document_title: Nuclear power in India

question_text: where are nuclear power plants located in india

text: Nuclear power in India

text: History[edit]

text:
Nuclear power generation[9]

Year
Generation (TWh)

2006

17.7

2007

17.7

2008

15.0

2009

16.8

2010

23.0

2011

32.3

2012

33.1

2013

33.1

2014

34.5

2015

38.4

2016

38.0

text: Early nuclear physics research[edit]

text: As early as 1901, the Geological Survey of India (GSI) had recognised India as potentially having significant deposits of radioactive ores, including pitchblende, uranium and thorianite. In the ensuing 50 years, however, little to no effort was made to exploit those resources.[10] During the 1920s and 1930s, Indian scientists maintained close links to their counterparts in Europe and the United States, and were well aware of the latest developments in physics. Several Indian physicists, notably Daulat Singh Kothari, Meghnad Saha, Homi J. Bhabha and R. S. Krishnan, conducted pioneering research in nuclear physics in Europe during the 1930s.

text: By 1939, Meghnad Saha, the Palit Professor of Physics at the University of Calcutta, had recognised the significance of the discovery of nuclear fission, and had begun to conduct various experiments in his laboratory related to nuclear physics. In 1940, he incorporated nuclear physics into the university's post-graduate curriculum.[11] In the same year, the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust sanctioned funds for installing a cyclotron at the University of Calcutta, but various difficulties likely related to the war delayed the project.[12] In 1944, Homi J. Bhabha, a distinguished nuclear physicist who had established a research school at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, wrote a letter to his distant cousin J. R. D. Tata, the chairman of the Tata Group. He requested funds to establish a research institute of fundamental physics, "with special reference to cosmic rays and nuclear physics." The Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) was inaugurated in Mumbai the following year.[13]

text: Establishment of atomic energy in India[edit]

text: Following the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August 1945, R.S. Krishnan, a nuclear physicist who had studied under Norman Feather and John Cockroft, and who recognised the massive energy-generating potential of uranium, observed, "If the tremendous energy released from atomic explosions is made available to drive machinery, etc., it will bring about an industrial revolution of a far-reaching character." He further noted, however, the difficulties in harnessing nuclear power for peaceful usage, "...a great deal more research work is needed before atomic power can be put to industrial use."[14]

text: In March 1946, the Board of Scientific and Industrial Research (BSIR), under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), set up an Atomic Research Committee under Bhabha's leadership to explore India's atomic energy resources and to suggest ways to develop and harness them, along with establishing contacts with similar organisations in other nations.[15] At the same time, the University of Travancore's research council met to discuss Travancore's future industrial development. Among other matters, the council made recommendations for developing the state's resources of monazite, a valuable thorium ore, and ilmenite, with regard to their applications in atomic energy. The council suggested the project could be undertaken by an all-India programme.[15] This was followed by the deputation of Bhabha and Sir Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar, the Director of the CSIR, to Travancore in April 1947 and the establishment of a working relationship with the kingdom's dewan, Sir C. P. Ramaswami Iyer.[16]

text: Early in 1947, plans were made to establish a Uranium Unit under the Geological Survey of India, to focus on identifying and developing resources of uranium-bearing minerals.[17] In June 1947, two months before Indian independence, Chakravarti Rajagopalachari, then Minister for Industry, Supply, Education and Finance in the Interim Government of India, established an Advisory Board for Research in Atomic Energy. Chaired by Bhabha and placed under the CSIR, the Advisory Board included Saha, Bhatnagar and several other distinguished scientists, notably Sir K. S. Krishnan, the co-discoverer of the Raman effect, geologist Darashaw Nosherwan Wadia and Nazir Ahmed, a student of Ernest Rutherford. A Joint Committee comprising the above scientists and three representatives of the Travancore government was set up to determine how best to utilise Travancore's resources of monazite.[18] Following the independence and partition of India, Travancore briefly declared itself independent before acceding to the new Dominion of India in 1949 after a period of intense negotiations, while Ahmad departed for Pakistan, where he would eventually head that nation's atomic energy agency.

text: On 23 March 1948, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Atomic Energy Bill in the Indian Parliament,[19] and it was subsequently passed as the Indian Atomic Energy Act. Modelled on the British Atomic Energy Act 1946, the Act granted sweeping powers to the central government over nuclear science and research, including surveying for atomic minerals, the development of such mineral resources on an industrial scale, conducting research regarding the scientific and technical problems connected with developing atomic energy for peaceful purposes, the training and education of the necessary personnel and the fostering of fundamental research in the nuclear sciences in Indian laboratories, institutes and universities.[13] Around the same time, the Government of West Bengal sanctioned the construction of a nuclear physics institute under the University of Calcutta; the cornerstone was laid in May 1948,[20] and the institute was inaugurated on 11 January 1950 by Irène Joliot-Curie.[11]

text: With effect from 1 June 1948, the Advisory Board for Research in Atomic Energy, together with its parent organisation the CSIR, was folded into the new Department of Scientific Research and placed directly under the Prime Minister. On 3 August 1948, the Atomic Energy Commission of India (AEC) was established and made separate from the Department of Scientific Research, with Bhabha as its first chairman.[21] In January 1949, the AEC met to formulate a uniform under- and post-graduate university syllabus for theoretical and fundamental physics and chemistry, to guarantee sufficient numbers of nuclear scientists and to ensure they would receive consistent levels of training and education.[22] In the same year, the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research was designated by the CSIR as the hub for all major nuclear science research projects. In 1950, the government announced it would purchase all available stocks of uranium and beryllium minerals and ores, and declared large rewards for any significant discoveries of the same.[23][24] On 3 January 1954, the Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (AEET) was established by the Atomic Energy Commission to consolidate all nuclear reactor research and technology-related developments; on 3 August, the Atomic Energy Commission and all its subordinate agencies, including the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and the nuclear research institute at Calcutta University, were transferred to the new Department of Atomic Energy and placed under the direct charge of the Prime Minister's Office.[13]

text: The first reactors[edit]

text: At a meeting of the Atomic Energy Commission on 15 March 1955, the decision was made to construct a small nuclear reactor at Trombay. The reactor would be used for training personnel for the operation of future reactors and for research, including experiments in nuclear physics, studying the effects of irradiation and the production of isotopes for medical, agricultural and industrial research.[25] In October 1955, an agreement was signed by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the Indian Department of Atomic Energy, under which Britain would supply uranium fuel elements for a pool-type reactor to be designed by India.[25] The agreement further ensured the "close cooperation and mutual assistance between the Department and the Authority in the promotion and development of the peaceful uses of atomic energy," and provided for future design and collaboration in the construction of a high flux reactor at a later date.[26] Named Apsara, the reactor was housed in a 100 x 50 x 70 concrete building. India's and Asia's first nuclear reactor, Apsara reached criticality at 3:45 p.m on 4 August 1956 and was inaugurated by Prime Minister Nehru on 20 January 1957.[25][27][28]

