuka, Banks, and Bayley then teamed up to face Bliss, James, and Jax in a six-woman tag team match. During the match, Banks went to tag Bayley, but Bayley refused the tag. Asuka won the match for her team by making James submit.[26] Asuka and Jax had a rematch the following week where Asuka was again victorious.[27] Asuka then decided that she would challenge Charlotte Flair for the SmackDown Women's Championship at WrestleMania.[28] Jax would then be granted a Raw Women's Championship match at WrestleMania after Bliss revealed her true feelings about Jax.[29]

text: Ronda Rousey, General Manager Kurt Angle, Commissioner Stephanie McMahon, and Chief Operating Officer Triple H had a segment to apologize for what happened at Elimination Chamber. During the segment, Angle, in an attempt to keep his job, said that he lied about Triple H and Stephanie's supposed plan against Rousey. Stephanie thanked Angle for clearing the air, however, Rousey said everything was addressed except for Stephanie slapping her in the face. Rousey wanted an apology from Stephanie, who complied and said she only did it because Rousey put her husband through a table. As Stephanie and Triple H were leaving, Triple H punched Angle.[26] The following week, Stephanie confirmed that Rousey could choose any member of the active Raw roster as her WrestleMania 34 opponent except the champion; Rousey chose Stephanie. Angle reminded Stephanie that although she was an executive, she had a contract to compete as a wrestler. Angle also reminded Triple H of his warning from Survivor Series where if Triple H were to attack him again, he would retaliate. He also reminded Triple H that he too had a contract to compete as a wrestler and then scheduled Triple H and Stephanie to face himself and Rousey at WrestleMania.[27]

text: Intercontinental Champion The Miz said that he should be in the main event of WrestleMania 34 and said that he had made the Intercontinental Championship more important than the Universal Championship. He was told by General Manager Kurt Angle that his opponent that night might determine his WrestleMania opponent. Seth Rollins then came out and defeated The Miz in a match. Finn Bálor then came out to also have a match with Miz, which confused Rollins. The Miztourage attacked Bálor right after the match started, causing a disqualification, and Luke Gallows and Karl Anderson came to Bálor's aid. Angle appeared on the TitanTron and banned The Miztourage and Gallows and Anderson from ringside and restarted the match, stating that there would be a winner or else Miz would not have a match at WrestleMania. Bálor then defeated Miz..[26] The following week, Angle scheduled Miz to defend the title in a triple threat match against Rollins and Bálor at WrestleMania.[27]

text: Bray Wyatt was scheduled to have a match with Heath Slater, but the match did not happen as he attacked Slater and his tag team partner Rhyno before the match could begin. Afterwards, he said his war with "Woken" Matt Hardy was not over.[26] The following week, after defeating Rhyno, Wyatt called out Hardy, who appeared on the TitanTron and challenged Wyatt to an "Ultimate Deletion" match at the Hardy Compound (WWE's version of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling's "Final Deletion" match, a Falls-Count-Anywhere Hardcore match fought at Hardy's house).[27] Wyatt accepted the challenge.[29] The "Ultimate Deletion" match aired on the March 19 episode where Hardy defeated Wyatt by pinfall, then Wyatt disappeared after being thrown into the "Lake of Reincarnation".[30]

text: Titus Worldwide (Apollo and Titus O'Neil) had a rematch against Cesaro and Sheamus for the Raw Tag Team Championship in a two-out-of-three falls match where Cesaro and Sheamus again retained.[26] The Revival (Dash Wilder and Scott Dawson) then had a non-title match with the champions where had they won, they would have received a championship match at WrestleMania 34, but the champions were victorious.[27] Braun Strowman, who settled his differences with Elias, then won a tag team battle royal by himself to determine Cesaro and Sheamus' challengers at WrestleMania.[29] Angle declared that Strowman had to find a partner, and Strowman said he would.[30]

text: Despite losing the Elimination Chamber match, John Cena still wanted a match at WrestleMania 34 and challenged The Undertaker. However, he revealed that he was told that the match was impossible. He then said that he would use his free agent status to go to SmackDown Live the following night to earn a match at WrestleMania.[26] On SmackDown, Cena was given the opportunity to be added to the WWE Championship match at SmackDown's pay-per-view Fastlane if he could defeat WWE Champion AJ Styles in a non-title match. Cena defeated Styles, making the WWE Championship match at Fastlane a Six-Pack Challenge.[31]

text: Results[edit]

text:
No.
Results
Stipulations
Times[24][25]

1P
Luke Gallows and Karl Anderson defeated The Miztourage (Bo Dallas and Curtis Axel)
Tag team match[32]
8:50

