document_title: World energy consumption

question_text: what percentage of the world's energy comes from renewable sources

question_tokens: what percentage of the world 's energy comes from renewable sources

text: World energy consumption

text: Overview[edit]

text: Energy supply, consumption and electricity[edit]

text:
Key figures (TWh)

Year
Primary energy
supply (TPES)1
Final energy
consumption1
Electricity
generation
Ref

1973

71,013
(Mtoe 6,106)

54,335
(Mtoe 4,672)

6,129
[2]

1990
102,569
–
11,821
–

2000
117,687
–
15,395
–

2010

147,899
(Mtoe 12,717)

100,914
(Mtoe 8,677)

21,431
[5]

2011

152,504
(Mtoe 13,113)

103,716
(Mtoe 8,918)

22,126
[6]

2012

155,505
(Mtoe 13,371)

104,426
(Mtoe 8,979)

22,668
[7]

2013

157,482
(Mtoe 13,541)

108,171
(Mtoe 9,301)

23,322
[8]

2014

155,481
(Mtoe 13,369)

109,613
(Mtoe 9,425)

23,816
[9]

2015

168,519
(Quad BTU 575)

[10]

1 converted from Mtoe into TWh (1 Mtoe = 11.63 TWh)
and from Quad BTU into TWh (1 Quad BTU = 293.07 TWh)

text: World total primary energy supply (TPES), or "primary energy" differs from the world final energy consumption because much of the energy that is acquired by humans is lost as other forms of energy during the process of its refinement into usable forms of energy and its transport from its initial place of supply to consumers. For instance, when oil is extracted from the ground it must be refined into gasoline, so that it can be used in a car, and transported over long distances to gas stations where it can be used by consumers. World final energy consumption refers to the fraction of the world's primary energy that is used in its final form by humanity.

text: In 2014, world primary energy supply amounted to 155,481 terawatt-hour (TWh) or 13,541 Mtoe, while the world final energy consumption was 109,613 TWh or about 29.5% less than the total supply.[9] World final energy consumption includes products as lubricants, asphalt and petrochemicals which have chemical energy content but are not used as fuel. This non-energy use amounted to 9,404 TWh (809 Mtoe) in 2012.[11]

text: By the end of 2014, the total installed global power generating capacity is nearly 6.142 TW (million MW) which does not include the DG sets not connected to local electricity grids.[12] In 2014, world energy consumption for electricity generation was coal 40.8%, natural gas 21.6%, nuclear 10.6%, hydro 16.4%, 'others' (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, etc.) 6.3% and oil 4.3%. Coal and natural gas were the most popular energy fuels for generating electricity. The world's electricity consumption was 18,608 TWh[citation needed] in 2012. This figure is about 18% smaller than the generated electricity, due to grid losses, storage losses, and self-consumption from power plants (gross generation). Cogeneration (CHP) power stations use some of the energy that is otherwise wasted for heating buildings or in industrial processes.

text: 2014 World electricity generation (23,816 TWh) by source (IEA, 2016)[13]

text: The United States Energy Information Administration regularly publishes a report on world consumption for most types of primary energy resources. For 2013, estimated world energy consumption was 5.67 × 1020 joules, or 157,481 TWh. According to the IEA the total world energy consumption was 143,851 TWh in 2008, 133,602 TWh in 2005, 117,687 TWh in 2000, and 102,569 TWh in 1990. Total world electricity consumption was 19,504 TWh in 2013, 16,503 TWh in 2008, 15,105 TWh in 2005, and 12,116 TWh in 2000.[2] In 2012 approximately 22% of world energy was consumed in North America, 5% was consumed South and Central America, 23% was consumed in Europe and Eurasia, 3% was consumed in Africa, and 40% was consumed in the Asia Pacific region.[1]

text: Recently there has been a large increase in international agreements and national Energy Action Plans, such as the EU 2009 Renewable Energy Directive, to increase the use of renewable energy due to the growing concerns about pollution from energy sources that come from fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas.[3][14] One such initiative was the United Nations Development Programme's World Energy Assessment in 2000 that highlighted many challenges humanity would have to overcome in order to shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.[3] From 2000–2012 renewable energy grew at a rate higher than any other point in history, with a consumption increase of 176.5 million tonnes of oil. During this period, oil, coal, and natural gas continued to grow and had increases that were much higher than the increase in renewable energy. The following figures illustrate the growth in consumption of fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas as well as renewable sources of energy during this period.[1]

text: Trends[edit]

text: The energy consumption growth in the G20 slowed down to 2% in 2011, after the strong increase of 2010. The economic crisis is largely responsible for this slow growth. For several years now, the world energy demand is characterized by the bullish Chinese and Indian markets, while developed countries struggle with stagnant economies, high oil prices, resulting in stable or decreasing energy consumption.[18]

text: According to IEA data from 1990 to 2008, the average energy use per person increased 10% while world population increased 27%. Regional energy use also grew from 1990 to 2008: the Middle East increased by 170%, China by 146%, India by 91%, Africa by 70%, Latin America by 66%, the USA by 20%, the EU-27 block by 7%, and world overall grew by 39%.

text: In 2008, total worldwide primary energy consumption was 132,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) or 474 exajoules (EJ).[19] In 2012, primary energy demand increased to 158,000 TWh (567 EJ).[20]

text: Energy consumption in the G20 increased by more than 5% in 2010 after a slight decline of 2009. In 2009, world energy consumption decreased for the first time in 30 years by 1.1%, or about 130 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe), as a result of the financial and economic crisis, which reduced world GDP by 0.6% in 2009.[21]

text: This evolution is the result of two contrasting trends: Energy consumption growth remained vigorous in several developing countries, specifically in Asia (+4%). Conversely, in OECD, consumption was severely cut by 4.7% in 2009 and was thus almost down to its 2000 levels. In North America, Europe and the CIS, consumptions shrank by 4.5%, 5% and 8.5% respectively due to the slowdown in economic activity. China became the world's largest energy consumer (18% of the total) since its consumption surged by 8% during 2009 (up from 4% in 2008). Oil remained the largest energy source (33%) despite the fact that its share has been decreasing over time. Coal posted a growing role in the world's energy consumption: in 2009, it accounted for 27% of the total.

text: Most energy is used in the country of origin, since it is cheaper to transport final products than raw materials. In 2008, the share export of the total energy production by fuel was: oil 50% (1,952/3,941 Mt), gas 25% (800/3,149 bcm) and hard coal 14% (793/5,845 Mt).[22]

text: Most of the world's high energy resources are from the conversion of the sun's rays to other energy forms after being incident upon the planet. Some of that energy has been preserved as fossil energy, some is directly or indirectly usable; for example, via solar PV/thermal, wind, hydro- or wave power. The total solar irradiance is measured by satellite to be roughly 1361 watts per square meter (see solar constant), though it fluctuates by about 6.9% during the year due to the Earth's varying distance from the sun. This value, after multiplication by the cross-sectional area intercepted by the Earth, is the total rate of solar energy received by the planet; about half, 89,000 TW, reaches the Earth's surface.[23]

text: The estimates of remaining non-renewable worldwide energy resources vary, with the remaining fossil fuels totaling an estimated 0.4  yottajoule (YJ) or 4 × 1023 joules, and the available nuclear fuel such as uranium exceeding 2.5 YJ. Fossil fuels range from 0.6 to 3 YJ if estimates of reserves of methane clathrates are accurate and become technically extractable. The total power flux from the sun intercepting the Earth is 5.5 YJ per year, though not all of this is available for human consumption. The IEA estimates for the world to meet global energy demand for the two decades from 2015 to 2035 it will require investment of $48 trillion and "credible policy frameworks."[24]

text: According to IEA (2012) the goal of limiting warming to 2 °C is becoming more difficult and costly with each year that passes. If action is not taken before 2017, CO2 emissions would be locked-in by energy infrastructure existing in 2017. Fossil fuels are dominant in the global energy mix, supported by $523 billion subsidies in 2011, up almost 30% on 2010 and six times more than subsidies to renewables.[25]

text:
Regional energy use (kWh/capita & TWh) and growth 1990–2008 (%)[26][27]

kWh/capita
Population (million)
Energy use (1,000 TWh)

Region
1990
2008
Growth
1990
2008
Growth
1990
2008
Growth

USA
89,021
87,216
−2%
250
305
22%
22.3
26.6
20%

EU-28
40,240
40,821
1%
473
499
5%
19.0
20.4
7%

Middle East
19,422
34,774
79%
132
199
51%
2.6
6.9
170%

China
8,839
18,608
111%
1,141
1,333
17%
10.1
24.8
146%

Latin America
11,281
14,421
28%
355
462
30%
4.0
6.7
66%

Africa
7,094
7,792
10%
634
984
55%
4.5
7.7
70%

India
4,419
6,280
42%
850
1,140
34%
3.8
7.2
91%

Others*
25,217
23,871
nd
1,430
1,766
23%
36.1
42.2
17%

The World
19,422
21,283
10%
5,265
6,688
27%
102.3
142.3
39%

Source: IEA/OECD, Population OECD/World Bank

Energy use = kWh/capita* Mrd. capita (population) = 1000 TWh
Others: Mathematically calculated, includes e.g. countries in Asia and Australia. The use of energy varies between the "other countries": E.g. in Australia, Japan, or Canada energy is used more per capita than in Bangladesh or Burma.

text: Emissions[edit]

text: Global warming emissions resulting from energy production are an environmental problem. Efforts to resolve this include the Kyoto Protocol, which is a UN agreement aiming to reduce harmful climate impacts, which a number of nations have signed. Limiting global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, thought to be a risk by the SEI, is now doubtful.