text: In April 1955, the Canadian government under Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent offered to assist in building an NRX-type reactor for India under the Colombo Plan, of which both India and Canada were then members. Prime Minister St. Laurent expressed hopes the reactor would serve India well in the development of peaceful atomic research and development. On behalf of the Indian government, Nehru formally accepted the offer that September, stating the reactor would be made available to any accredited foreign scientists, including those from other Colombo Plan member states.[29][30][31] On 28 April 1956, Nehru and the Canadian High Commissioner to India Escott Reid signed an agreement for a "Canada-India Colombo Plan Atomic Reactor Project." Under the terms of the agreement, Canada would provide a 40 MW CIRUS reactor for solely research purposes, including the initial manufacture and engineering of the reactor, and would also provide technical expertise, including training Indian personnel in its operation. India would supply the reactor site and foundation, and would also pay all "internal" costs, including the construction of the reactor complex, the costs of local labour and any shipping and insurance fees.[32] Under Article II of the agreement, India would make the reactor facilities available to other Colombo Plan nations. Article III stipulated that the "reactor and any products resulting from its use will be employed for peaceful purposes only;"[32] at the time, however, there were no effective safeguards to ensure this clause.[30][31] A further agreement was made with the United States government to supply 21 tons of heavy water for the reactor.[33] Construction of the reactor began later in 1956, with Indian technical personnel sent to Chalk River for training.[34] CIRUS was completed in early 1960 and after achieving criticality in July 1960, was inaugurated by Nehru in January 1961.[35] Construction of a third research reactor, ZERLINA (Zero Energy Reactor for Lattice Investigations and New Assemblies) began at Trombay in 1958; ZERLINA was also commissioned in 1961.[36]

text: By February 1960, deliberations had begun to build India's first nuclear power stations; it was decided the first power plant would be erected in Western India, with locations in Rajasthan, near Delhi and near Madras noted for future electricity-generating reactors.[37] On 11 October 1960, the Indian government issued a global tender for India's first nuclear power station near Tarapur, Maharashtra and consisting of two reactors, each generating around 150 MW of electricity and to be commissioned in 1965.[38] In August 1961, the Indian and Canadian governments agreed to conduct a joint study on building a Canada-India nuclear power plant in Rajasthan; the reactor would be based on the CANDU reactor at Douglas Point and would generate 200 MW of energy.[35] The agreement for India's first nuclear power plant at Rajasthan, RAPP-1, was signed in 1963, followed by RAPP-2 in 1966. These reactors contained rigid safeguards to ensure they would not be used for a military programme. RAPP-1 began operation in 1972. Due to technical problems the reactor had to be downrated from 200 MW to 100 MW.[citation needed] The technical and design information were given free of charge by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to India.[citation needed] The United States and Canada terminated their assistance after the detonation of India's first nuclear explosion in 1974.

text: Recent developments[edit]

text: After successful commissioning of Kudankulam units 1 & 2, an agreement was made with Russia in June 2017 for the units 5 & 6 (2 x 1000 MW) with an estimated cost of INR 250 million (3.85 million US$) per MW.[39][40] Earlier, India had also entered in to an agreement with Russia in October 2016 for the units 3 & 4 (2 x 1000 MW) with an estimated cost of INR 200 million (3.08 million US$) per MW.[39]

text: Nuclear fuel reserves[edit]

text: India's domestic uranium reserves are small and the country is dependent on uranium imports to fuel its nuclear power industry. Since early 1990s, Russia has been a major supplier of nuclear fuel to India.[41] Due to dwindling domestic uranium reserves,[42] electricity generation from nuclear power in India declined by 12.83% from 2006 to 2008.[43] Following a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in September 2008 which allowed it to commence international nuclear trade,[44] India has signed bilateral deals on civilian nuclear energy technology cooperation with several other countries, including France,[45] the United States,[46] the United Kingdom,[47] Canada,[48] and South Korea.[49] India has also uranium supply agreements with Russia,[50][51] Mongolia,[52] Kazakhstan,[53] Argentina[54] and Namibia.[55] An Indian private company won a uranium exploration contract in Niger.[56]

text: In March 2011 large deposits of uranium have been discovered in the Tummalapalle belt and in the Bhima basin at Gogi in Karnataka by the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research (AMD) of India. The Tummalapalle belt uranium reserves promises to be one of the world's top 20 uranium reserves discoveries. 44,000 tonnes of natural uranium have been discovered in the belt so far, which is estimated to have three times that amount.[57][58][59] The natural uranium deposits of the Bhima basin has better grade of natural uranium ore, even though it is smaller than the Tummalapalle belt.

text: In recent years, India has shown increased interest in thorium fuels and fuel cycles because of large deposits of thorium (518,000 tonnes) in the form of monazite in beach sands as compared to very modest reserves of low-grade uranium (92,000 tonnes).[60]

text: Nuclear agreements with other nations[edit]

text: As of 2016, India has signed civil nuclear agreements with 14 countries: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Namibia, Russia, South Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam.[61] The 48-nation NSG granted a waiver to India on 6 September 2008 allowing it to access civilian nuclear technology and fuel from other countries.[62] India the only known country with nuclear weapons which is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but is still allowed to carry out nuclear commerce with the rest of the world.[63]

text: The nuclear agreement with USA led to India issuing a Letter of Intent for purchasing 10,000 MW from the USA. However, liability concerns and a few other issues are preventing further progress on the issue. Experts say that India's nuclear liability law discourages foreign nuclear companies. This law gives accident victims the right to seek damages from plant suppliers in the event of a mishap. It has "deterred foreign players like General Electric and Westinghouse Electric, a US-based unit of Toshiba, with companies asking for further clarification on compensation liability for private operators".[64]

text: Russia has an ongoing agreement of 1988 vintage with India regarding establishing of two VVER 1000 MW reactors (water-cooled water-moderated light water power reactors) at Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu.[65] A 2008 agreement caters for provision of an additional four third generation VVER-1200 reactors of capacity 1170 MW each.[66] Russia has assisted in India’s efforts to design a nuclear plant for its nuclear submarine.[67] In 2009, the Russians stated that Russia would not agree to curbs on export of sensitive technology to India. A new accord signed in Dec 2009 with Russia gives India freedom to proceed with the closed fuel cycle, which includes mining, preparation of the fuel for use in reactors, and reprocessing of spent fuel.[68][69]