2
Alexa Bliss (c) defeated Sasha Banks, Bayley, Mickie James, Sonya Deville, and Mandy Rose
Elimination Chamber match for the WWE Raw Women's Championship[33]
29:35

3
Cesaro and Sheamus (c) defeated Titus Worldwide (Apollo and Titus O'Neil) (with Dana Brooke)
Tag team match for the WWE Raw Tag Team Championship[34]
10:05

4
Asuka defeated Nia Jax
Singles match; Had Jax won, she would have been added to Asuka's championship match at WrestleMania 34[35]
8:15

5
Matt Hardy defeated Bray Wyatt
Singles match[36]
9:55

6
Roman Reigns defeated Braun Strowman, Seth Rollins, Finn Bálor, John Cena, Elias, and The Miz
Elimination Chamber match for a WWE Universal Championship match at WrestleMania 34[37]
40:15

(c) – refers to the champion(s) heading into the match
P – indicates the match took place on the pre-show

text: Women Elimination Chamber match[edit]

text:
Eliminated
Wrestler
Entered
Eliminated by
Method of Elimination
Time[25]

01 !1
Mandy Rose
3
Sasha Banks
Bank Statement
13:50

02 !2
Sonya Deville
2
Mickie James
Seated senton off the top of a pod
17:35

03 !3
Mickie James
5
Bayley
Bayley-to-Belly
18:00

04 !4
Bayley
1
Alexa Bliss
Roll up
25:30

05 !5
Sasha Banks
4
Alexa Bliss
Spike DDT
29:35

06 !Winner
Alexa Bliss (c)
6
N/A

text: Men Elimination Chamber match[edit]

text:
Eliminated
Wrestler
Entered
Eliminated by
Method of Elimination
Time[25]

01 !1
The Miz
1
Braun Strowman
Running powerslam
20:20

02 !2
Elias
7
Braun Strowman
Powerslam
25:55

03 !3
John Cena
4
Braun Strowman
Powerslam
26:25

04 !4
Finn Bálor
3
Braun Strowman
Powerslam
31:03

05 !5
Seth Rollins
2
Braun Strowman
Powerslam
36:40

06 !6
Braun Strowman
6
Roman Reigns
Spear
40:15

07 !Winner
Roman Reigns
5
N/A


document_title: Royal Mint

question_text: when did the royal mint move to wales

question_tokens: when did the royal mint move to wales

text: Royal Mint

text: History[edit]

text: Origin[edit]

text: The history of coins in Great Britain can be traced back to the second century BC when they were introduced by Celtic tribes from across the English Channel. The first record of coins being minted in Britain is attributed to Kentish tribes such as the Cantii who around 80–60 B.C. imitated those of Marseille through casting instead of hammering.[5] After the Romans began their invasion of Britain in AD 43, they set up mints across the land, including in London which produced Roman coins for some 40 years before closing. A mint in London reopened briefly in 383 AD until closing swiftly as Roman rule in Britain came to an end. For the next 200 years no coins appear to have been minted in Britain until the emergence of English kingdoms in 650 AD when as many as 30 mints are recorded across Britain with one being established in London.[6] Control of Britain's mints alternated as different tribes battled over territory. In 886 AD Alfred the Great recaptured London from the Danelaw and began issuing silver pennies bearing his portrait;[7] this is regarded as the start of the continuous history of the Royal Mint.[8]

text: 886 to 1805[edit]

text: In 1279, the country’s numerous mints were unified under a single system whereby control was centralised to the mint within the Tower of London, mints outside of London were reduced with only a few local and episcopals continuing to operate.[9] Pipe rolls detailing the financial records of the London mint show an expenditure of £729 17s 8½d and records of timber bought for workshops.

text: Individual roles at the mint were well established by 1464. The master-worker was charged with hiring engravers and the management of moneyers, while the mint warden was responsible for witnessing the delivery of dies. A specialist mint board was set up in 1472 to enact a 23 February indenture which vested the mint's responsibilities into three main roles; a warden, a master and a comptroller.

text: In the 16th century having suffering from the effects of the Black Death, mainland Europe was in the middle of a economic expansion, England however was suffering with financial difficulty brought on by excessive government spending. By the 1540s wars with France and Scotland led Henry VIII to enact The Great Debasement which saw the amount of precious metal in coin significantly reduced.[10] In order to further gather control of the country's currency, monasteries were dissolved which effectively ended major coin production outside of London.