text: To limit global temperature to a hypothetical 2 degrees Celsius rise would demand a 75% decline in carbon emissions in industrial countries by 2050, if the population is 10 billion in 2050.[28] Across 40 years, this averages to a 2% decrease every year. In 2011, the emissions of energy production continued rising regardless of the consensus of the basic problem. Hypothetically, according to Robert Engelman (Worldwatch institute), in order to prevent collapse, human civilization would have to stop increasing emissions within a decade regardless of the economy or population (2009).[29]

text: Greenhouse gases are not the only emissions of energy production and consumption. Large amounts of pollutants such as sulphurous oxides (SOx), nitrous oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM) are produced from the combustion of fossil fuels and biomass; the World Health Organisation estimates that 7 million premature deaths are caused each year by air pollution.[30] Biomass combustion is a major contributor.[30][31][32] In addition to producing air pollution like fossil fuel combustion, most biomass has high CO2 emissions.[33]

text: By source[edit]

text: Total primary energy supply of 13,699 mega-toe by source in 2014 (IEA, 2016)[13][7]:28

text: Fossil fuels[edit]

text: The twentieth century saw a rapid twenty-fold increase in the use of fossil fuels. Between 1980 and 2006, the worldwide annual growth rate was 2%.[19] According to the US Energy Information Administration's 2006 estimate, the estimated 471.8 EJ total consumption in 2004, was divided as given in the table above, with fossil fuels supplying 86% of the world's energy:

text: Coal[edit]

text: In 2000, China accounted for 28% of world coal consumption, other Asia consumed 19%, North America 25% and the EU 14%. The single greatest coal-consuming country is China. Its share of the world coal production was 28% in 2000 and rose to 48% in 2009. In contrast to China's ~70% increase in coal consumption, world coal use increased 48% from 2000 to 2009. In practice, the majority of this growth occurred in China and the rest in other Asia.[34] China's energy consumption is mostly driven by the industry sector, the majority of which comes from coal consumption.[35]

text: World annual coal production increased 1,905 Mt or 32% in 6 years in 2011 compared to 2005, of which over 70% was in China and 8% in India. Coal production was in 2011 7,783 Mt, and 2009 6,903 Mt, equal to 12.7% production increase in two years.[36]

text: If production and consumption of coal continue at the rate as in 2008, proven and economically recoverable world reserves of coal would last for about 150 years. This is much more than needed for an irreversible climate catastrophe. Coal is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the world. According to James Hansen the single most important action needed to tackle the climate crisis is to reduce CO2 emissions from coal.[37] Indonesia and Australia exported together 57.1% of the world coal export in 2011. China, Japan, South Korea, India and Taiwan had 65% share of all the world coal import in 2011.[38]

text:
Regional coal supply (TWh), share 2010 (%) and share of change 2000–2010[34][39]

Region
2000
2008
2009*
2010*
 %*
Change
2000–2009*

North America
6,654
6,740
6,375
6,470
16%
−1.2%

Asia excl. China
5,013
7,485
7,370
7,806
19%
18.9%

China
7,318
16,437
18,449
19,928
48%
85.5%

EU
3,700
3,499
3,135
3,137
8%
−3.8%

Africa
1,049
1,213
1,288
1,109
3%
0.4%

Russia
1,387
1,359
994
1,091
3%
−2.0%

Others
1,485
1,763
1,727
1,812
4%
2.2%

Total
26,607
38,497
39,340
41,354
100%
47.9%

Source: IEA, *in 2009, 2010 BP
*Change 2000–2009: Region's share of the world change +12,733 TWh from 2000 to 2009

text:
Top 10 coal exporters (Mt)[40]

Rank
Nation
2010
2011
Share
% 2011
2012

1
Indonesia
162
309
29.7%
383

2
Australia
298
285
27.4%
302

3
Russia
89
99
9.5%
103

4
US
57
85
8.2%
106

5
Colombia
68
76
7.3%
82

6
South Africa
68
70
6.7%
72

7
Kazakhstan
33
34
3.3%
32

8
Canada
24
24
2.3%
25

9
Vietnam
21
23
2.2%
18

10
Mongolia
17
22
2.1%
22

x
Others
19
14
1.3%

Total (Mt)
856
1,041

1,168

Top ten
97.8%
98.7%

text: Oil[edit]

text: Coal fueled the industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th century. With the advent of the automobile, aeroplanes and the spreading use of electricity, oil became the dominant fuel during the twentieth century. The growth of oil as the largest fossil fuel was further enabled by steadily dropping prices from 1920 until 1973. After the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979, during which the price of oil increased from 5 to 45 US dollars per barrel, there was a shift away from oil.[41] Coal, natural gas, and nuclear became the fuels of choice for electricity generation and conservation measures increased energy efficiency. In the U.S. the average car more than doubled the number of miles per gallon. Japan, which bore the brunt of the oil shocks, made spectacular improvements and now has the highest energy efficiency in the world.[42] From 1965 to 2008, the use of fossil fuels has continued to grow and their share of the energy supply has increased. From 2003 to 2008, coal was the fastest growing fossil fuel.[43]

text: It is estimated that between 100 and 135 billion tonnes of oil has been consumed between 1850 and the present.[44]

text: Natural Gas[edit]

text: In 2009, the world use of natural gas grew 31% compared to 2000. 66% of this growth was outside EU, North America, Latin America, and Russia. Others include the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. The gas supply increased also in the previous regions: 8.6% in the EU and 16% in the North America 2000–2009.[45]

text:
Regional gas supply (TWh) and share 2010 (%)[39][45]

Land
2000
2008
2009
2010
 %

North America
7,621
7,779
8,839
8,925
27%

Asia excl. China
2,744
4,074
4,348
4,799
14%

China
270
825
1,015
1,141
3%

EU
4,574
5,107
4,967
5,155
16%

Africa
612
974
1,455
1,099
3%

Russia
3,709
4,259
4,209
4,335
13%

Latin America
1,008
1,357
958
nd
nd

Others
3,774
5,745
6,047
7,785
23%

Total
24,312
30,134
31,837
33,240
100%

Source: IEA, in 2009, 2010 BP

text: Nuclear power[edit]

text: As of 1 July 2016, the world had 444 operable grid-electric nuclear power reactors with 62 others under construction.[46] Since commercial nuclear energy began in the mid 1950s, 2008 was the first year that no new nuclear power plant was connected to the grid, although two were connected in 2009.[47][48]

text: Annual generation of nuclear power has been on a slight downward trend since 2007, decreasing 1.8% in 2009 to 2558 TWh, and another 1.6% in 2011 to 2518 TWh, despite increases in production from most countries worldwide, because those increases were more than offset by decreases in Germany and Japan. Nuclear power met 11.7% of the world's electricity demand in 2011. Source: IEA/OECD[6]

text: Renewable energy[edit]

text: Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources that are not significantly depleted by their use, such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves and geothermal heat.[50] Renewable energy is gradually replacing conventional fuels in four distinct areas: electricity generation, hot water/space heating, motor fuels, and rural (off-grid) energy services.[51]

text: Based on REN21's 2014 report, renewables contributed 19 percent to our energy consumption and 22 percent to our electricity generation in 2012 and 2013, respectively. This energy consumption is divided as 9% coming from traditional biomass, 4.2% as heat energy (non-biomass), 3.8% hydro electricity and 2% electricity from wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. Worldwide investments in renewable technologies amounted to more than US$214 billion in 2013, with countries like China and the United States heavily investing in wind, hydro, solar and biofuels.[52] Renewable energy resources exist over wide geographical areas, in contrast to other energy sources, which are concentrated in a limited number of countries. Rapid deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency is resulting in significant energy security, climate change mitigation, and economic benefits.[53] In international public opinion surveys there is strong support for promoting renewable sources such as solar power and wind power.[54] At the national level, at least 30 nations around the world already have renewable energy contributing more than 20 percent of energy supply. National renewable energy markets are projected to continue to grow strongly in the coming decade and beyond.[55]

text: The following table shows increasing nameplate capacity, and has capacity factors that range from 11% for solar, to 40% for hydropower.[56]

text:
Selected renewable energy global indicators
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

Investment in new renewable capacity (annual) (109 USD)[57]
182
178
237
279
256
232
270
285

Renewables power capacity (existing) (GWe)
1,140
1,230
1,320
1,360
1,470
1,578
1,712
1,849

Hydropower capacity (existing) (GWe)
885
915
945
970
990
1,018
1,055
1,064

Wind power capacity (existing) (GWe)
121
159
198
238
283
319
370
433

Solar PV capacity (grid-connected) (GWe)
16
23
40
70
100
138
177
227

Solar hot water capacity (existing) (GWth)
130
160
185
232
255
373
406
435

Ethanol production (annual) (109 litres)
67
76
86
86
83
87
94
98

Biodiesel production (annual) (109 litres)
12
17.8
18.5
21.4
22.5
26
29.7
30

Countries with policy targets
for renewable energy use
79
89
98
118
138
144
164
173

Source: The Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21)–Global Status Report[58][59][60][61][62]

text:
Renewable energy 2000-2013 (TWh) [63]

2000
2010
2013

North-America
1,973
2,237
2,443

EU
1,204
2,093
2,428

Russia
245
239
271

China
2,613
3,374
3,847

Asia (-China)
4,147
4,996
5,361

Africa
2,966
3,930
4,304

Latin America
1 502
2,127
2,242

Other
567
670
738

Total renewable
15,237
19,711
21,685

Total energy
116,958
148,736
157,485

Share
13.0%
13.3%
13.8%

Total nonrenewable
101,721
129,025
135,800

text: From 2000 to 2013 the total renewable energy use has increased 6,450 TWh and total energy use 40,500 TWh.

text: Hydro[edit]

text: Hydroelectricity is the term referring to electricity generated by hydropower; the production of electrical power through the use of the kinetic energy of falling or flowing water. In 2015 hydropower generated 16.6% of the world's total electricity and 70% of all renewable electricity,[64] which continues the rapid rate of increase experienced between 2003 and 2009.[65] Hydropower is produced in 150 countries, with the Asia-Pacific region generating 32 percent of global hydropower in 2010. China is the largest hydroelectricity producer, with 2,600 PJ (721 TWh) of production in 2010, representing around 17% of domestic electricity use. There are now three hydroelectricity plants larger than 10 GW: the Three Gorges Dam in China, Itaipu Dam in Brazil, and Guri Dam in Venezuela.[65] Nine of the worlds top 10 renewable electricity producers are primarily hydroelectric, one is wind.