text: After the Nuclear Suppliers Group agreed to allow nuclear exports to India, France was the first country to sign a civilian nuclear agreement with India, on 30 September 2008.[70] During the December 2010 visit of the French President Nicolas Sarkozy to India, framework agreements were signed for the setting up two third-generation EPR reactors of 1650 MW each at Jaitapur, Maharashtra by the French company Areva. The deal caters for the first set of two of six planned reactors and the supply of nuclear fuel for 25 years.[71] The contract and pricing is yet to be finalised. Construction is unlikely to start before 2014 because of regulatory issues and difficulty in sourcing major components from Japan due to India not being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[72]

text: India and Mongolia signed a crucial civil nuclear agreement on 15 June 2009 for supply of Uranium to India, during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Mongolia making it the fifth nation in the world to seal a civil nuclear pact with India. The MoU on “development of cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of radioactive minerals and nuclear energy” was signed by senior officials in the department of atomic energy of the two countries.[73]

text: On 2 September 2009, India and Namibia signed five agreements, including one on civil nuclear energy which allows for supply of uranium from the African country. This was signed during President Hifikepunye Pohamba's five-day visit to India in May 2009. Namibia is the fifth largest producer of uranium in the world. The Indo-Namibian agreement in peaceful uses of nuclear energy allows for supply of uranium and setting up of nuclear reactors.[74]

text: On 14 October 2009, India and Argentina signed an agreement in New Delhi on civil nuclear cooperation and nine other pacts to establish strategic partnership. According to official sources, the agreement was signed by Vivek Katju, Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs and Argentine foreign minister Jorge Talana. Taking into consideration their respective capabilities and experience in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, both India and Argentina have agreed to encourage and support scientific, technical and commercial cooperation for mutual benefit in this field.[75][76]

text: The Prime Ministers of India and Canada signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement in Toronto on 28 June 2010 which when all steps are taken, will provide access for Canada's nuclear industry to India's expanding nuclear market and also fuel for India's reactors. Canada is one of the world's largest exporters of uranium[77] and Canada's heavy water nuclear technology is marketed abroad with CANDU-type units operating in India, Pakistan, Argentina, South Korea, Romania and China. On 6 November 2012, India and Canada finalised their 2010 nuclear export agreement, opening the way for Canada to begin uranium exports to India.[78]

text: On 16 April 2011, India and Kazakhstan signed an inter-governmental agreement for Cooperation in Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, that envisages a legal framework for supply of fuel, construction and operation of atomic power plants, exploration and joint mining of uranium, exchange of scientific and research information, reactor safety mechanisms and use of radiation technologies for healthcare. PM Manmohan Singh visited Astana where a deal was signed. After the talks, the Kazakh President Nazarbaev announced that his country would supply India with 2100 tonnes of uranium and was ready to do more. India and Kazakhstan already have civil nuclear cooperation since January 2009 when Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and Kazakh nuclear company KazAtomProm signed an MoU during the visit of Nazarbaev to Delhi. Under the contract, KazAtomProm supplies uranium which is used by Indian reactors.[79][80]

text: South Korea became the latest country to sign a nuclear agreement with India after it got the waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) in 2008. On 25 July 2011 India and South Korea signed a nuclear agreement, which will allow South Korea with a legal foundation to participate in India’s nuclear expansion programme, and to bid for constructing nuclear power plants in India.[81]

text: In 2014, India and Australia signed a civil nuclear agreement which allows the export of uranium to India. This was signed in New Delhi during Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's meeting with the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 4 September 2014. Australia is the third largest producer of uranium in the world. The agreement allows supply of uranium for peaceful generation of power for civil use in India.[82][83]

text: India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi and UK Prime Minister David Cameron signed Civil Nuclear Agreement on 12 Nov, 2015.[84]

text: In November 2016 Japan signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with India. Japanese nuclear plant builders saw this as potential lifeline given that domestic orders had ended following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, and India is proposing to build about 20 new reactors over the next decade.[85]

text: Nuclear power plans[edit]

text: As of 2009, India envisages to increase the contribution of nuclear power to overall electricity generation capacity from 2.8% to 9% within 25 years.[86] By 2020, India's installed nuclear power generation capacity is expected to increase to 20 GW.[87] As of 2009[update], India stands 9th in the world in terms of number of operational nuclear power reactors. Indigenous atomic reactors include TAPS-3, and -4, both of which are 540 MW reactors.[88]

text: The Indian nuclear power industry is expected to undergo a significant expansion in the coming years, in part due to the passing of the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. This agreement will allow India to carry out trade of nuclear fuel and technologies with other countries and significantly enhance its power generation capacity.[89] When the agreement goes through, India is expected to generate an additional 25 GW of nuclear power by 2020, bringing total estimated nuclear power generation to 45 GW.[90]

text: Risks related to nuclear power generation prompted Indian legislators to enact the 2010 Nuclear Liability Act which stipulates that nuclear suppliers, contractors and operators must bear financial responsibility in case of an accident. The legislation addresses key issues such as nuclear radiation and safety regulations, operational control and maintenance management of nuclear power plants, compensation in the event of a radiation-leak accident, disaster clean-up costs, operator responsibility and supplier liability.[91] A nuclear accident like the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster would have dire economic consequences in heavily populated India as did the 1984 Union Carbide Bhopal disaster, considered among the world's worst industrial disasters.[92]

text: India has already been using imported enriched uranium for light-water reactors that are currently under IAEA safeguards, but it has developed other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle to support its reactors. Development of select technologies has been strongly affected by limited imports. Use of heavy water reactors has been particularly attractive for the nation because it allows Uranium to be burnt with little to no enrichment capabilities. India has also done a great amount of work in the development of a thorium centred fuel cycle. While uranium deposits in the nation are limited there are much greater reserves of thorium and it could provide hundreds of times the energy with the same mass of fuel. The fact that thorium can theoretically be utilised in heavy water reactors has tied the development of the two. A prototype reactor that would burn Uranium-Plutonium fuel while irradiating a thorium blanket is under construction at Kalpakkam by BHAVINI.