text: In 1603, the union of Scotland and England under King James VI led to a partial union of both countries' currencies, the pound Scots and the pound sterling. Due to Scotland heavily debasing its silver coins, a Scots mark was worth just 13.5d compared to an English mark which was worth 6s 8d. To bridge the difference between the values, unofficial supplementary token coins, often made from lead were made by unauthorised minters across the country. By 1612 there were 3,000 such unlicensed mints producing these tokens, none of whom paying anything towards the crown. The Royal Mint, not wanting to divert manpower away from minting more profitable gold and silver, hired outside agent Lord Harington who under licence started issuing copper farthings in 1613. Private licenses to mint these coins were revoked in 1644 which led traders to resume minting their own supplementary tokens. In 1672 the Royal Mint finally took over the production of copper coinage.

text: Civil War mints[edit]

text: Prior to the outbreak of the English Civil War, England signed a treaty in 1630 with Spain which ensured a steady supply of silver bullion to the Tower mint. Additional branch mints to aid the one in London were set up including one at Aberystwyth Castle, in Wales. In 1642 parliament seized control of the Tower mint and after Charles I tried to arrest the Five Members he was forced to flee London, establishing at least 16 emergency mints across the British Isles in Colchester, Chester, Cork, Edinburgh, Dublin, Exeter, Salisbury, parts of Cornwall including Truro, Weymouth, Worcester, York, Carlisle, Newark, Pontefract and Scarborough (see also siege money).

text: After raising the royal standard in Nottingham marking the beginning of the war, Charles called upon loyalist mining engineer Thomas Bushell, the owner of a mint and silver mine in Aberystwyth, to move his operations to the royalist-held Shrewsbury, possibly within in the grounds of Shrewsbury Castle. The mint there was however short-lived, operating for no more than three months before Charles ordered Bushell to relocate the mint to his headquarters in the royal capital of Oxford. The new Oxford mint was established on 15 December 1642 in New Inn Hall at Oxford University, the present site of St. Peter's College. There, silver plates and foreign coins were melted down and in some cases just hammered into shape to produce coins quickly. Bushell was appointed the mint's warden and master-worker, where he laboured alongside notable engravers Nicholas Briot, Thomas Rawlins and Nicholas Burghers, the later of whom being appointed Graver of Seals, Stamps and Medals in 1643. When Prince Rupert took control of Oxford that same year, Bushnell was ordered to move to Bristol Castle where he continued minting coins until it fell to parliamentary control on 11 September 1645, effectively ending Bushnell's involvement in the civil war mints.

text: In Southern England in November 1642 the king ordered royalist MP Richard Vyvyan to build one or more mints in Cornwall where he was instructed to mint coins from whatever bullion that could be obtained and deliver it to Ralph Hopton, a commander of royalist troops in the region. Vyvyan built a mint in Truro and became its Master until 1646 when it was captured by parliamentarians. In nearby Exeter which had been under control of Westminster since the beginning of the war, a mint was ordered to be set up after parliament debated the proposal on 8 December 1642. After approval was granted, a mint and moneyers were dispatched on 8 December 1642 to the town which was under constant threat of attack by loyalist troops. In September 1643 the town was captured by the Cornish Royalist Army led by Prince Maurice leading to Vyvyan moving his nearby mint in Truro to the now recaptured town. The exact location of the mint in Exeter is unknown, however maps from the time show a street named Old Mint Lane near Friernhay which was to be the site of a 1696 Recoinage mint. Much less is known about the mint's employees with only Richard Vyvyan and clerk Thomas Hawkes recorded.[11]

text: Following Charles I's execution in 1649, the newly formed Commonwealth of England established its own set of coins which for the first time used English rather than Latin and were plainly designed compared to those previously issued under the monarchy.[12] The government invited French engineer Peter Blondeau who worked at the Paris mint to come to London in 1649 in hope of modernising the country's minting process. In France hammer stuck coins had been banned from the Paris Mint since 1639 and replaced with milled coinage.[13] After arriving, it wasn't until 9 May 1651 that his testing began in Drury House, having first required permission from parliament. He initially produced milled silver pattern pieces of halfcrowns, shillings and sixpences however rival moneyers favouring hammer stuck coins continued using the old hammering method. In 1656 Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell ordered engraver Thomas Simon to cut a series of dies featuring his bust and for them to be minted using the new milled method. Few of Cromwell's coins entered circulation with Cromwell himself dying in 1658 and the Commonwealth collapsing two year later. Without Cromwell's backing of milled coinage, Peter Blondeau returned to France leaving England to continue minting hammer struck coins.

text: In 1662, after previous attempts to introduce milled coinage into Britain had failed, the restored monarch Charles II recalled Peter Blondeau to establish a permanent machine-made coinage.[14][15] Despite the introduction of the newer, milled coins, like the old hammered coins they suffered heavily from counterfeiting and clipping. To combat this the text Decus et tutamen (An ornament and a safeguard) was added to some coin rims.[16]

text: Following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which saw the ousting of James II from power, parliament took over control of the mint from the Crown which had up until then allowed the mint to act as an independent body producing coins on behalf of the government.