text: Marine energy[edit]

text: Marine energy, also known as ocean energy and marine and hydrokinetic energy (MHK) includes tidal and wave power and is a relatively new sector of renewable energy, with most projects still in the pilot phase, but the theoretical potential is equivalent to 4–18 million tonne of oil equivalent (toe). MHK development in U.S. and international waters includes projects using devices such as, wave energy converters in open coastal areas with significant waves, tidal turbines placed in coastal and estuarine areas, in-stream turbines in fast-moving rivers, ocean current turbines in areas of strong marine currents, and ocean thermal energy converters in deep tropical waters.[66]

text: Wind[edit]

text: Wind power is growing at the rate of 17% annually, with a worldwide installed capacity of 432,883 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2015,[67][68][69] and is widely used in Europe, Asia, and the United States.[70][71] Several countries have achieved relatively high levels of wind power penetration, such as 21% of stationary electricity production in Denmark,[72] 18% in Portugal,[72] 16% in Spain,[72] 14% in Ireland[73] and 9% in Germany in 2010.[72][74] As of 2011, 83 countries around the world are using wind power on a commercial basis.[74] Continuing strong growth, by 2016 wind generated 3% of global power annually.[75]

text: Solar[edit]

text: Solar energy, radiant light and heat from the sun, has been harnessed by humans since ancient times using a range of ever-evolving technologies. Solar energy technologies include solar heating, solar photovoltaics, concentrated solar power and solar architecture, which can make considerable contributions to solving some of the most urgent problems the world now faces. The International Energy Agency projected that solar power could provide "a third of the global final energy demand after 2060, while CO2 emissions would be reduced to very low levels."[76] Solar technologies are broadly characterized as either passive solar or active solar depending on the way they capture, convert and distribute solar energy. Active solar techniques include the use of photovoltaic systems and solar thermal collectors to harness the energy. Passive solar techniques include orienting a building to the Sun, selecting materials with favorable thermal mass or light dispersing properties, and designing spaces that naturally circulate air. From 2012 to 2016 solar capacity tripled and now provides 1.3% of global energy.[77]

text: Geothermal[edit]

text: Geothermal energy is used commercially in over 70 countries.[78] In 2004, 200 petajoules (56 TWh) of electricity was generated from geothermal resources, and an additional 270 petajoules (75 TWh) of geothermal energy was used directly, mostly for space heating. In 2007, the world had a global capacity for 7010100000000000000♠10 GW of electricity generation and an additional 7010280000000000000♠28 GW of direct heating, including extraction by geothermal heat pumps.[79][80] Heat pumps are small and widely distributed, so estimates of their total capacity are uncertain and range up to 7011100000000000000♠100 GW.[78]

text: Bio energy[edit]

text: Until the beginning of the nineteenth century biomass was the predominant fuel, today it has only a small share of the overall energy supply. Electricity produced from biomass sources was estimated at 44 GW for 2005. Biomass electricity generation increased by over 100% in Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain. A further 220 GW was used for heating (in 2004), bringing the total energy consumed from biomass to around 264 GW. The use of biomass fires for cooking is excluded.[79] World production of bioethanol increased by 8% in 2005 to reach 33 gigalitres (8.7×109 US gal), with most of the increase in the United States, bringing it level to the levels of consumption in Brazil.[79] Biodiesel increased by 85% to 3.9 gigalitres (1.0×109 US gal), making it the fastest growing renewable energy source in 2005. Over 50% is produced in Germany.[79]

text: By country[edit]

text: World total final consumption of 13,699 Mtoe by region in 2014 (IEA, 2016)[13]

text: Energy consumption is loosely correlated with gross national product and climate, but there is a large difference even between the most highly developed countries, such as Japan and Germany with an energy consumption rate of 6 kW per person and the United States with an energy consumption rate of 11.4 kW per person. In developing countries, particularly those that are sub-tropical or tropical such as India, the per person energy use rate is closer to 0.7 kW. Bangladesh has the lowest consumption rate with 0.2 kW per person.

text: The US consumes 25% of the world's energy with a share of global GDP at 22% and a share of the world population at 4.59%.[81] The most significant growth of energy consumption is currently taking place in China, which has been growing at 5.5% per year over the last 25 years. Its population of 1.3 billion people (19.6% of the world population[81]) is consuming energy at a rate of 1.6 kW per person.

text: One measurement of efficiency is energy intensity. This is a measure of the amount of energy it takes a country to produce a dollar of gross domestic product.

text: Oil[edit]

text: Saudi Arabia, Russia and the United States accounted for 34% of oil production in 2011. Saudi Arabia, Russia and Nigeria accounted for 36% of oil export in 2011.

text:
Top 10 oil producers (Mt)[40]

Rank
Nation
2005
2008
2009
2010
2011
Share %
2011
2012

1
Saudi Arabia
519
509
452
471
517
12.9%
544

2
Russia
470
485
494
502
510
12.7%
520

3
United States
307
300
320
336
346
8.6%
387

4
Iran
205
214
206
227
215
5.4%
186

5
China
183
190
194
200
203
5.1%
206

6
Canada
143
155
152
159
169
4.2%
182

7
UAE
nd
136
120
129
149
3.7%
163

8
Venezuela
162
137
126
149
148
3.7%
162

9
Mexico
188
159
146
144
144
3.6%
nd

10
Nigeria
133
nd
nd
130
139
3.5%
nd

x
Kuwait
nd
145
124
nd
nd
nd
152

x
Iraq
nd
nd
114
140
nd
nd
148

x
Norway
139
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd

Total
3,923
3,941
3,843
3,973
4,011
100%

Top ten
62%
62%
61%
62%
63%

text:
Top 10 oil exporters (Mt)[82]

Rank
Nation
2011
Share %
2011
2012

1
Saudi Arabia
333
17.0%

2
Russia
246
12.5%

3
Nigeria
129
6.6%

4
Iran
126
6.4%

5
UAE
105
5.4%

6
Iraq
94
4.8%

7
Venezuela
87
4.4%

8
Angola
84
4.3%

9
Norway
78
4.0%

10
Mexico
71
3.6%

x
Others
609
31.0%

Total (Mt)
1,962

text: Coal[edit]

text:
Top 10 coal producers (Mt)[40]

Rank
Nation
2005
2008
2009
2010
2011
Share %
2011
2012

1
China
2,226
2,761
2,971
3,162
3,576
46%
3,549

2
US
1,028
1,076
985
997
1,004
13%
935

3
India
430
521
561
571
586
8%
595

4
Australia
372
397
399
420
414
5%
421

5
Indonesia
318
284
301
336
376
5%
443

6
Russia
222
323
297
324
334
4%
354

7
South Africa
315
236
247
255
253
3%
259

8
Germany
nd
nd
nd
nd
189
2%
197

9
Poland
160
144
135
134
139
2%
144

10
Kazakhstan
79
108
101
111
117
2%
126

11
Colombia
65
79
73
74
1%
nd
nd

Total
5,878
6,796
6,903
7,229
7,783
100%
7,831

Top ten
89%
87%
88%
88%
nd
90%

*include hard coal and brown coal

text:
Top 10 coal importers (Mt)[83]

Rank
Nation
2005
2008
2009
2010
2011

1
China
25
nd
114
157
177

2
Japan
178
186
165
187
175

3
South Korea
77
100
103
119
129

4
India
37
58
66
88
101

5
Taiwan
61
66
60
63
66

6
Germany
38
46
38
45
41

7
UK
44
43
38
26
32

8
Turkey
nd
19
20
27
24

9
Italy
24
25
19
22
23

10
Malaysia
nd
nd
nd
19
21

x
Spain
25
19
16
nd
nd

x
France
nd
21
nd
nd
nd

x
US
28
nd
nd
nd
nd

Total
778
778
819
949
1,002

Top ten
69%
75%
78%
79%
79%

Import of production
16%
13%
14%
15%
13%

*2005–2010 hard coal

text: Natural gas[edit]

text:
Top 10 natural gas producers (bcm)[82]

Rank
Nation
2005
2008
2009
2010
2011
Share %
2011

1
Russia
627
657
589
637
677
20.0%

2
US
517
583
594
613
651
19.2%

3
Canada
187
175
159
160
160
4.7%

4
Qatar
nd
79
89
121
151
4.5%

5
Iran
84
121
144
145
149
4.4%

6
Norway
90
103
106
107
106
3.1%

7
China
nd
76
90
97
103
3.0%

8
Saudi Arabia
70
nd
nd
82
92
2.7%

9
Indonesia
77
77
76
88
92
2.7%

10
Netherlands
79
85
79
89
81
2.4%

x
Algeria
93
82
81
nd
nd
nd

x
UK
93
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd

Total
2,872
3,149
3,101
3,282
100%
3,388

Top ten
67%
65%
65%
65%
67%

bcm = billion cubic meters

text:
Top 10 natural gas importers (bcm)[82]

Rank
Nation
2005
2008
2009
2010
2011
Share %
2011

1
Japan
81
95
93
99
116
13.9%

2
Italy
73
77
69
75
70
8.4%

3
Germany
91
79
83
83
68
8.2%

4
US
121
84
76
74
55
6.6%

5
South Korea
29
36
33
43
47
5.6%

6
Ukraine
62
53
38
37
44
5.3%

7
Turkey
27
36
35
37
43
5.2%

8
France
47
44
45
46
41
4.9%

9
UK
nd
26
29
37
37
4.4%

10
Spain
33
39
34
36
34
4.1%

x
Netherlands
23
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd

Total
838
783
749
820
834
100%

Top ten
70%
73%
71%
69%
67%

Import of production
29%
25%
24%
25%
25%

bcm = billion cubic meters

text: Wind power[edit]

text:
Top 10 countries
by nameplate windpower capacity
(2011 year-end)[84]

Country
Windpower capacity
(MW) ǂprovisional
 % world total

China
62,733ǂ
26.3

United States
46,919
19.7

Germany
29,060
12.2

Spain
21,674
9.1

India
16,084
6.7

France
6,800ǂ
2.8

Italy
6,747
2.8

United Kingdom
6,540
2.7

Canada
5,265
2.2

Portugal
4,083
1.7

(rest of world)
32,446
13.8

World total
238,351 MW
100%

text:
Top 10 countries
by windpower electricity production
(2010 totals)[85]

Country
Windpower production
(TWh)
 % world total

United States
95.2
27.6

China
55.5
15.9

Spain
43.7
12.7

Germany
36.5
10.6

India
20.6
6.0

United Kingdom
10.2
3.0

France
9.7
2.8

Portugal
9.1
2.6

Italy
8.4
2.5

Canada
8.0
2.3

(rest of world)
48.5
14.1

World total
344.8 TWh
100%

text: By sector[edit]

text:
World energy use by sector, 2012[86]

Sector
1015Btu
Petawatt-hours
percentage

Residential
53.0
15.5
13

Commercial
29.3
8.6
7

Industrial
222.3
65.1
54

Transportation
104.2
30.5
26

Total*
408.9
119.8
100

Source: US DOE. PWh from 0.293 times Btu column.
Numbers are the end use of energy

text: The table to the right shows the amounts of energy consumed worldwide in 2012 by four sectors, according to the Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy:

text:
Residential (heating, lighting, and appliances)
Commercial (lighting, heating and cooling of commercial buildings, and provision of water and sewer services)
Industrial users (agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and construction)
Transportation (passenger, freight, and pipeline)

text: Of the total 120 PWh (7020432000000000000♠120×1015 Wh) consumed, 19.4 were in the form of electricity, but this electricity required 61.7 PWh to produce. Thus the total energy consumption was around 160 PWh (ca 7020580280718941000♠550×1015 Btu).[86] The efficiency of a typical existing power plant is around 38%.[87] The new generation of gas-fired plants reaches a substantially higher efficiency of 55%. Coal is the most common fuel for the world's electricity plants.[88]

text: Another report gives different values for the sectors, apparently due to different definitions. According to this, total world energy use per sector in 2008 was industry 28%, transport 27% and residential and service 36%. Division was about the same in the year 2000.[89]

text:
World energy use per sector[89]