text: Uranium used for the weapons programme has been separated from the power programme, using uranium from indigenous reserves. This domestic reserve of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium (approx 1% of global uranium reserves) is large enough to supply all of India's commercial and military reactors as well as supply all the needs of India's nuclear weapons arsenal. Currently, India's nuclear power reactors consume, at most, 478 tonnes of uranium per year.[93] Even if India were quadruple its nuclear power output (and reactor base) to 20 GW by 2020, nuclear power generation would only consume 2000 tonnes of uranium per annum. Based on India's known commercially viable reserves of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium, this represents a 40–50 years uranium supply for India's nuclear power reactors (note with reprocessing and breeder reactor technology, this supply could be stretched out many times over). Furthermore, the uranium requirements of India's Nuclear Arsenal are only a fifteenth (1/15) of that required for power generation (approx. 32 tonnes), meaning that India's domestic fissile material supply is more than enough to meet all needs for it strategic nuclear arsenal. Therefore, India has sufficient uranium resources to meet its strategic and power requirements for the foreseeable future.[93]

text: Former Indian President A. P. J. Abdul Kalam stated while he was in office that "energy independence is India's first and highest priority. India has to go for nuclear power generation in a big way using thorium-based reactors. Thorium, a non fissile material is available in abundance in our country."[94] India has vast thorium reserves and quite limited uranium reserves.[95][96]

text: The long-term goal of India's nuclear program has been to develop an advanced heavy-water thorium cycle. The first stage of this employs the pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWR) fueled by natural uranium, and light water reactors, which produce plutonium incidentally to their prime purpose of electricity generation. The second stage uses fast neutron reactors burning the plutonium with the blanket around the core having uranium as well as thorium, so that further plutonium (ideally high-fissile Pu) is produced as well as U-233. The Atomic and Molecular Data Unit (AMD) has identified almost 12 million tonnes of monazite resources (typically with 6-7% thorium). In stage 3, Advanced Heavy Water Reactors (AHWR) would burn thorium-plutonium fuels in such a manner that breeds U-233 which can eventually be used as a self-sustaining fissile driver for a fleet of breeding AHWRs. An alternative stage 3 is molten salt breeder reactors (MSBR), which are believed to be another possible option for eventual large-scale deployment.[61]

text: In June 2014, Kudankulam-1 became the single largest power generating unit in India (1000 MWe).[97][98]

text: Nuclear power plants[edit]

text: Currently, twenty-two nuclear power reactors have a total install capacity of 6,780 MW (3.5% of total installed base).[99][100]

text:
Operational nuclear power plants in India

Power station
Operator
State
Type
Units
Total capacity
(MW)

Kaiga
NPCIL
Karnataka
PHWR
220 x 4
880

Kakrapar
NPCIL
Gujarat
PHWR
220 x 2
440

Kudankulam[101]
NPCIL
Tamil Nadu
VVER-1000
1000 x 2
2,000

Madras (Kalpakkam)
NPCIL
Tamil Nadu
PHWR
220 x 2
440

Narora
NPCIL
Uttar Pradesh
PHWR
220 x 2
440

Rajasthan
NPCIL
Rajasthan
PHWR
100 x 1
200 x 1
220 x 4
1,180

Tarapur
NPCIL
Maharashtra
BWR
PHWR
160 x 2
540 x 2
1,400

Total

6,780

text:
Nuclear power plants and reactors under construction in India[102][103]

Power station
Operator
State
Type
Units
Total capacity
(MW)
Expected Commercial Operation

Kakrapar Unit 3 and 4
NPCIL
Gujarat
PHWR
700 x 2
1,400
2018[104]

Kudankulam[103]
NPCIL
Tamil Nadu
VVER-1000
1000 x 2
2,000[105]
2022-2023

Madras (Kalpakkam)[106]
Bhavini
Tamil Nadu
PFBR
500 x 1
500
early 2018

Rajasthan Unit 7 and 8
NPCIL
Rajasthan
PHWR
700 x 2
1,400
Unit 7: unknown
Unit 8: unknown

Total

5,300

text:
Planned nuclear power plants in India[105][107][108]

Power station
Operator
State
Type
Units
Total capacity
(MW)

Jaitapur[109]

Maharashtra
EPR
1650 x 6
9,900

Kovvada[110][111]

Andhra Pradesh
AP1000
1100 x 6
6,600

t.b.d. (was Mithi Virdi (Viradi))

Gujarat
AP1000
1100 x 6
6,600

t.b.d. (was Haripur)

West Bengal
VVER-1000
1000 x 6
6,000

Gorakhpur
NPCIL
Haryana
PHWR
700 x 4
2,800[112][113]

Bhimpur
NPCIL
Madhya Pradesh
PHWR
700 x 4
2,800[114][109]

Mahi Banswara[109]
NPCIL
Rajasthan
PHWR
700 x 4
2,800

Kaiga
NPCIL
Karnataka
PHWR
700 x 2
1,400

Chutka
NPCIL
Madhya Pradesh
PHWR
700 x 2
1,400

Madras[109]
BHAVINI
Tamil Nadu
FBR
600 x 2
1,200

Tarapur

AHWR
300 x 1
300

Total

41,200

text: Note: Some sites may be abandoned if not found technically feasible or due to strategic, geopolitical, international and domestic issues.

text: The details of the nuclear power generation capacity in the country are given below :[115]

text:
Fiscal Year
Total nuclear
electricity generation
Capacity factor

2008–09
14,921 GW·h
50%

2009–10
18,798 GW·h
61%

2010–11
26,472 GW·h
71%

2011–12
32,455 GW·h
79%

2012–13
32,863 GW·h
80%

2013-14
35,333 GW·h[116]
83%

text: Anti-nuclear protests[edit]

text: Following the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, populations around proposed Indian NPP sites have launched protests that had found resonance around the country.[5] There have been mass protests against the French-backed 9,900 MW Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project in Maharashtra and the Russian-backed 2,000 MW Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu. The Government of West Bengal initially refused permission to a proposed 6,000 MW facility near the town of Haripur that intended to host 6 Russian reactors.[5][117] But now it's possible for Bengal to have its first nuclear power plant at Haripur despite resistance.[118]

text: A Public-interest litigation (PIL) has also been filed against the government’s civil nuclear program at the Supreme Court. The PIL specifically asks for the "staying of all proposed nuclear power plants till satisfactory safety measures and cost-benefit analyses are completed by independent agencies".[6][119] But the Supreme Court said it was not an expert in the nuclear field to issue a direction to the government on the nuclear liability issue.[120]


document_title: Long Depression

question_text: when did railroads financial problems prompt nationwide economic panic

root

text: Long Depression

text: Background[edit]