text: Under the patronage of Charles Montagu, 1st Earl of Halifax, Issac Newton became the mint's warden in 1696. His role, intended to be a sinecure, was taken seriously by Newton, who went about trying to combat the country's growing problems with counterfeiting. By this time, forgeries accounted for 10% of the country's coinage, clipping was commonplace and the value of silver in coins had surpassed their face value. King William III initiated the Great Recoinage of 1696 whereby all coins were removed from circulation and enacted the Coin Act 1696 making it high treason to own or possess counterfeiting equipment. Satellite mints to aid in the re-coinage were established in Bristol, Chester, Exeter, Norwich, and York, with returned coins being valued by weight, not face value.

text: The Acts of Union 1707 united England and Scotland into one country, leading London to take over production of Scotland's currency and thus replacing Scotland's Pound Scots with the English Pound Sterling which caused the Edinburgh mint to eventually close on 4 August 1710. As Britain's empire continued to expand, so to was the need to supply its coinage. This along with the need for new mint machinery and cramped conditions within the Tower of London, led to plans for the mint to move to nearby East Smithfield.

text: 1805 to 1967[edit]

text: Tower Hill[edit]

text: Located opposite from the Tower of London on Tower Hill, the new purpose-built mint began construction in 1805 and was completed by 1809. However it was not until 1812 that the move became official, when keys from the old mint were ceremoniously delivered to the Constable of the Tower.[17] Facing the front of the site stood the Johnson Smirke Building whose namesake comes from its designer James Johnson and builder Robert Smirke. This building was flanked on both sides by gatehouses behind which another building housed the mint's new machinery. A number of other smaller buildings were also erected which housed mint officers and staff members. The entire site was protected by a boundary wall which was patrolled by the Royal Mint’s military guard.

text: By 1856, the mint was beginning to prove inefficient, suffering from irregularities in minted coins' fineness and weight. Instructed by Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, the Master of the Mint Thomas Graham was informed that unless the mint could raise its standards and become more economical it would be broken up and placed under management by contractors. Graham sought advice from German chemist August Wilhelm von Hofmann who in turn recommended his student George Frederick Ansell as being able to resolve the mint's issues. In a letter to the treasury dated October 29, 1856, Ansell was put forward as candidate and subsequently was awarded the role of temporary clerk on 12 November 1856 with a £120 a year salary.[18]

text: Upon taking office, Ansell discovered that the weighing of metals at the mint was extremely loose. At the mint it had been the custom to weigh silver to within 0.5 ounces and gold to a pennyweight (0.05 ounces), however these standards meant losses were being made from overvalued metals. In one such case Ansell delivered 7920.00 ounces of gold to the mint where it was weighed by an official at 7918.15 ounces, a difference of 1.85 ounces. Requesting a second weighing on more accurate scale, the bullion was certified to weigh 7919.98 ounces, far closer to the previous measurement which was off by 960 grains. To increase the accuracy of weights, more precise weighing equipment was ordered and specifications were revised to 0.10 ounce for silver and gold to 0.01oz. Between 1856 and 1866 the old scales were gradually removed and replaced with ones made by Messrs. De Grave, Short, and Fanner; winners of a 1862 International Exhibition prize award for work relating to balances.[18]

text: Another observation Ansell made was the loss of gold during the manufacturing process. He found that 15-20 ounces could be recovered through the sweep, that is the leftover burnt rubbish from the minting process which was often left in open boxes for many months before being removed. Wanting to account for every particle, he hypothesised that because the Conservation of mass meant it was physically impossible for gold to just disappear he put down the lost weight to a combination of oil, dust and different types of foreign matter amongst the gold.

text: In 1859, the Royal Mint rejected a batch of gold that was found to be too brittle for the minting of gold sovereigns. Analysis revealed the presence of small amounts of antimony, arsenic and lead. With Ansell's background in chemistry, he persuaded the Royal Mint to allow him to experiment with the alloy and was ultimately able to produce 167,539 gold sovereigns.[19] On a second occasion in 1868, it was again discovered that gold coins, this time totalling £500,000 worth, were being produced with inferior gold. Although the standard practise at the mint was for rejected coins (known as brockages) to be melted down, many entered general circulation and the mint was forced to return thousands of ounces of gold to the Bank of England. Although Ansell offered to re-melt the substandard coins, his offer was rejected causing a row between him and senior mint chiefs which ultimately led to him being removed from his position at the mint.[20]

text: Royal Mint Refinery[edit]