Year
2000
2008
2000
2008

Sector
TWh
 %*

Industry
21,733
27,273
26.5
27.8

Transport
22,563
26,742
27.5
27.3

Residential and service
30,555
35,319
37.3
36.0

Non-energy use
7,119
8,688
8.7
8.9

Total*
81,970
98,022
100
100

Source: IEA 2010, Total is calculated from the given sectors
Numbers are the end use of energy
Total world energy supply (2008) 143,851 TWh

text: European Union[edit]

text: The European Environmental Agency (EEA) measures final energy consumption (does not include energy used in production and lost in transportation) and finds that the transport sector is responsible for 31.8% of final energy consumption, households 26.2%, industry 25.6%, services 13.5% and agriculture 2.9% in 2012.[90] The use of energy is responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions (79%), with the energy sector representing 31%, transport 19%, industry 13%, households 9% and others 7%.[91]

text: While efficient energy use and resource efficiency are growing as public policy issues, more than 70% of coal plants in the European Union are more than 20 years old and operate at an efficiency level of between 32–40%.[92] Technological developments in the 1990s have allowed efficiencies in the range of 40–45% at newer plants.[92] However, according to an impact assessment by the European Commission, this is still below the best available technological (BAT) efficiency levels of 46–49%.[92] With gas-fired power plants the average efficiency is 52% compared to 58–59% with best available technology (BAT), and gas and oil boiler plants operate at average 36% efficiency (BAT delivers 47%).[92] According to that same impact assessment by the European Commission, raising the efficiency of all new plants and the majority of existing plants, through the setting of authorisation and permit conditions, to an average generation efficiency of 51.5% in 2020 would lead to a reduction in annual consumption of 15 km3 (3.6 cu mi) of natural gas and 25 Mt (25,000,000 long tons; 28,000,000 short tons) of coal.[92]


document_title: USS Maine (ACR-1)

question_text: when was the uss maine sent to cuba

question_tokens: when was the uss maine sent to cuba

root

text: USS Maine (ACR-1)

text: Background[edit]

text: The delivery of the Brazilian battleship Riachuelo in 1883 and the acquisition of other modern armored warships from Europe by Brazil, Argentina and Chile shortly afterwards, alarmed the United States government, as the Brazilian Navy was now the most powerful in the Americas.[5] The chairman of the House Naval Affairs Committee, Hilary A. Herbert, stated to Congress: "if all this old navy of ours were drawn up in battle array in mid-ocean and confronted by Riachuelo it is doubtful whether a single vessel bearing the American flag would get into port."[6] These developments helped bring to a head a series of discussions that had been taking place at the Naval Advisory Board since 1881. The board knew at that time that the U.S. Navy could not challenge any major European fleet; at best, it could wear down an opponent's merchant fleet and hope to make some progress through general attrition there. Moreover, projecting naval force abroad through the use of battleships ran counter to the government policy of isolationism. While some on the board supported a strict policy of commerce raiding, others argued it would be ineffective against the potential threat of enemy battleships stationed near the American coast. The two sides remained essentially deadlocked until Riachuelo manifested.[7]

tag: p

text: The board, now confronted with the concrete possibility of hostile warships operating off the American coast, began planning for ships to protect it in 1884. The ships had to fit within existing docks and had to have a shallow draft to enable them to use all the major American ports and bases. The maximum beam was similarly fixed, and the board concluded that at a length of about 300 feet (91 m), the maximum displacement would be about 7,000 tons. A year later the Bureau of Construction and Repair (C & R) presented two designs to Secretary of the Navy William Collins Whitney, one for a 7,500-ton battleship and one for a 5,000-ton armored cruiser. Whitney decided instead to ask Congress for two 6,000-ton warships, and they were authorized in August 1886. A design contest was held, asking naval architects to submit designs for the two ships: armored cruiser Maine and battleship Texas. It was specified that Maine had to have a speed of 17 knots (31 km/h; 20 mph), a ram bow, and a double bottom, and be able to carry two torpedo boats. Her armament was specified as: four 10-inch (254 mm) guns, six 6-inch (152 mm) guns, various light weapons, and four torpedo tubes. It was specifically stated that the main guns "must afford heavy bow and stern fire."[8] Armor thickness and many details were also defined. Specifications for Texas were similar, but demanded a main battery of two 12-inch (305 mm) guns and slightly thicker armor.[9]

text: The winning design for Maine was from Theodore D. Wilson, who served as chief constructor for C & R and was a member on the Naval Advisory Board in 1881. He had designed a number of other warships for the navy.[10] The winning design for Texas was from a British designer, William John, who was working for the Barrow Shipbuilding Company at that time. Both designs resembled the Brazilian battleship Riachuelo, having the main gun turrets sponsoned out over the sides of the ship and echeloned.[11] The winning design for Maine, though conservative and inferior to other contenders, may have received special consideration due to a requirement that one of the two new ships be American–designed.[12]

text: Congress authorized construction of Maine on 3 August 1886, and her keel was laid down on 17 October 1888, at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. She was the largest vessel built in a U.S. Navy yard up to that time.[13]

text: Design[edit]

text: Maine's building time of nine years was unusually protracted, due to the limits of U.S. industry at the time. (The delivery of her armored plating took three years and a fire in the drafting room of the building yard, where Maine's working set of blueprints were stored, caused further delay.) In those nine years, naval tactics and technology changed radically and left Maine's actual role in the navy ill-defined. At the time she was laid down, armored cruisers such as Maine were intended to serve as small battleships on overseas service and were built with heavy belt armor. Great Britain, France and Russia had constructed such ships to serve this purpose and sold others of this type, including Riachuelo, to second-rate navies. Within a decade, this role had changed to commerce raiding, for which fast, long-range vessels, with only limited armor protection, were needed. The advent of lightweight armor, such as Harvey steel, made this transformation possible.[14]

text: As a result of these changing priorities, Maine was caught between two separate positions and could not perform either one adequately. She lacked both the armor and firepower to serve as a ship-of-the-line against enemy battleships and the speed to serve as a cruiser. Nevertheless, she was expected to fulfill more than one tactical function.[15] In addition, because of the potential of a warship sustaining blast damage to herself from cross-deck and end-on fire, Maine's main-gun arrangement was obsolete by the time she entered service.[11]

text: General characteristics[edit]

text: Maine was 324 feet 4 inches (98.9 m) long overall, with a beam of 57 feet (17.4 m), a maximum draft of 22 feet 6 inches (6.9 m) and a displacement of 6,682 long tons (6,789.2 t).[16] She was divided into 214 watertight compartments.[17] A centerline longitudinal watertight bulkhead separated the engines and a double bottom covered the hull only from the foremast to the aft end of the armored citadel, a distance of 196 feet (59.7 m). She had a metacentric height of 3.45 feet (1.1 m) as designed and was fitted with a ram bow.[18]

text: Maine's hull was long and narrow, more like a cruiser than that of Texas, which was wide-beamed. Normally, this would have made Maine the faster ship of the two. However, Maine's weight distribution was ill-balanced, which slowed her considerably. Her main turrets, awkwardly situated on a cut-away gundeck, were nearly awash in bad weather. Because they were mounted toward the ends of the ship, away from its center of gravity, Maine was also prone to greater motion in heavy seas. While she and Texas were both considered seaworthy, the latter's high hull and guns mounted on her main deck made her the drier ship.[19]

text: The two main gun turrets were sponsoned out over the sides of the ship and echeloned to allow both to fire fore and aft. The practice of en echelon mounting had begun with Italian battleships designed in the 1870s by Benedetto Brin and followed by the British Navy with HMS Inflexible, which was laid down in 1874 but not commissioned until October 1881.[20] This gun arrangement met the design demand for heavy end-on fire in a ship-to-ship encounter, tactics which involved ramming the enemy vessel.[11] The wisdom of this tactic was purely theoretical at the time it was implemented. A drawback of an en echelon layout limited the ability for a ship to fire broadside, a key factor when employed in a line of battle. To allow for at least partial broadside fire, Maine's superstructure was separated into three structures. This technically allowed both turrets to fire across the ship's deck (cross-deck fire), between the sections. However, this ability was still significantly limited as the superstructure restricted each turret's arc of fire.[8]

text: This plan and profile view show Maine with eight six-pounder guns (one is not seen on the port part of the bridge but that is due to the bridge being cut away in the drawing). Another early published plan shows the same. In both cases the photographs show a single extreme bow mounted six-pounder. However, careful examination of Maine photographs confirm that she did not carry that gun. Maine's armament set up in the bow was not identical to the stern which had a single six-pounder mounted at extreme aft of the vessel. Maine carried two six-pounders forward, two on the bridge and three on the stern section, all one level above the abbreviated gun deck that permitted the ten-inch guns to fire across the deck. The six-pounders located in the bow were positioned more forward than the pair mounted aft which necessitated the far aft single six-pounder.