text: The period preceding the depression was dominated by several major military conflicts and a period of economic expansion. In Europe, the end of the Franco-Prussian War yielded a new political order in Germany, and the £200 million reparations imposed on France led to an inflationary investment boom in Germany and Central Europe.[11] New technologies in industry such as the Bessemer converter were being rapidly applied; railroads were booming.[11] In the United States, the end of the Civil War and a brief post-war recession (1865–1867) gave way to an investment boom, focused especially on railroads on public lands in the Western United States - an expansion funded greatly by foreign investors.[11]

tag: p

text: Causes of the crisis[edit]

text: In 1873, during a decline in the value of silver—exacerbated by the end of the German Empire's production of the thaler coins from which the dollar got its name—the US government passed the Coinage Act of 1873 in April of that year. This essentially ended the bimetallic standard of the United States, forcing it for the first time onto a pure gold standard. This measure, referred to by its opponents as "the Crime of 1873" and the topic of William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech in 1896, forced a contraction of the money supply in the United States. It also drove down silver prices further, even as new silver mines were being established in Nevada, which stimulated mining investment but increased supply as demand was falling.[12] Silver miners arrived at US mints, unaware of the ban on production of silver coins, only to find their product no longer welcome. By September, the US economy was in a crisis, deflation causing banking panics and destabilizing business investment, climaxing in the Panic of 1873.

text: The Panic of 1873 has been described as "the first truly international crisis".[11] The optimism that had been driving booming stock prices in central Europe had reached a fever pitch, and fears of a bubble culminated in a panic in Vienna beginning in April 1873. The collapse of the Vienna Stock Exchange began on May 8, 1873, and continued until May 10, when the exchange was closed; when it was reopened three days later, the panic seemed to have faded, and appeared confined to Austria-Hungary.[11] Financial panic arrived in the Americas only months later on Black Thursday, September 18, 1873 after the failure of the banking house of Jay Cooke and Company over the Northern Pacific Railway.[13] The Northern Pacific railway had been given 40 million acres (160,000 km2) of public land in the Western United States and Cooke sought $100,000,000 in capital for the company; the bank failed when the bond issue proved unsalable, and was shortly followed by several other major banks. The New York Stock Exchange closed for ten days on September 20.[11]

text: The financial contagion then returned to Europe, provoking a second panic in Vienna and further failures in continental Europe before receding. France, which had been experiencing deflation in the years preceding the crash, was spared financial calamity for the moment, as was Britain.[11]

text: Some have argued the depression was rooted in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War that hurt the French economy and, under the Treaty of Frankfurt, forced that country to make large war reparations payments to Germany.  The primary cause of the price depression in the United States was the tight monetary policy that the United States followed to get back to the gold standard after the Civil War. The U.S. government was taking money out of circulation to achieve this goal, therefore there was less available money to facilitate trade.  Because of this monetary policy the price of silver started to fall causing considerable losses of asset values; by most accounts, after 1879 production was growing, thus further putting downward pressure on prices due to increased industrial productivity, trade and competition.

text: In the US the speculative nature of financing due to both the greenback, which was paper currency issued to pay for the Civil War and rampant fraud in the building of the Union Pacific Railway up to 1869 culminated in the Credit Mobilier panic. Railway overbuilding and weak markets collapsed the bubble in 1873. Both the Union Pacific and the Northern Pacific lines were central to the collapse; another railway bubble was the railway mania in the United Kingdom.

text: Because of the Panic of 1873, governments depegged their currencies, to save money. The demonetization of silver by European and North American governments in the early 1870s was certainly a contributing factor.  The US Coinage Act of 1873 was met with great opposition by farmers and miners, as silver was seen as more of a monetary benefit to rural areas than to banks in big cities.  In addition, there were US citizens who advocated the continuance of government-issued fiat money (United States Notes) to avoid deflation and promote exports. The western US states were outraged—Nevada, Colorado, and Idaho were huge silver producers with productive mines, and for a few years mining abated.  Resumption of silver dollar coinage was authorized by the Bland-Allison Act of 1878.  The resumption of the US government buying silver was enacted in 1890 with the Sherman Silver Purchase Act.

text: Monetarists believe that the 1873 depression was caused by shortages of gold that undermined the gold standard, and that the 1848 California Gold Rush, 1886 Witwatersrand Gold Rush in South Africa and the 1896–99 Klondike Gold Rush helped alleviate such crises.  Other analyses have pointed to developmental surges (see Kondratiev wave), theorizing that the Second Industrial Revolution was causing large shifts in the economies of many states, imposing transition costs, which may also have played a role in causing the depression.

text: Course of the depression[edit]

text: Like the later Great Depression, the Long Depression affected different countries at different times, at different rates, and some countries accomplished rapid growth over certain periods. Globally, however, the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s were a period of falling price levels and rates of economic growth significantly below the periods preceding and following.

text: Between 1870 and 1890, iron production in the five largest producing countries more than doubled, from 11 million tons to 23 million tons, steel production increased twentyfold (half a million tons to 11 million tons), and railroad development boomed.[14] But at the same time, prices in several markets collapsed - the price of grain in 1894 was only a third what it had been in 1867,[15] and the price of cotton fell by nearly 50 percent in just the five years from 1872 to 1877,[16] imposing great hardship on farmers and planters. This collapse provoked protectionism in many countries, such as France, Germany, and the United States,[15] while triggering mass emigration from other countries such as Italy, Spain, Austria-Hungary, and Russia.[17] Similarly, while the production of iron doubled between the 1870s and 1890s,[14] the price of iron halved.[15]

text: Many countries experienced significantly lower growth rates relative to what they had experienced earlier in the 19th century and to what they experienced afterwards:

text:
Growth rates of industrial production (1850s–1913)[18]

1850s–1873

1873–1890

1890–1913

 Germany

4.3

2.9

4.1

 United Kingdom

3.0

1.7

2.0

 United States

6.2

4.7

5.3

 France

1.7

1.3

2.5

 Italy

0.9

3.0

 Sweden

3.1

3.5

tag: table

text:
GNP of the Great Powers of Europe(in billions USD, 1960 prices)[19]