text: After relocating to its new home on Tower Hill, the Mint came under increased scrutiny of how it dealt with unrefined gold that had entered the country. Initially the Master of the Mint was responsible for overseeing the practise since the position's inception in the 1300s, however the refinery process proved too costly and suffered from a lack of accountability from the master. A Royal Commission later set up in 1848 to address these issues gave recommendation for the refinery process to be outsourced to another external agency thereby removing the refining process from the mint's responsibilities. The opportunity to handle in Mint's refinery was taken up by Anthony de Rothschild, a descendant of the Rothschild family and heir to the multinational investment banking company N M Rothschild & Sons. Rothschild secured a lease from the government in January 1852, purchasing equipment and a premise adjacent to the Royal Mint on 19 Royal Mint Street. Under the name of Royal Mint Refinery

text: Colonial Expansion[edit]

text: As Britain's influence as a world power expanded, with colonies being established abroad, a greater need for currency led to the Royal Mint opening satellite branches of itself overseas. In Australia, the local Legislative Council petitioned the UK government to establish a branch of the Royal Mint in Sydney (Sydney Mint) after prospector Edward Hargraves discovered gold in Ophir, New South Wales in 1851. The petitioned gain royal assent in 1853 and plans were made by the Deputy Master of the Royal Mint in London to open the Royal Mint's first overseas branch within the colony. The Royal Mint’s Superintendent of Coining travelled to Australia to oversee its establishment on Macquarie Street within the southern wing of Sydney Hospital were it opened in 1854. Its success led to the opening of Melbourne Mint on 2 June 1872 which cost £368,350 and Perth Mint which opened on 20 June 1899. In 1926 after operating for 72 years, the Sydney Mint closed due to its inferior technology and capabilities being superseded by those in Melbourne and Perth. After Australia was federalised in 1901, Great Britain continued to own the mints to as late as 1 July 1970, when they became statutory authorities of the Government of Western Australia.

text: In Canada, which had been under British rule since 1763, British coins circulated alongside those of other nations until 1958 when London started producing coins for the newly established Canadian dollar. As Canada developed, in 1890 calls were made for a mint to be built in Ottawa to facilitate the country's gold mines. The new mint opened on 2 January 1908 by Lord Grey producing coins for circulation including Ottawa Mint sovereigns. In 1931 under the Statute of Westminster, the mint came under the control on the Government of Canada and subsequently renamed the Royal Canadian Mint.[21]

text: A fifth branch of the Royal Mint was established in Mumbai (Bombay), India on 21 December 1917 as part of a wartime effort. It struck sovereign from 15 Aug 1918 til 22 Apr 1919. before closing in May 1919.[22][23] A sixth and final overseas mint was established in the Union of South Africa in Pretoria on 1 January 1923, producing £83,114,575 worth of sovereigns of its lifetime. As South Africa began cutting ties with Britain, the mint closed on 30 June 1941 only to be later reopened as the South African Mint.[24]

text: Although just six mints were officially controlled by London's Royal Mint, many more independent mints were set up to facilitate parts of the British Empire. In New Westminster, British Columbia the British Columbia gold rushes led to a mint was setup in 1862 under Governor James Douglas were it produced a few gold and silver coins before being shut down in 1862 to aid the city of Victoria in becoming the regions provincial capital.[25] On 26 February 1864 an Order of Council requested for the founding of independent mint (Hong Kong Mint) in British Hong Kong to issue silver and bronze coins.[26][27] This mint was short lived however due to its coins being heavy debasement causing significant losses. The site was sold to Jardine Matheson in 1868 and the mint machinery sold to the Japanese Mint in Osaka.[28]

text: New Zealand’s $1 and $2 coins are minted by the Royal Mint in the United Kingdom. The 10 cent, 20 cent and 50 cent coins are minted by the Royal Canadian Mint. Other mints the Bank has used over time include: the Royal Australian Mint, Norwegian Mint and the South African Mint Company. The F4 Coin mintings data has details about the number and value of coin mintages.[29]

text: 1914 to 1967[edit]

text: In 1914 as war broke out in Europe, Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George instructed for gold coins to be removed from circulation so as to help pay for the war effort. The government started to issue £1 and 10 shilling treasury notes as replacement waving the way for Britan leaving the gold standard in 1931.