text: Propulsion[edit]

text: Maine was the first U.S. capital ship to have its power plant given as high a priority as its fighting strength.[21] Her machinery, built by the N. F. Palmer Jr. & Company's Quintard Iron Works of New York,[22] was the first designed for a major ship under the direct supervision of Arctic explorer and soon-to-be commodore, George Wallace Melville.[23] She had two inverted vertical triple-expansion steam engines, mounted in watertight compartments and separated by a fore-to-aft bulkhead, with a total designed output of 9,293 indicated horsepower (6,930 kW). Cylinder diameters were 35.5 inches (900 mm) (high-pressure), 57 inches (1,400 mm) (intermediate-pressure) and 88 inches (2,200 mm) (low-pressure). Stroke for all three pistons was 36 inches (910 mm).[17]

text: Melville mounted Maine's engines with the cylinders in vertical mode, a departure from conventional practice. Previous ships had had their engines mounted in horizontal mode, so that they would be completely protected below the waterline. Melville believed a ship's engines needed ample room to operate and that any exposed parts could be protected by an armored deck. He therefore opted for the greater efficiency, lower maintenance costs and higher speeds offered by the vertical mode.[24][25] Also, the engines were constructed with the high-pressure cylinder aft and the low-pressure cylinder forward. This was done, according to the ship's chief engineer, A. W. Morley, so the low-pressure cylinder could be disconnected when the ship was under low power. This allowed the high and intermediate-power cylinders to be run together as a compound engine for economical running.[clarification needed]

text: Eight single-ended Scotch marine boilers provided steam to the engines at a working pressure of 135 pounds per square inch (930 kPa; 9.5 kgf/cm2) at a temperature 364 °F (184 °C). On trials, she reached a speed of 16.45 knots (30.47 km/h; 18.93 mph), failing to meet her contract speed of 17 knots (31 km/h; 20 mph). She carried a maximum load of 896 long tons (910 t) of coal[26] in 20 bunkers, 10 on each side, which extended below the protective deck. Wing bunkers at each end of each fire room extended inboard to the front of the boilers.[17] This was actually a very low capacity for a ship of Maine's rating, which limited her time at sea and her ability to run at flank speed, when coal consumption increased dramatically. Maine's overhanging main turrets also prevented coaling at sea, except in the calmest of waters; otherwise, the potential for damage to a collier, herself or both vessels was extremely great.

text: Maine also carried two small dynamos to power her searchlights and provide interior lighting.[27]

text: Maine was designed initially with a three-mast barque rig for auxiliary propulsion, in case of engine failure and to aid long-range cruising.[28] This arrangement was limited to "two-thirds" of full sail power, determined by the ship's tonnage and immersed cross-section.[29] The mizzen mast was removed in 1892, after the ship had been launched, but before her completion.[28] Maine was completed with a two-mast military rig and the ship never spread any canvas.[30]

text: Armament[edit]

text: Main guns[edit]

text: Maine's main armament consisted of four 10-inch (254 mm)/30 caliber Mark II guns, which had a maximum elevation of 15° and could depress to −3°. Ninety rounds per gun were carried. The ten-inch guns fired a 510 pounds (231 kg) shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per second (610 m/s) to a range of 20,000 yards (18,000 m) at maximum elevation.[31] These guns were mounted in twin hydraulically powered Mark 3 turrets, the fore turret sponsoned to starboard and the aft turret sponsoned to port.[5]

text: The 10" guns were initially to be mounted in open barbettes (the C & R proposal blueprint shows them as such). During Maine's extended construction, the development of rapid-fire intermediate-caliber guns, which could fire high-explosive shells, became a serious threat and the navy redesigned Maine with enclosed turrets. Because of the corresponding weight increase, the turrets were mounted one deck lower than planned originally.[30][32] Even with this modification, the main guns were high enough to fire unobstructed for 180° on one side and 64° on the other side.[17] They could also be loaded at any angle of train; initially the main guns of Texas, by comparison, with external rammers, could be loaded only when trained on the centerline or directly abeam, a common feature in battleships built before 1890.[11] However, by 1897, Texas' turrets had been modified with internal rammers to permit much faster reloading.

text: The en echelon arrangement proved problematic. Because Maine's turrets were not counterbalanced, she heeled over if both were pointed in the same direction, which reduced the range of the guns. Also, cross-deck firing damaged her deck and superstructure significantly due to the vacuum from passing shells.[33] Because of this, and the potential for undue hull stress if the main guns were fired end-on, the en echelon arrangement was not used in U.S. Navy designs after Maine and Texas.[11][33]

text: Secondary and light guns[edit]

text: The six 6-inch (152 mm)/30 caliber Mark 3 guns were mounted in casemates in the hull, two each at the bow and stern and the last two amidships.[22] Data is lacking, but they could probably depress to −7° and elevate to +12°. They fired shells that weighed 105 pounds (48 kg) with a muzzle velocity of about 1,950 feet per second (590 m/s). They had a maximum range of 9,000 yards (8,200 m) at full elevation.[34]

text: The anti-torpedo boat armament consisted of seven 57-millimeter (2.2 in) Driggs-Schroeder six-pounder guns mounted on the superstructure deck.[22] They fired a shell weighing about 6 lb (2.7 kg) at a muzzle velocity of about 1,765 feet per second (538 m/s) at a rate of 20 rounds per minute to a maximum range of 8,700 yards (7,955 m).[35] The lighter armament comprised four each 37-millimeter (1.5 in) Hotchkiss and Driggs-Schroeder one-pounder guns. Four of these were mounted on the superstructure deck, two were mounted in small casemates at the extreme stern and one was mounted in each fighting top.[22] They fired a shell weighing about 1.1 pounds (0.50 kg) at a muzzle velocity of about 2,000 feet per second (610 m/s) at a rate of 30 rounds per minute to a range about 3,500 yards (3,200 m).[36]

text: Maine had four 18-inch (457 mm) above-water torpedo tubes, two on each broadside. In addition, she was designed to carry two 14.8 long tons (15.0 t) steam-powered torpedo boats, each with a single 14-inch (356 mm) torpedo tube and a one-pounder gun. Only one was built, but it had a top speed of only a little over 12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph) so it was transferred to the Naval Torpedo Station at Newport, Rhode Island, as a training craft.[b][37]

text: Armor[edit]

text: The main waterline belt, made of nickel steel, had a maximum thickness of 12 inches (305 mm) and tapered to 7 inches (178 mm) at its lower edge. It was 180 feet (54.9 m) long and covered the machinery spaces and the 10-inch magazines. It was 7 feet (2.1 m) high, of which 3 feet (0.9 m) was above the design waterline. It angled inwards for 17 feet (5.2 m) at each end, thinning to 8 inches (203 mm), to provide protection against raking fire. A 6-inch transverse bulkhead closed off the forward end of the armored citadel. The forward portion of the 2-inch-thick (51 mm) protective deck ran from the bulkhead all the way to the bow and served to stiffen the ram. The deck sloped downwards to the sides, but its thickness increased to 3 inches (76 mm). The rear portion of the protective deck sloped downwards towards the stern, going below the waterline, to protect the propeller shafts and steering gear. The sides of the circular turrets were 8 inches thick. The barbettes were 12 inches thick, with their lower portions reduced to 10 inches. The conning tower had 10-inch walls. The ship's voicepipes and electrical leads were protected by an armored tube 4.5 inches (114 mm) thick.[38]

text: Two flaws emerged in Maine's protection, both due to technological developments between her laying-down and her completion. The first was a lack of adequate topside armor to counter the effects of rapid-fire intermediate-caliber guns and high-explosive shells. This was a flaw she shared with Texas.[33] The second was the use of nickel-steel armor. Introduced in 1889, nickel steel was the first modern steel alloy armor and, with a figure of merit of 0.67, was an improvement over the 0.6 rating of mild steel used until then. Harvey steel and Krupp armors, both of which appeared in 1893, had merit figures of between 0.9 and 1.2, giving them roughly twice the tensile strength of nickel steel. Although all three armors shared the same density (about 40 pounds per square foot for a one-inch-thick plate), six inches of Krupp or Harvey steel gave the same protection as 10 inches of nickel. The weight thus saved could be applied either to additional hull structure and machinery or to achieving higher speed. The navy would incorporate Harvey armor in the Indiana-class battleships, designed after Maine, but commissioned at roughly the same time.[39][40]

text: Launching and delay[edit]

text: Maine was launched on 18 November 1889, sponsored by Alice Tracey Wilmerding, the granddaughter of Navy Secretary Benjamin F. Tracy. Not long afterwards, a reporter wrote for Marine Engineer and Naval Architect magazine, "it cannot be denied that the navy of the United States is making rapid strides towards taking a credible position among the navies of the world, and the launch of the new armoured battleship Maine from the Brooklyn Navy Yard ... has added a most powerful unit to the United States fleet of turret ships."[41] In his 1890 annual report to congress, the Secretary of the Navy wrote, "the Maine ... stands in a class by herself" and expected the ship to be commissioned by July 1892.[13]

text: A three-year delay ensued, while the shipyard waited for nickel steel plates for Maine's armor. Bethlehem Steel Company had promised the navy 300 tons per month by December 1889 and had ordered heavy castings and forging presses from the British firm of Armstrong Whitworth in 1886 to fulfil its contract. This equipment did not arrive until 1889, pushing back Bethlehem's timetable. In response, Navy Secretary Benjamin Tracy secured a second contractor, the newly expanded Homestead mill of Carnegie, Phipps & Company. In November 1890, Tracy and Andrew Carnegie signed a contract for Homestead to supply 6000 tons of nickel steel.[42] However, Homestead was, what author Paul Krause calls, "the last union stronghold in the steel mills of the Pittsburgh district." The mill had already weathered one strike in 1882 and a lockout in 1889 in an effort to break the union there. Less than two years later, came the Homestead Strike of 1892, one of the largest, most serious disputes in U.S. labor history.[43]

text: A photo of the christening shows Mrs. Wilmerding striking the bow near the plimsoll line depth of 13 which lead to many comments (much later of course) that the ship was "unlucky" from the launching.