1830

1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

 Russia

10.5

11.2

12.7

14.4

22.9

23.2

21.1

 France

8.5

10.3

11.8

13.3

16.8

17.3

19.7

 United Kingdom

8.2

10.4

12.5

16.0

19.6

23.5

29.4

 Germany

7.2

8.3

10.3

12.7

16.6

19.9

26.4

 Austria-Hungary

7.2

8.3

9.1

9.9

11.3

12.2

15.3

 Italy

5.5

5.9

6.6

7.4

8.2

8.7

9.4

text: Austria-Hungary[edit]

text: The global economic crisis first erupted in Austria-Hungary, where in May 1873 the Vienna Stock Exchange crashed.[11] In Hungary, the panic of 1873 terminated a mania of railroad-building.[20]

text: Chile[edit]

text: In the late 1870s the economic situation in Chile deteriorated. Chilean wheat exports were outcompeted by production in Canada, Russia and Argentina and Chilean copper was largely replaced in international markets by copper from the United States and Spain.[21] Income from silver mining in Chile also dropped.[21] Anibal Pinto, president of Chile in 1878, expressed his concerns the following way:[21]

text:
“

If a new mining discovery or some novelty of that sort does not come to improve the actual situation, the crisis that has long been felt, will worsen

”

— Anibal Pinto, president of Chile, 1878.

text: This "mining discovery" came, according to historians Gabriel Salazar and Julio Pinto, into existence through the conquest of Bolivian and Peruvian lands in the War of the Pacific.[21] It has been argued that economic situation and the view of new wealth in the nitrate was the true reason for the Chilean elite to go into war with its neighbors.[21]

text: Another response to the economic crisis, according to Jorge Pinto Rodríguez, was the new pulse of conquest of indigenous lands that took place in Araucanía in the 1870s.[22][23]

text: France[edit]

text: France's experience was somewhat unusual. Having been defeated in the Franco-Prussian War, the country was required to pay £200 million in reparations to the Germans and was already reeling when the 1873 crash occurred.[11] The French adopted a policy of deliberate deflation while paying off the reparations.[11]

text: While the United States resumed growth for a time in the 1880s, the Paris Bourse crash of 1882 sent France careening into depression, one which "lasted longer and probably cost France more than any other in the 19th century".[24] The Union Générale, a French bank, failed in 1882, prompting the French to withdraw three million pounds from the Bank of England and triggering a collapse in French stock prices.[25]

text: The financial crisis was compounded by diseases impacting the wine and silk industries[24] French capital accumulation and foreign investment plummeted to the lowest levels experienced by France in the latter half of the 19th century.[26] After a boom in new investment banks after the end of the Franco-Prussian War, the destruction of the French banking industry wrought by the crash cast a pall over the financial sector that lasted until the dawn of the 20th century.[24] French finances were further sunk by failing investments abroad, principally in railroads and buildings.[20] The French net national product declined over the ten years from 1882 to 1892.[27]

text: Italy[edit]

text: A ten-year tariff war broke out between France and Italy after 1887, damaging Franco-Italian relations which had prospered during Italian Unification. As France was Italy's biggest investor, the liquidation of French assets in the country was especially damaging.[27]

text: Russia[edit]

text: The Russian experience was similar to the US experience - three separate recessions, concentrated in manufacturing, occurred in the period (1874–1877, 1881–1886, and 1891–1892), separated by periods of recovery.[28]

text: United Kingdom[edit]

text: This section appears to contradict another section of this article. Please see the talk page for more information. (January 2018)

text: The United Kingdom, which had previously experienced crises every decade since the 1820s, was initially less affected by this financial crisis, even though the Bank of England kept interest rates as high as 9 percent in the 1870s.[11]

text: The 1878 failure of the City of Glasgow Bank in Scotland arose through a combination of fraud and speculative investments in Australian and New Zealand companies (agriculture and mining) and in American railroads.

text: Building on an 1870 reform, and the 1879 famine, thousands of Irish tenant farmers affected by depressed producer prices and high rents launched the Land War in 1879, which resulted in the reforming Irish Land Acts.

text: United States[edit]

text:
Estimated declines in United States manufacturing output in selected sectors (1872–1876)[29]

Industry

% decline in output

Durable goods

30%

Iron and steel

45%

Construction

30%

Overall

10%

text: In the United States, the Long Depression began with the Panic of 1873. The National Bureau of Economic Research dates the contraction following the panic as lasting from October 1873 to March 1879.  At 65 months, it is the longest-lasting contraction identified by the NBER, eclipsing the Great Depression's 43 months of contraction.[6][30] Figures from Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz show net national product increased 3 percent per year from 1869 to 1879 and real national product grew at 6.8 percent per year during that time frame.[31] However, since between 1869 and 1879 the population of the United States increased by over 17.5 percent,[32] per capita NNP growth was lower. Following the end of the episode in 1879, the U.S. economy would remain unstable, experiencing recessions for 114 of the 253 months until January 1901.[33]

text: The dramatic shift in prices mauled nominal wages - in the United States, nominal wages declined by one-quarter during the 1870s,[13] and as much as one-half in some places, such as Pennsylvania.[34] Although real wages had enjoyed robust growth in the aftermath of the American Civil War, increasing by nearly a quarter between 1865 and 1873, they stagnated until the 1880s, posting no real growth, before resuming their robust rate of expansion in the later 1880s.[35] The collapse of cotton prices devastated the already war-ravaged economy of the southern United States.[16] Although farm prices fell dramatically, American agriculture continued to expand production.[29]

text: Thousands of American businesses failed, defaulting on more than a billion dollars of debt.[34] One in four laborers in New York were out of work in the winter of 1873–1874[34] and, nationally, a million became unemployed.[34]

text: The sectors which experienced the most severe declines in output were manufacturing, construction, and railroads.[29] The railroads had been a tremendous engine of growth in the years before the crisis, yielding a 50% increase in railroad mileage from 1867 to 1873.[29] After absorbing as much as 20% of US capital investment in the years preceding the crash, this expansion came to a dramatic end in 1873; between 1873 and 1878, the total amount of railroad mileage in the United States barely increased at all.[29]

text: The Freedman's Savings Bank was a typical casualty of the financial crisis. Chartered in 1865 in the aftermath of the American Civil War, the bank had been established to advance the economic welfare of America's newly emancipated freedmen.[36] In the early 1870s, the bank had joined in the speculative fever, investing in real estate and unsecured loans to railroads; its collapse in 1874 was a severe blow to African-Americans.[36]

text: The recession exacted a harsh political toll on President Ulysses S. Grant.  Historian Allan Nevins says of the end of Grant's presidency:[37]

text: Various administrations have closed in gloom and weakness ... but no other has closed in such paralysis and discredit as (in all domestic fields) did Grant's. The President was without policies or popular support. He was compelled to remake his Cabinet under a grueling fire from reformers and investigators; half its members were utterly inexperienced, several others discredited, one was even disgraced. The personnel of the departments was largely demoralized. The party that autumn appealed for votes on the implicit ground that the next Administration would be totally unlike the one in office. In its centennial year, a year of deepest economic depression, the nation drifted almost rudderless.[37]