text: During World War II the Mint played an important role in ensuring that people were paid for their services with hard currency rather than banknotes. Under Operation Bernhard, the Nazis planned to collapse the British economy by flooding the country with forged notes leading the Bank of England to stop issuing banknotes of £10 and above. To meet these demands the Mint doubled its output so that by 1943 it was minting around 700 million coins a year despite being under constant threat of being bombed. The Deputy Master of the Mint John Craig recognised the dangers to the Mint, introduced a number of measures to ensure the Mint could continue to operate in the event of a disaster. Craig added emergency water supplies, reinforced the Mint's basement to act as a air-raid shelter and even accepted employment of women for the first time. For most of the war the mint managed to escape the destruction of the Blitz until December 1940 when three members of staff were killed in an air-raid. Around the same time an auxiliary mint was set up at Pinewood Studios which had been requisitioned for the war effort. Staff and machinery from Tower Hill were moved to the site in Buckinghamshire were it started production in June 1941 and operated for the duration of the war.[30][31] Over the course of the war the Royal Mint was hit on several different occasions and at one point was put out of commission for three weeks. As technology changed with the introduction of electricity and demand continuing to grow, the process of rebuilding continued so that by the 1960s little of the original mint remained, apart from Smirke's 1809 building and its gatehouses at the front.

text: On 1 March 1966 the government announced its intention for the pound to be decimalised which would require a large-scale withdrawal and minting of millions of new coins, this, as well as commitments to overseas customers, meant the mint was to be faced with a heavy workload. Lack of space at the mint and with Decimal Day looming it became apparent that the mint needed to again relocate to a larger site. With a degree of urgency plans were made in April 1967 for a new site to be built outside of London, although over twenty sites were considered[32] the small Welsh town of Llantrisant located ten miles (16 km) north-west of Cardiff was chosen[33] Up until now improvements at the Tower Hill mint had cost £800,000.

text: 1967 to present[edit]

text: Move to Wales[edit]

text: Work on the new mint began in August 1967 with the construction of a blank treatment plant and plant for striking. This first phase of the mint was officially opened on 17 December 1968 by the royal attendance of Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Philip and their son Prince Charles. Originally there were fears that the Royal family would face protests because of the Investiture of Prince Charles as the Prince of Wales; however, such protests failed to materialise.[34] The second phase of construction began in 1973 and included the addition of a means to mint coins from virgin metals completing the full minting process. Upon completion the final cost for the land, buildings and plant came to £8 million.[35] Coin minting and production gradually shifted to the new site over the next seven years until the last coin, a gold sovereign, was struck in London in November 1975. In an attempt to consolidate all previous coin-related acts, the Coinage Act of 1971 was passed, which among other things effectively abolished the individual role of Master of the Mint. Under this act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer took over the role, with a Deputy Master being appointed by the Treasury to exercise all the powers and duties of the Master within the mint.

text: Financial Difficulties[edit]

text: After moving to Wales, the mint struggled to become profitable as the Western world fell into a deep recession during the early 1970s. To combat a rising national debt, the mint was established as a trading fund on 1 April 1975 which required it to become self-financing. This measure proved successful and the mint started to become profitable through heavy exports.To allow for more financial freedom and better management the mint became an Executive Agency in April 1990.[36]

text: During the 2008 global financial crisis, a rescue package costing £500 billion was announced to help stabilise Britain's banking system. This led to fear that the government would attempt to finance the cost by selling off state-owned organisations. In a 2009 pre-budget report the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling stated that the treasury would "explore the potential benefits of alternative future models for the Royal Mint".[37][38] A month later in his 2009 United Kingdom budget he recommended that the mint be made a company with a view of it being sold.[39] The decision was met with outrage by unions and opposition parties in parliament who called it the "selling off the family silver" and that it would result in jobs losses. In contrast, the chief executive of the mint Andrew Stafford welcomed the decision stating that it would lead to further growth and secure the future of the business.[40] On 31 December 2009, rather than being fully privatised, the mint ceased to be an executive agency and its assets vested in a limited company, Royal Mint Ltd. The owner of the new company became The Royal Mint trading fund, which itself continued to be owned by HM Treasury. As its sole shareholder the mint pays an annual dividend of £4 million to treasury with the remaining profits being reinvested into the mint.[41] In 2015 Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced a £20 billion privatisation drive to raise funds with the Royal Mint being up for sale alongside other institutions including the Met Office and Companies House.[38]

text: Revival[edit]

text: With its new found financial freedom the Mint begun diversifying their product range through expanding to offer items outside their usual coin-related merchandise. By the early 2000s the Mint was selling different types of jewellery, commemorative plates and figurines,[42] eventually creating its own Royal Mint Classics range of collectable goods. This part of the business proved popular in attracting new customers however suffered from poor product development. Example of its products included a hip flask with an embedded £2 coin, an Edinburgh Crystal clock combined with a millennium Crown, and a Wedgwood plate featuring Britannia.[43] In 2007 the Mint decided to resume its focus on coins, downsizing non-coin related business and discontinuing its Classics range.[44]

text: 2012 London Olympics[edit]

text: After London was selected to host the 2012 Summer Olympic Games, the Royal Mint successfully won its bid to manufacture the games' Olympic and Paralympic medals.[45] 4,700 gold, sliver a bronze medals were produced by the Mint with each medal being struck 15 times with 900 tonnes of force.[46]

text:
Olympic Medal Specifications[46][47]