text: Operations[edit]

text: Maine was commissioned on 17 September 1895, under the command of Captain Arent S. Crowninshield.[44] On 5 November 1895, Maine steamed to Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey. She anchored there two days, then proceeded to Newport, Rhode Island, for fitting out and test firing of her torpedoes. After a trip, later that month, to Portland, Maine, she reported to the North Atlantic Squadron for operations, training manoeuvres and fleet exercises. Maine spent her active career with the North Atlantic Squadron, operating from Norfolk, Virginia along the East Coast of the United States and the Caribbean. On 10 April 1897, Captain Charles Dwight Sigsbee relieved Captain Crowninshield as commander of Maine.[45]

text: Crew[edit]

text: The ship's crew consisted of 355: 26 officers, 290 sailors, and 39 marines. Of these, there were 261 fatalities:

text:
Two officers and 251 sailors and marines either killed by the explosion or drowned
Seven others were rescued but soon died of their injuries
One officer later died of "cerebral affection" (shock)

tag: ul

text: Of the 94 survivors, 16 were uninjured.[46]

text: Sinking[edit]

text: In January 1898, Maine was sent from Key West, Florida, to Havana, Cuba, to protect U.S. interests during the Cuban War of Independence. Three weeks later, at 21:40, on 15 February, an explosion on board Maine occurred in the Havana Harbor (coordinates: 23°08′07″N 82°20′38″W).[47] Later investigations revealed that more than 5 long tons (5.1 t) of powder charges for the vessel's six- and ten-inch guns had detonated, obliterating the forward third of the ship.[48] The remaining wreckage rapidly settled to the bottom of the harbor. Most of Maine's crew were sleeping or resting in the enlisted quarters, in the forward part of the ship, when the explosion occurred. In total, 260[49] men lost their lives as a result of the explosion or shortly thereafter, and six[49] more died later from injuries. Captain Sigsbee and most of the officers survived, because their quarters were in the aft portion of the ship. Altogether there were 89 survivors, 18 of whom were officers.[50] On 21 March, the U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry, in Key West, declared that a naval mine caused the explosion.[51]

text: The New York Journal and New York World, owned respectively by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, gave Maine intense press coverage, but employed tactics that would later be labeled "yellow journalism." Both papers exaggerated and distorted any information they could attain, sometimes even fabricating news when none that fit their agenda was available. For a week following the sinking, the Journal devoted a daily average of eight and a half pages of news, editorials and pictures to the event. Its editors sent a full team of reporters and artists to Havana, including Frederic Remington,[52] and Hearst announced a reward of $50,000 "for the conviction of the criminals who sent 258 American sailors to their deaths."[53] The World, while overall not as lurid or shrill in tone as the Journal, nevertheless indulged in similar theatrics, insisting continually that Maine had been bombed or mined. Privately, Pulitzer believed that "nobody outside a lunatic asylum" really believed that Spain sanctioned Maine's destruction. Nevertheless, this did not stop the World from insisting that the only "atonement" Spain could offer the U.S. for the loss of ship and life, was the granting of complete Cuban independence. Nor did it stop the paper from accusing Spain of "treachery, willingness, or laxness" for failing to ensure the safety of Havana Harbor.[54] The American public, already agitated over reported Spanish atrocities in Cuba, was driven to increased hysteria.[55]

text: Maine's destruction did not result in an immediate declaration of war with Spain. However, the event created an atmosphere that virtually precluded a peaceful solution.[56] The Spanish–American War began in April 1898, two months after the sinking. Advocates of the war used the rallying cry, "Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!"[57][58][59][60][61] The episode focused national attention on the crisis in Cuba, but was not cited by the William McKinley administration as a casus belli, though it was cited by some already inclined to go to war with Spain over perceived atrocities and loss of control in Cuba.[62][63]

text: Investigations[edit]

text: In addition to the inquiry commissioned by the Spanish government to naval officers Del Peral and De Salas, two Naval Courts of Inquiry were ordered: The Sampson Board in 1898 and the Vreeland board in 1911. In 1976, Admiral Hyman G. Rickover commissioned a private investigation into the explosion, and the National Geographic Society did an investigation in 1999, using computer simulations. All investigations agreed that an explosion of the forward magazines caused the destruction of the ship, but different conclusions were reached as to how the magazines could have exploded.[63][64]

text: 1898 Del Peral and De Salas inquiry[edit]

text: The Spanish inquiry, conducted by Del Peral and De Salas, collected evidence from officers of naval artillery, who had examined the remains of Maine. Del Peral and De Salas identified the spontaneous combustion of the coal bunker, located adjacent to the munition stores in Maine, as the likely cause of the explosion. However, the possibility of other combustibles causing the explosion such as paint or drier products was not discounted. Additional observations included that:

text:
Had a mine been the cause of the explosion, a column of water would have been observed.
The wind and the waters were calm on that date and hence a mine could not have been detonated by contact, but only by using electricity, but no cables had been found.
No dead fish were found in the harbor, as would be expected following an explosion in the water.
Munition stores do not usually explode when a ship is sunk by a mine.

text: The conclusions of the report were not reported at that time by the American press.[65]

text: 1898 Sampson Board's Court of Inquiry[edit]

text: In order to find the cause of the explosion, a naval inquiry was ordered by the United States shortly after the incident, headed by Captain William T. Sampson. Ramón Blanco y Erenas, Spanish governor of Cuba, had proposed instead a joint Spanish-American investigation of the sinking.[66] Captain Sigsbee had written that "many Spanish officers, including representatives of General Blanco, now with us to express sympathy."[67] In a cable, the Spanish minister of colonies, Segismundo Moret, had advised Blanco "to gather every fact you can, to prove the Maine catastrophe cannot be attributed to us."[68]

text: According to Dana Wegner, who worked with U.S. Admiral Hyman G. Rickover on his 1974 investigation of the sinking, the Secretary of the Navy had the option of selecting a board of inquiry personally. Instead, he fell back on protocol and assigned the commander-in-chief of the North Atlantic Squadron to do so. The commander produced a list of junior line officers for the board. The fact that the officer proposed to be court president was junior to the captain of Maine, Wegner writes, "would indicate either ignorance of navy regulations or that, in the beginning, the board did not intend to examine the possibility that the ship was lost by accident and the negligence of her captain."[this quote needs a citation] Eventually, navy regulations prevailed in leadership of the board; Captain Sampson being senior to Captain Sigsbee.[69]

text: The board arrived on 21 February and took testimony from survivors, witnesses and divers (who were sent down to investigate the wreck). The Sampson Board produced its findings in two parts: the proceedings, which consisted mainly of testimonies, and the findings, which were the facts, as determined by the court. Between the proceedings and the findings, there was, what Wegner calls, "a broad gap", where the court "left no record of the reasoning that carried it from the often–inconsistent witnesses to [its] conclusion." Another inconsistency, according to Wegner, was that of only one technical witness, Commander George Converse, from the Torpedo Station at Newport, Rhode Island. Captain Sampson read Commander Converse a hypothetical situation of a coal bunker fire igniting the reserve six-inch ammunition, with a resulting explosion sinking the ship. He then asked Commander Converse about the feasibility of such a scenario. Commander Converse "simply stated, without elaboration, that he could not realize such an event happening".[70]

text: The board concluded that Maine had been blown up by a mine, which, in turn, caused the explosion of her forward magazines. They reached this conclusion, based on the fact that the majority of witnesses stated that they had heard two explosions and that that part of the keel was bent inwards.[63] The official report from the board, which was presented to the Navy Department in Washington, D.C. on 21 March, specifically stated the following:

text: At frame 18 the vertical keel is broken in two and the flat keel is bent at an angle similar to the angle formed by the outside bottom plating. [...] In the opinion of the court, this effect could have been produced only by the explosion of a mine situated under the bottom of the ship at about frame 18, and somewhat on the port side of the ship." (part of the court's 5th finding)

text: "In the opinion of the court, the Maine was destroyed by the explosion of a submarine mine, which caused the partial explosion of two or more of her forward magazines." (the court's 7th finding) and

text: "The court has been unable to obtain evidence fixing the responsibility for the destruction of the Maine upon any person or persons." (the court's 8th finding).[51]

text: 1911 Vreeland Board's Court of Inquiry[edit]

text: In 1910, the decision was made to do a second Court of Inquiry. The reasons for this were the recovery of the bodies of the victims, so they could be buried in the United States and also a desire for a more thorough investigation. The fact that the Cuban government wanted the wreck removed from Havana Harbor might also have played a role: it at least offered the opportunity to examine the wreck in greater detail than had been possible in 1898, while simultaneously obliging the Cubans. Wegner suggests that the fact that this inquiry could be held without the pending risk of war, which had been the case in 1898, lent it the potential for greater objectivity than had been possible previously. Moreover, since several of the members of the 1910 board would be certified engineers, they would be better qualified to evaluate their findings than the line officers of the 1898 board had been.[71]

text: Beginning in December 1910, a cofferdam was built around the wreck and water was pumped out, exposing the wreck by late 1911. Between 20 November and 2 December 1911, a court of inquiry headed by Rear Admiral Charles E. Vreeland inspected the wreck. They concluded that an external explosion had triggered the explosion of the magazines. However, this explosion was farther aft and lower powered than concluded by the Sampson Board. The Vreeland Board also found that the bending of frame 18 was caused by the explosion of the magazines, not by the external explosion.[63] After the investigation, the newly located dead were buried in Arlington National Cemetery and the hollow, intact portion of the hull of Maine was refloated and ceremoniously scuttled at sea on 16 March 1912.[72]

text: 1974 Rickover investigation[edit]

text: Admiral Hyman G. Rickover became intrigued with the disaster and began a private investigation, in 1974. Using information from the two official inquiries, newspapers, personal papers and information on the construction and ammunition of Maine, it was concluded that the explosion was not caused by a mine. Instead, spontaneous combustion of coal in the bunker, next to magazine, was speculated to be the most likely cause. Rickover published a book about this investigation, How the Battleship Maine Was Destroyed, in 1976.[73]

text: In the 2001 book Theodore Roosevelt, the U.S. Navy and the Spanish–American War, Wegner revisits the Rickover investigation and offers additional details. According to Wegner, Rickover inquired with naval historians, at the Energy Research and Development Agency, about Maine, after reading an article in the Washington Star-News in which its author, John M. Taylor, claimed the U.S. Navy "made little use of its technically trained officers during its investigation of the tragedy." The historians, then working with the admiral on a study of the U.S. Navy's nuclear propulsion program, said they knew no details of Maine's sinking. When Rickover asked whether they could investigate the matter, the historians, now intrigued, agreed. Knowing of Rickover's "insistence on thoroughness," Wegner says, all relevant documents were obtained and studied. These included the ship's plans and weekly reports of the unwatering of Maine, in 1912, by the chief engineer for the project, William Furgueson. These reports included numerous photos, annotated by Furgueson with frame and strake numbers on corresponding parts of the wreckage. Two experts on naval demolitions and ship explosions were brought in. Since the photos showed "no plausible evidence of penetration from the outside," they believed the explosion originated inside the ship.[74]