text: Recovery began in 1878. The mileage of railroad track laid down increased from 2,665 mi (4,289 km) in 1878 to 11,568 in 1882.[29] Construction began recovery by 1879; the value of building permits increased two and a half times between 1878 and 1883, and unemployment fell to 2.5% in spite of (or perhaps facilitated by) high immigration.[25]

text: The recovery, however, proved short-lived. Business profits declined steeply between 1882 and 1884.[25] The recovery in railroad construction reversed itself, falling from 11,569 mi (18,619 km) of track laid in 1882 to 2,866 mi (4,612 km) of track laid in 1885; the price of steel rails collapsed from $71/ton in 1880 to $20/ton in 1884.[25] Manufacturing again collapsed - durable goods output fell by a quarter again.[25] The decline became another financial crisis in 1884, when multiple New York banks collapsed; simultaneously, in 1883–1884, tens of millions of dollars of foreign-owned American securities were sold out of fears that the United States was preparing to abandon the gold standard.[25] This financial panic destroyed eleven New York banks, more than a hundred state banks, and led to defaults on at least $32 million worth of debt.[25] Unemployment, which had stood at 2.5% between recessions, surged to 7.5% in 1884–1885, and 13% in the northeastern United States, even as immigration plunged in response to deteriorating labor markets.[25]

text: This second recession led to further deterioration of farm prices. Kansas farmers burned their own corn in 1885 because it was worth less than other fuels such as coal or wood.[25] The country began to recover in 1885.[25]

text: Reactions to the crisis[edit]

text: Protectionism[edit]

text: The period preceding the Long Depression had been one of increasing economic internationalism, championed by efforts such as the Latin Monetary Union, many of which then were derailed or stunted by the impacts of economic uncertainty.[38] The extraordinary collapse of farm prices[15] provoked a protectionist response in many nations. Rejecting the free trade policies of the Second Empire, French president Adolphe Thiers led the new Third Republic to protectionism, which led ultimately to the stringent Méline tariff in 1892.[39] Germany's agrarian Junker aristocracy, under attack by cheap, imported grain, successfully agitated for a protective tariff in 1879 in Otto von Bismarck's Germany over the protests of his National Liberal Party allies.[39] In 1887, Italy and France embarked on a bitter tariff war.[40] In the United States, Benjamin Harrison won the 1888 US presidential election on a protectionist pledge.[41]

text: As a result of the protectionist policies enacted by the world's major trading nations, the global merchant marine fleet posted no significant growth from 1870 to 1890 before it nearly doubled in tonnage in the prewar economic boom that followed.[42] Only the United Kingdom and the Netherlands remained committed to low tariffs.[40]

text: Monetary responses[edit]

text: In 1874, a year after the 1873 crash, the United States Congress passed legislation called the Inflation Bill of 1874 designed to confront the issue of falling prices by injecting fresh greenbacks into the money supply.[43] Under pressure from business interests, President Ulysses S. Grant vetoed the measure.[43] In 1878, Congress overrode President Rutherford B. Hayes's veto to pass the Silver Purchase Act, a similar but more successful attempt to promote "easy money".[29]

text: Strikes[edit]

text: The United States endured its first nationwide strike in 1877, the Great Railroad Strike of 1877.[29] This led to widespread unrest and often violence in many major cities and industrial hubs including Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Reading, Saint Louis, Scranton, and Shamokin.[44]

text: New Imperialism[edit]

text: The Long Depression contributed to the revival of colonialism leading to the New Imperialism period, symbolized by the scramble for Africa, as the western powers sought new markets for their surplus accumulated capital.[45] According to Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), the "unlimited expansion of power" followed the "unlimited expansion of capital".[46]

text: In the United States, beginning in 1878, the rebuilding, extending, and refinancing of the western railways, commensurate with the wholesale giveaway of water, timber, fish, minerals in what had previously been Indian territory, characterized a rising market.  This led to the expansion of markets and industry, together with the robber barons of railroad owners, which culminated in the genteel 1880s and 1890s. The Gilded Age was the outcome for the few rich. The cycle repeated itself with the Panic of 1893, another huge market crash.

text: Recovery[edit]

text:
In the United States, the National Bureau of Economic Analysis dates the recession through March 1879.  In January 1879, the United States returned to the gold standard which it had abandoned during the Civil War; according to economist Rendigs Fels, the gold standard put a floor to the deflation, and this was further boosted by especially good agricultural production in 1879.[47]  The view that a single recession lasted from 1873 to 1896 or 1897 is not supported by most modern reviews of the period.  It has even been suggested that the trough of this business cycle may have occurred as early as 1875.[48]
In fact, from 1869 to 1879, the US economy grew at a rate of 6.8% for real net national product (NNP) and 4.5% for real NNP per capita.[49] Real wages were flat from 1869 to 1879, while from 1879 to 1896, nominal wages rose 23% and prices fell 4.2%.[50]

text: Explanations[edit]

text: Irving Fisher believed that the Panic of 1873 and the severity of the contractions which followed it could be explained by debt and deflation and that a financial panic would trigger catastrophic deleveraging in an attempt to sell assets and increase capital reserves; that selloff would trigger a collapse in asset prices and deflation, which would in turn prompt financial institutions to sell off more assets, only to further deflation and strain capital ratios. Fisher believed that had governments or private enterprise embarked on efforts to reflate financial markets, the crisis would have been less severe.[51]

text: David Ames Wells (1890) wrote of the technological advancements during the period 1870–90, which included the Long Depression. Wells gives an account of the changes in the world economy transitioning into the Second Industrial Revolution in which he documents changes in trade, such as triple expansion steam shipping, railroads, the effect of the international telegraph network and the opening of the Suez Canal.[52]  Wells gives numerous examples of productivity increases in various industries and discusses the problems of excess capacity and market saturation.

text: Wells' opening sentence:

text: The economic changes that have occurred during the last quarter of a century - or during the present generation of living men - have unquestionably been more important and more varied than during any period of the world's history.

text: Other changes Wells mentions are reductions in warehousing and inventories, elimination of middlemen, economies of scale, the decline of craftsmen, and the displacement of agricultural workers. About the whole 1870–90 period Wells said:

text: Some of these changes have been destructive, and all of them have inevitably occasioned, and for a long time yet will continue to occasion, great disturbances in old methods, and entail losses of capital and changes in occupation on the part of individuals.  And yet the world wonders, and commissions of great states inquire, without coming to definite conclusions, why trade and industry in recent years has been universally and abnormally disturbed and depressed.