Gold Medal
Silver Medal
Bronze Medal

Weight
412g
412g
357g

Composition
1.34% Gold
93% Silver
6% Copper

93% Silver
7% Copper

97% Copper
2.5% Zinc
0.5% Tin

text: In addition to securing the medal product contract, the mint held a competition to design a series of commemorative fifty pence coins that would enter general circulation prior to the event. The Mint received over 30,000 entries with a further 17,000 from a children's competition on Blue Peter. In all, a total of 29 designs featuring a sport were selected by the Mint, with the youngest designer being just 9 years old.[48] A £2 coin commemorating London's handover to Rio was also released in 2012.

text: The Royal Mint Experience[edit]

text: In April 2014 the mint announced plans for the development of a visitor centre in Llantrisant were member of the public could take part in a guided tour the facility and learn about the mint's history. The development's contract, estimated to be worth £7.7 million was awarded to construction firm ISG and design consultant Mather & Co who had previously designed the Norwegian Olympic Museum, as well as handful of visitor attraction for a sporting clubs including Chelsea F.C, Manchester City F.C, FC Porto and the Springboks.[49][50] To fund the development, a grant of £2.3 million was provided by the Welsh Government towards the attraction which aimed to attract 200,000 visitors a year to the area.[51] By May 2016, two years after its announcement the now named Royal Mint Experience opened to the public at a final cost of £9 million. Included in the visitor centre an interactive museum, a view onto the factory floor, an education centre and a press whereby visitors can strike their own souvenir £1 coin.[52][53] On display at the centre are more than 80,000 artefacts,[54] including Olympic medals, a pattern coin of Edward VIII, a Janvier reducing machine and a selection of trial plates.

text: Recent Events[edit]

text: In the same month the mint took in 48 tonnes of silver recovered from the shipwreck of the SS Gairsoppa which was used to produce limited edition coins.[55]

text: In 2015, after nearly 50 years, the mint began producing its own line of bullion bars and coins under its revived Royal Mint Refinery brand. Then in 2016, the mint announced plans for Royal Mint Gold (RMG), a digital gold currency that uses blockchain to trade and invest in gold. Operated by CME Group, the technology is to be created by technology companies AlphaPoint and BitGo.[56] The system currency which was due to launch in 2017 will be on the gold standard, whereby one RMG token equates to 1 gram of physical gold held within in a Royal Mint vault. Up to $1 billion worth of RMG is set to be issued by the mint.[57]

text: Operations[edit]

text: Coin production[edit]

text: As the sole body responsible for minting legal tender coins in the United Kingdom under contract from HM Treasury, the mint produces all of the country's physical currency apart from banknotes which are printed by the Bank of England. On average it produces 2 billion pound sterling coins struck for general circulation every year with an estimated 28 billion pieces circulating altogether. Outside of the UK, the mint provides services to over 60 different countries including New Zealand and many Caribbean nations in the form of producing national currencies or supplying ready to strike planchets.[3] In 2015 it was estimated that 2.4 billion coins were minted for overseas countries outweighing that of domestic coinage and providing over 60% of the mint's revenue from circulating currencies. The sale of commemorative coins also form part of the mint's operations with coins of varying quality and made of different precious metals released yearly for the collector's market.

text:
Coins minted (billion)

2015[58]
2014[58]
2013[59]

United Kingdom
2.007
2.384
1.996

International
2.4
2.2
2.0

text: Bullion[edit]

text: Another important operation performed by the mint which contributes to half the mint's revenue is the sale of bullion to investors or general members of the public in the form of bars or coins. Historically the mint has refined its own metal, however under the advice of an 1848 Royal Commission the process was separated with the independent Royal Mint Refinery being purchased and operated by Anthony de Rothschild in 1852. The Rothschild family continued the refinery's management until it was sold to Engelhard in 1967, a year later the Royal Mint relocated to Wales and ceased their bullion bar interests until reviving the brand in 2015. Bullion bars produced by the mint are stamped with the original Royal Mint Refinery emblem and come in a range of different sizes.[60]

text:
Bullion bars

Metal
Fineness
Weights

Silver
999
n/a
100g
500g
1 kg

Gold
999.9
1g
5g
10g
1oz
100g
500g
1 kg

Platinum
999.5
n/a
1oz
100g
500g
1 kg

text: Minting of bullion coins began in 1957 to meet a demand for authentic sovereign coins which suffered from heavy counterfeiting. Coins were released almost every year alongside proof versions up to 1982 when production was discontinued. In 1987 the mint started to produce a new type of bullion coin, the 1oz Britannia coin which was gold and had a face value of £100. A silver version with a face value of £2 was also released in 1997. Production of the previously discontinued sovereign and half sovereigns resumed in 2000. In 2014 a lunar coin series begun being minted annually in celebration of Lunar New Year and in 2016 a series featuring The Queen's Beasts began.

text:
Bullion coins

Type
Face Value
Diameter
Weight
Fineness
Ref.