text: Wegner suggests that a combination of naval ship design, and a change in the type of coal used to fuel naval ships, might have facilitated the explosion postulated by the Rickover study. Up to the time of Maine's building, he explains, common bulkheads separated coal bunkers from ammunition lockers and American naval ships burned primarily smokeless anthracite coal. With an increase in the number of steel ships, the U.S. Navy switched to bituminous coal, which burned at a hotter temperature than anthracite coal, and allowed ships to steam faster. However, Wegner explains, while anthracite coal is not subject to spontaneous combustion, bituminous coal is considerably more volatile. In fact, bituminous coal is known for releasing the largest amounts of firedamp, a dangerous and explosive mixture of gases (chiefly methane). Firedamp is explosive at concentrations between 4% and 16%, with most violence at around 10%. In addition, there was another potential contributing factor in the bituminous coal – this was iron sulfide, also known as pyrite, that was likely present. The presence of pyrites presents two additional risk factors. The first involves oxidation. Pyrite oxidation is sufficiently exothermic that underground coal mines in high-sulfur coal seams have occasionally had serious problems with spontaneous combustion in the mined-out areas of the mine. This process can result from the disruption caused by mining from the seams, or other processing, which then exposes the sulfides in the ore to air and water. The presence of pyrites in coal has been recognized to be self-heating. The second risk factor involves an additional capability of pyrites to provide fire ignition under certain conditions. Pyrites, which derive their name from the Greek root word pyr, which means fire, can cause sparks when struck by steel or other sufficiently hard surfaces. Before the use of flintlock guns, for example, pyrites were used to strike sparks to ignite gunpowder in an earlier model type gun, known as a wheellock. In the presence of combustible gasses issuing from the bituminous coal, the pyrites could therefore have provided the ignition capability needed to create an explosion. A number of bunker fires of this type had, in fact, been reported aboard U.S. warships before Maine's explosion, in several cases nearly sinking the ships. Wegner also cites a 1997 heat transfer study which concluded that a coal bunker fire, of the type suggested by Rickover, could have taken place and ignited the ship's ammunition.[75]

text: 1998 National Geographic investigation[edit]

text: In 1998, National Geographic magazine commissioned an analysis by Advanced Marine Enterprises (AME). This investigation, done to commemorate the centennial of the sinking of USS Maine, was based on computer modeling, a technique unavailable for previous investigations. The results reached were inconclusive. National Geographic reported that "a fire in the coal bunker could have generated sufficient heat to touch off an explosion in the adjacent magazine [but] on the other hand, computer analysis also shows that even a small, handmade mine could have penetrated the ship's hull and set off explosions within."[76] The AME investigation, however, did note that "the size and location of the soil depression beneath the Maine 'is more readily explained by a mine explosion than by magazine explosions alone'".[64] The team noted that this was not "definitive in proving that a mine was the cause of the sinking" although it did "strengthen the case".[64]

text: Some experts, including Admiral Rickover's team and several analysts at AME, do not agree with the conclusion.[64] Wegner claims that technical opinion among the Geographic team was divided between its younger members, who focused on computer modeling results, and its older ones, who weighed their inspection of photos of the wreck with their own experience. He adds that the data AME used for its findings were flawed concerning Maine's design and ammunition storage. Wegner was also critical of the fact that participants in the Rickover study were not consulted until AME's analysis was essentially complete, far too late to confirm the veracity of data being used or engage in any other meaningful cooperation.[77]

text: 2002 Discovery Channel Unsolved History investigation[edit]

text: In 2002, the Discovery Channel produced an episode of the Unsolved History documentaries titled "Death of the U.S.S. Maine" that used photographic evidence, naval experts, and archival information to determine the cause of the explosion. Its conclusion was that a coal bunker fire caused the explosion, and it identified a weakness or gap in the bulkhead separating the coal and powder bunkers that allowed the fire to spread from the coal bunker to the powder bunker.

text: False flag theories[edit]

text: It has been suggested by some that the sinking was a false flag operation conducted by the U.S. This is the official view in Cuba. Cuban officials argue that the U.S. may have deliberately sunk the ship to create a pretext for military action against Spain. The wording on the Maine monument in Havana describes Maine's sailors as "victims sacrificed to the imperialist greed in its fervor to seize control of Cuba",[78] which alludes to the theory that U.S. agents deliberately blew up their own ship.[79]

text: Eliades Acosta, a prominent Cuban historian, head of the Cuban Communist Party's Committee on Culture and former director of the Jose Marti National Library in Havana, offered the standard Cuban interpretation of the sinking of the Maine (that the United States itself probably did it) in an interview to The New York Times. But Acosta adds that "Americans died for the freedom of Cuba, and that should be recognized. But others wanted to annex Cuba, and that should be criticized. If relations with the United States improve, all these things can be re-examined more fairly".[80] This claim has also been made in Russia. Mikhail Khazin, a Russian economist who once ran the cultural section at Komsomolskaya Pravda, speaking in a 2008 Pravda interview of the need in troubled times to change the psychology of society, to unite it, said that "the Americans blew up their own battleship Maine."[81]

text: Operation Northwoods was a series of proposals prepared by Pentagon officials for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962, setting out a number of proposed false flag operations that could be blamed on the Cuban Communists in order to rally support against them.[82][83] One of these suggested that a U.S. Navy ship be blown up in Guantanamo Bay deliberately. In an echo of the yellow press headlines of the earlier period, the specific phrase "A 'Remember the Maine' incident" was used.[83][84]

text: Raising and final sinking[edit]

text: For several years, Maine was left where she sank in Havana Harbor, although it was evident she would have to be removed sometime. Maine took up valuable space and the buildup of silt around her hull threatened to create a shoal. In addition, various patriotic groups wanted mementos of the ship. On 9 May 1910, Congress authorized funds for the removal of Maine, the proper interment in Arlington National Cemetery of the estimated 70 bodies still inside, and the removal and transport of the main mast to Arlington. Congress did not demand a new investigation into the sinking at that time.[85]

text: The Army Corps of Engineers built a cofferdam around Maine and pumped water out from inside it.[4] By 30 June 1911, Maine's main deck was exposed. The ship forward of frame 41 was entirely destroyed; a twisted mass of steel out of line with the rest of the hull, all that was left of the bow, bore no resemblance to a ship. The rest of the wreck was badly corroded. Army engineers dismantled the damaged superstructure and decks, which were then dumped at sea. About halfway between bow and stern, they built a concrete and wooden bulkhead to seal the after-section, then cut away what was left of the forward portion. Holes were cut in the bottom of the after-section, through which jets of water were pumped, to break the mud seal holding the ship, then plugged, with flood cocks, which would later be used for sinking the ship.[86]

text: The Maine had been outfitted with Worthington steam pumps. Although lying on the bottom of Havana Harbor for fourteen years these pumps were found to be still operational, and were subsequently used to raise the ship. (Worthington Pump History, 1840–1940)

text: This article has an unclear citation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking. (April 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

tag: table

text: On 13 February 1912, the engineers let water back into the interior of the cofferdam. Three days later, the interior of the cofferdam was full and Maine floated. Two days after that, Maine was towed out by the tug Osceola. The bodies of its crew were then removed to the armored cruiser North Carolina for repatriation. On 16 March, Maine was towed four miles from the Cuban coast by Osceola, escorted by North Carolina and the light cruiser Birmingham. Its sea cocks were opened and it sank in 600 fathoms (3,600 ft; 1,100 m) of water to the salutes of Birmingham and North Carolina.[87][88] During the salvage, remains of 66 more were found, of whom only one (an engineering officer) was identified and returned to his home town; the rest were reburied at Arlington Cemetery making a total of 229 buried there.[89]

text: Rediscovery[edit]

text: In 2000, the wreck of Maine was rediscovered by Advanced Digital Communications, a Toronto-based expedition company, in about 3,770 feet (1,150 m) of water roughly 3 miles (4.8 km) northeast of Havana Harbor. The company had been working with Cuban scientists and oceanographers from the University of South Florida College of Marine Science, on testing underwater exploration technology. The ship had been discovered east of where it was believed it had been scuttled; according to the researchers, during the sinking ceremony and the time it took the wreck to founder, currents pushed the Maine east until it came to rest at its present location. Before the team identified the site as Maine, they referred to the location as the "square" due to its unique shape, and at first they did not believe it was the ship, due to its unexpected location. The site was explored with an ROV. According to Dr. Frank Muller-Karger, the hull was not oxidized and the crew could "see all of its structural parts".[90] The expedition was able to identify the ship due to the doors and hatches on the wreck, as well as the anchor chain, the shape of the propellers, and the holes where the bow was cut off. Due to the 1912 raising of the ship, the wreck was completely missing its bow; this tell-tale feature was instrumental in identifying the ship. The team also located a boiler nearby, and a debris field of coal.[90]

text: Memorials[edit]

text: Arlington, Annapolis, Havana[edit]

text: In February 1898, the recovered bodies of sailors who died on Maine were interred in the Colon Cemetery, Havana. Some injured sailors were sent to hospitals in Havana and Key West, Florida. Those who died in hospitals were buried in Key West. In December 1899, the bodies in Havana were disinterred and brought back to the United States for burial at Arlington National Cemetery.[91] In 1915, President Woodrow Wilson dedicated the USS Maine Mast Memorial to those who died. The memorial includes the ship's main mast. Roughly 165 were buried at Arlington, although the remains of one sailor were exhumed for his home town, Indianapolis, Indiana. Of the rest, only 62 were known.[89] Nine bodies were never recovered and 19 crewmen, several unidentified, are buried in Key West Cemetery under a statue of a U.S. Sailor holding an oar.[c]

text:
Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery centered on the ship's main mast

The Cuban Friendship Urn on Ohio Drive, Southwest, Washington, D.C., East Potomac Park

Monument to victims of Maine in Havana, Cuba, c. 1930

A gun from Maine at Fort Allen Park, Portland, Maine

U.S. Battleship Maine Monument Key West Cemetery, Florida

text: The explosion-bent fore mast of Maine is located at the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland.[92][93]

text: In 1926, the Cuban government erected a memorial to the victims of Maine on the Malecon, near the Hotel Nacional, to commemorate United States assistance in acquiring Cuban independence from Spain. The memorial was damaged by crowds, following the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961, and the eagle on top was broken and removed.[94] The Communist government then added its own inscription blaming "imperialist voracity in its eagerness to seize the island of Cuba" for Maine's sinking.[94][95] The monument was cleaned and restored in 2013. However, the eagle's head was retained by the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, and the body by the city's museum.[96]

text: USS Maine Monument, New York City[edit]

text:
USS Maine Monument in New York City

USS Maine Monument, Columbus Circle, NYC

Columbia Triumphant

Memorial plaque by Charles Keck, USS Maine Memorial

Sculpture group by Attilio Piccirilli at USS Maine Memorial

Columbia Triumphant sculpture group atop USS Maine Memorial

text: Other memorials[edit]

text:
In 1898, Georges Méliès made his movie, Visite sous-marine du Maine, about rescuers freeing bodies from the sunken Maine.
In 1914, one of Maine's six anchors was taken from the Washington Navy Yard to City Park in Reading, Pennsylvania, and dedicated during a ceremony presided over by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was then assistant secretary of the navy.[97]
A brass torpedo tube hatch recovered from Maine is on display at Lakeside Park in Oakland, California. It was stolen from its mount in the park in May 2011, but quickly recovered by authorities after the thieves attempted to sell it for scrap metal. The large piece was relocated and mounted by OPW Facility Services in front of Oakland's Veterans building on Grand Ave. [98]
A memorial including the shield and scrollwork from the bow of the ship is located in Bangor, Maine.
A 6-inch gun from Maine is in Washington, DC at the National Museum of the United States Navy.
A 6-inch gun from Maine is in Fort Allen Park in Portland, Maine.
A 6-inch gun from Maine is displayed on the front lawn of city hall in Alpena, Michigan, as well as a bronze plaque made from the vessel.
The base of Maine's conning tower is currently on display at Westbrook Veterans' Memorial Park in Canton, Ohio, hometown of President McKinley.
Shells from the main battery were placed along with small plaques as memorials at the Soldier's Home in Marion, Indiana, (now a VA hospital and national cemetery), at the St. Joseph County Courthouse lawn in South Bend, Indiana, at Point Defiance Park in Tacoma, Washington and at the old soldiers' home in Minneapolis, Minnesota. A shell from the main battery is located just inside of the Pine St. entrance of city hall in Lewiston, Maine.[citation needed][importance?]
A monument for Maine with a portion of a bronze engine room ventilator shaft is located in Pompton Lakes, New Jersey.[99]
The capstan of the ship was secured for Charleston, South Carolina where it was displayed on the Battery until 2006; it is currently awaiting reinstallation.[100]
A shell from the Maine is on display at the Hoboken Public Library in Hoboken, New Jersey.[citation needed][importance?]
There is a plaque dedicated to Maine at the war memorial in Stephen R. Gregg Park in Bayonne, New Jersey. The plaque is made from metal salvaged from the ship.[101]
A fragment of the ship is on display at Moraine farm, the Homestead of Col. Deeds in Kettering, Ohio. (Currently under the stewardship of Kettering Health Network).
A six-inch gun turret of the ship is on display at VFW Post 1289 in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

text: A 6-inch deck gun from Maine is on the North lawn of the South Carolina State House in Columbia, SC.

text: A bronze torpedo tube and armoured hatch form part of a memorial in West Park, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, just south of West North Avenue, http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM769B_Maine_Memorial_Pittsburgh_PA

text: There is also a U.S.S. Maine Memorial plaque<visible in photographs and physically in situ> at the south door of the Jefferson County Courthouse, in Steubenville, OH.

text: Coordinates: 23°11′53″N 82°21′18″W / 23.198°N 82.355°W / 23.198; -82.355 (USS Maine)[102]


document_title: List of cities and towns in India by nicknames

question_text: which indian state is popularly known as the land of spices

text: List by states[edit]

text: Andhra Pradesh[edit]

text:
City/town
Nickname

Dharmavaram

Silk City of Andhra Pradesh[1]

Kakinada

Pensioner's Paradise[2]

Piduguralla

Lime City[3]

Rajahmundry

Cultural Capital of Andhra Pradesh[4]

Tenali

Andhra Paris[5]

Tirupati

Spiritual Capital of India
Spiritual Capital of Andhra Pradesh[6]

Visakhapatnam

Financial Capital of Andhra Pradesh[6]
The Jewel of the East Coast[7]
Goa of the East[7]
The City of Destiny[7]

text: Bihar[edit]

text:
City/town

Nickname

Muzaffarpur

The Land of Leechi[8]

Bhagalpur

Silk City[9][10]

Nalanda

land of knowledge

HAJIPUR

Electronic city of bihar

text: Chhattisgarh[edit]

text:
City/town

Nickname

Chhattisgarh

Korba

Power hub of India

Jagdalpur

Tourism capital of Chhattisgarh

Bhilai

Steel city of India

Kanker

Gateway of bastar

text: Gujarat[edit]

text:
City/town

Nickname

Ahmedabad

INDIA'S first world heritage city
Manchester City Of India
Boston of India

Surat

Diamond City of India

Baroda (Vadodara)

Banyan City[11]
Cultural Capital of Gujarat (Sanskari Nagari)[12]
Power Hub of India[13]
Sayajinagari

text: Chandigarh[edit]

text:
City/town

Nickname

Chandigarh

The City Beautiful

text: Haryana[edit]

text:
City/town

Nickname

Gurgaon

Millennium city of India

Bhiwani

Mini Cuba

Rewari

Copper City

Narnaul

Saffron City

text: Jharkhand[edit]

text:
City/town

Nickname

Jamshedpur

Steel City of India[14]

Dhanbad

The Coal Capital of India

text: Karnataka[edit]

text:
City/town
Nickname

Bengaluru (Bengaluru)

Silicon Valley of India[15]
Science City of India[16]
Garden City of India[17]

Coorg (Kodagu)

Scotland of India[18]

Mangalore (Mangaluru)

Rome of the East[19]
Ice Cream Capital of India[20]

Mysore (Mysuru)

Sandalwood City[21]
Cultural Capital of Karnataka[22]
City of Palaces (†3)
Heritage City of Karnataka[23]

Sakleshpur (Sakleshpura)

Poor Man's Ooty[24][25]

text:
|Chickmagalur (Chickamagaluru)
|

text: Switzerland of India[26]

text: Kerala[edit]

text:
City/town

Nickname

Trivandrum (Thiruvananthapuram)

Evergreen City of India

Kochi (Cochin)

Queen of Arabian Sea[27]

Kozhikode (Calicut)

City of Spices.[28]

Kannur (Cannanore)

City of Looms and Lores.[29]

Kottayam

City of letters (Aksharanagri)[30][better source needed]
City of Murals[30]
City of latex[30]
City of lakes[30]

Kollam (Quilon)

Cashew Capital of the World[31]

Alappuzha (Alleppey)

Venice of east[32][better source needed]

Kasaragod

Land of Seven Languages (സപ്തഭാഷസംഗമഭൂമി, Saptabashasangamabhoomi)[33]
Harkwillia[34]

Palakkad

Land of Palm trees[35]
Rice bowl of Kerala[36]

Thrissur

The Cultural capital of Kerala[37]
Land of Poorams (പൂരങ്ങളുടെ നാട്)[38]
The land of Vadakkumnathan (വടക്കുംനാഥന്റെ മണ്ണ്)[39]
Gold capital of India[40]

Wayanad

God’s own district [41]

text: Madhya Pradesh[edit]

text:
City/Town

Nickname

Indore

Mini Bombay

Ujjain

City Of Temples

Bhopal

City of Lakes

text: Maharashtra[edit]

text:
City/town

Nickname

Akola

Cotton City of India[42][43][44]

Nagpur

Orange City,[45]
Tiger Capital of India[46]

Nashik

Wine Capital of India

Jalgaon

City of Banana

Pune

Queen of Deccan[47]
Oxford of the east
Educational hub
Information Technology (IT) hub
culture capital of Maharashtra
Automobile hub
India's smartest city

Kolhapur

City of Wrestlers[48]

Mumbai

City of Dreams
Financial Capital Of India
City of seven Islands
Maya Nagari
Gateway of India

Pandharpur

Spiritual Capital of Maharashtra

Aurangabad

Detroit of Maharashtra

Chandrapur

Black Golden City

text: Meghalaya[edit]

text:
City/Town

Nickname

Shillong

Scotland of East

text: Odisha[edit]

text:
City/town

Nickname

Balangir

Cloth City of Odisha

Sambalpur

The City of Culture
Handloom City

Bargarh

Rice Bowl of Odisha

Bhubaneswar

The Temple City[49]

Cuttack

The silver city of India
Millenium City

Rourkela

Steel city of Odisha

Puri

Spiritual City of India

Deogarh

City of Waterfalls

text: Punjab[edit]

text:
City/town

Nickname

Patiala

Royal City[50]

Ludhiana

Manchester of Punjab

text: Rajasthan[edit]

text:
City/town

Nickname

Jaipur

Pink City[51]

Udaipur

City of Lakes[52]
Venice of the East (†4)[52][53]

Jodhpur

Blue City[54]

text:
Bhilwara
Textile City of India

text: Tamil Nadu[edit]

text:
City/town

Nickname

Chennai (Madras) (Madarasapattinam)

Detroit of Asia[55]
Banking Capital of India[55]
Gateway of South India
Healthcare Capital of India[56]

Coimbatore (Kovai)

Manchester of South India[57][58]

Madurai

Athens of the east[59]

Salem

Steel City[60]
Mango City

Puducherry (Pondicherry)

Paris of the East (†3)

Tirunelveli

City of paddy fields[61]
Oxford of Southindia

Tuticorin (Thoothukudi)

Pearl City[62]

Auroville

City of Dawn

Yercaud

Poor Man's Ooty[63][64]
Jewel of the South[65]

Sivakasi

Kutty (A little) Japan
Crackers City of Tamil Nadu[66]

Ooty

Queen of Hill Stations[67]

Kodaikanal

Princess of Hill stations[68]

Ooththukuli

Butter city of Tamil Nadu[68]

Ambur

Biriyani city of Tamil Nadu[68]

Tirupur

dollar city of India
knitwear capital of india

text: Telangana[edit]

text:
City/town

Nickname

Hyderabad

City of Biryani
City of Pearls[69]

Nalgonda

City of Rocks

Ramagundam

City of Coal

text: Uttar Pradesh[edit]

text:
City/town

Nickname

Lucknow

City of Nawabs[70]
City of Gardens
Constantinople of East

text:
City

Nickname

Kanpur

Manchester Of The East[71]
Leather City of the World[72]
Crossroad of National Highways

Allahabad (Prayag)

Sangam City[73]
City of Prime Ministers[74]
Abode of God[74] (भगवान का घर)
King of Pilgrims(तीर्थो का राजा)

Varanasi

The City Of Ghats
City of Lights
Abode of Shiva
Cultural Capital of India
The Ultimate Crematorium
The City of Moksha

text: West Bengal[edit]

text:
City

Nickname(s)

Calcutta (Kolkata)

City of Joy[75]
City of Palaces(†3)
Heaven of the Aged
Gateway of Eastern India

Siliguri

Gateway of Northeast India[76]
Gateway to the Dooars[77]
City of Hospitality

Asansol

City of black diamond

Bardhaman

City of Peace
Royal Heritage City of West Bengal

Durgapur

Rurh of India

Darjeeling

Queen of the Hills

Malda

Mango City

Purulia

Manbhum City

text: Anchors[edit]

text:
(†1) (For other places with the same nickname as 'Paris of the East', see Paris of the East)
(†2) (For other places with the same nickname as 'Venice of the East', see List of places called Venice of the East)
(†3) (For other places with the same nickname as 'City of Palaces', see City of Palaces)