Britannia
One Ounce Silver
£2
38.61mm
31.21g
999

One Ounce Gold
£100
32.69mm
31.21g
999.9
[61]

Sovereign
Sovereign
£1
22.05mm
7.988g
.916
[62]

Queen's Beasts
Two Ounce Silver
£5
38.61mm
62.42g
999
[63]

One Ounce Gold
£100
32.69mm
31.21g
999.9

One Ounce Platinum
£100
32.69mm
31.21g
999.5

Lunar Series
One Ounce Silver
£2
38.61mm
31.21g
999
[64]

One Ounce Gold
£100
32.69mm
31.21g
999.9

Landmarks of Britain
One Ounce Silver
£2
38.61mm
31.21g
999
[65]

text: Medals[edit]

text: On occasion, the mint produces medals for government departments and under private contract for clients such as Royal societies, colleges and universities. Most notably the mint has made OBE medals as well as many military honours including the Defence Medal and the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross for the British Armed Forces.[66] For the 2012 Summer Olympics the mint won a contract to produce 4,700 gold, silver and bronze medals for competitors.[67]

text: Prior to 1851, the making of medals at the mint was at the discretion of engravers who could undertake the work independently and receive and additional wage. A Royal patent which was issued in 1669 granted the mint the sole right to produce medals of any metal which bore a portrait of a monarch. Engravers would use the facilities at the mint to make commemorative medals to their own design for sale. A key date in the mint's history of producing medals for the military is 1815 when the Battle of Waterloo marked the beginning of awarding military campaign medals. By 1874 the mint was responsible for making all bars and clasps for war medals in the country and was making campaign medals such as the New Zealand Medal, the Abyssinian War Medal and the Ashantee Medal.[68]

text: At the start of the First World War, military medals were manufactured by the Woolwich Arsenal and private contractors, however in 1922 a new medal unit created by the mint became the sole manufacturer of all Royal and State medals and decorations in metal, except the Victoria Cross which is made by Hancocks & Co.[68][69] Prior to 2010, all British military medals were made by the mint however now must compete with other manufacturers.

text:
Waterloo Medal (1849)

2012 Summer Olympics

Military Cross

George Cross

Arctic Star

text: Trial of the Pyx[edit]

text: The Trial of the Pyx is the procedure in the United Kingdom for ensuring that newly-minted coins conform to required standards. The trials have been held since the twelfth century, normally once per calendar year, and continue to the present day. The form of the ceremony has been essentially the same since 1282. They are trials in the full judicial sense, presided over by a judge with an expert jury of assayers. Since 1871, the trials have taken place at the Hall of the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths, having previously taken place at the Palace of Westminster.[70] Given modern production methods, it is unlikely that coins would not conform, although this has been a problem in the past as it would have been tempting for the Master of the Mint to steal precious metals.

text: The term "Pyx" refers to the boxwood chest (in Greek, πυξίς, pyxis) in which coins were placed for presentation to the jury. There is also a Pyx Chapel (or Pyx Chamber) in Westminster Abbey, which was once used for secure storage of the Pyx and related articles.

text: Coins to be tested are drawn from the regular production of The Royal Mint. The Deputy Master of the Mint must, throughout the year, randomly select several thousand sample coins and place them aside for the Trial. These must be in a certain fixed proportion to the number of coins produced. For example, for every 5,000 bimetallic coins issued, one must be set aside, but for silver Maundy money the proportion is one in 150.

text: The trial today consists of an inquiry independent of the royal mint[71]

text: The jury is composed of Freemen of the Company of Goldsmiths, who assay the coins provided to decide whether they have been minted within the criteria determined by the relevant Coinage Acts.[72]

text: Awards[edit]

text: 2014 Coin of the Year: Best Contemporary Event Coin ‒ 2012 London Olympic Games[73]

text: 2013 Wales Innovation Award: iSIS Security Technology[74]

text: 2010 Coin of the Year: Best Gold Coin ‒ £100 Olympic Games Faster Series: Neptune[73]

text: 1973 Queen's Awards for Enterprise[75]