text: Wells notes that many of the government inquires on the "depression of prices" (deflation) found various reasons such as the scarcity of gold and silver. Wells showed that the US money supply actually grew over the period of the deflation. Wells noted that deflation lowered the cost of only goods that benefited from improved methods of manufacturing and transportation. Goods produced by craftsmen and many services did not decrease in value, and the cost of labor actually increased.  Also, deflation did not occur in countries that did not have modern manufacturing, transportation, and communications.

text: Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman, author of A Monetary History of the United States, on the other hand, blamed this prolonged economic crisis on the imposition of a new gold standard, part of which he referred to by its traditional name, The Crime of 1873.[53] This forced shift into a currency whose supply was limited by nature, unable to expand with demand, caused a series of economic and monetary contractions that plagued the entire period of the Long Depression. Murray Rothbard, in his book History of Money and Banking of the United States, argues that the long depression was only a misunderstood recession since real wages and production were actually increasing throughout the period. Like Friedman, he attributes falling prices to the resumption of a deflationary gold standard in the U.S. after the Civil War.

text: Interpretations[edit]

text: Most economic historians see this period as negative for the most industrial nations.[citation needed] Many argue that most of the stagnation was caused by a monetary contraction caused by abandonment of the bimetallic standard, for a new fiat gold standard, starting with the Coinage Act of 1873.[citation needed]

text: Other economic historians have complained about the characterization of this period as a "depression" because of conflicting economic statistics that cast doubt on the interpretation of this period as a depression. They note that this period saw a relatively large expansion of industry, of railroads, of physical output, of net national product and real per-capita income.

text: As economists Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz have noted, the decade from 1869 to 1879 saw a growth of 3 percent per year in money national product, an outstanding real national product growth of 6.8 percent per year in this period and a rise of 4.5 percent per year in real product per capita. Even the alleged "monetary contraction" never took place, the money supply increasing by 2.7 percent per year in this period. From 1873 through 1878, before another spurt of monetary expansion, the total supply of bank money rose from $1.964 billion to $2.221 billion, a rise of 13.1 percent or 2.6 percent per year. In short, a modest but definite rise, and scarcely a contraction.[54] Although per-capita nominal income declined very gradually from 1873 to 1879, that decline was more than offset by a gradual increase over the course of the next 17 years.

text: Furthermore, real per-capita income either stayed approximately constant (1873–1880; 1883–1885) or rose (1881–1882; 1886–1896) so the average consumer appears to have been considerably better off at the end of the "depression" than before. Studies of other countries where prices also tumbled, including the US, Germany, France, and Italy, reported more markedly positive trends in both nominal and real per-capita income figures. Profits generally were also not adversely affected by deflation although they declined (particularly in Britain) in industries that were struggling against superior, foreign competition.  Furthermore, some economists argue that a falling general price level is not inherently harmful to an economy and cite the economic growth of the period as evidence.[55] As economist Murray Rothbard has stated:

text: Unfortunately, most historians and economists are conditioned to believe that steadily and sharply falling prices must result in depression: hence their amazement at the obvious prosperity and economic growth during this era. For they have overlooked the fact that in the natural course of events, when government and the banking system do not increase the money supply very rapidly, freemarket capitalism will result in an increase of production and economic growth so great as to swamp the increase of money supply. Prices will fall, and the consequences will be not depression or stagnation, but prosperity (since costs are falling, too), economic growth, and the spread of the increased living standard to all the consumers.[55]

text: Accompanying the overall growth in real prosperity was a marked shift in consumption from necessities to luxuries: by 1885, "more houses were being built, twice as much tea was being consumed, and even the working classes were eating imported meat, oranges, and dairy produce in quantities unprecedented". The change in working class incomes and tastes was symbolized by "the spectacular development of the department store and the chain store".

text: Prices certainly fell, but almost every other index of economic activity - output of coal and pig iron, tonnage of ships built, consumption of raw wool and cotton, import and export figures, shipping entries and clearances, railway freight clearances, joint-stock company formations, trading profits, consumption per head of wheat, meat, tea, beer, and tobacco - all of these showed an upward trend.[56]

text: A large part at least of the deflation commencing in the 1870s was a reflection of unprecedented advances in factor productivity. Real unit production costs for most final goods dropped steadily throughout the 19th century and especially from 1873 to 1896. At no previous time had there been an equivalent "harvest of technological advances... so general in their application and so radical in their implications". That is why, notwithstanding the dire predictions of many eminent economists, Britain did not end up paralyzed by strikes and lockouts. Falling prices did not mean falling money wages. Instead of inspiring large numbers of workers to go on strike, falling prices were inspiring them to go shopping.[57]


document_title: Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle

question_text: who plays van pelt in jumanji welcome to the jungle

text: Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle

text: Plot[edit]

text: In 1996 in Brantford, New Hampshire, teenager Alex Vreeke receives the Jumanji board game which was found by his father on a beach. Alex sets the game aside. That night, it transforms into a video game cartridge which catches Alex's attention when he is awakened by the Jumanji drum beats. When he begins playing it, he is transported into the game.

text: Twenty years later, in 2016, Spencer Gilpin gets caught writing an essay for former friend Anthony "Fridge" Johnson, Bethany Walker makes a video call during an English class quiz and Martha Kaply refuses to participate in gym class. All four of them serve detention. They are sent to the school basement to prepare magazines for recycling and to think about their future. Fridge discovers Alex's discarded video-game system when he explores the basement, and he and Spencer set up the game. Although it has five playable characters, the first one cannot be selected. Spencer and Fridge choose two characters, and the girls choose their own. When Spencer presses "Start", they are transported into the game.

text: They are in a jungle, in the forms of their game avatars. Spencer is tough, muscular explorer and archaeologist Dr. Smolder Bravestone; Fridge is diminutive zoologist Franklin "Mouse" Finbar; Bethany is a overweight male cartographer named Sheldon "Shelly" Oberon and Martha is female commando and martial arts expert, Ruby Roundhouse. They each have three lives on their arms and Bethany loses one of her lives after being eaten by a hippo. Spencer deduces that if they lose all three, they die for real.

text: They learn the game's story from NPC Nigel: corrupt archeologist Russel Van Pelt stole the Jaguar's Eye a magic jewel from its shrine, cursing Jumanji. Nigel escaped Van Pelt with the jewel, and the players must return it to a jaguar statue and call "Jumanji" to lift the curse. Nigel warns them that Van Pelt will stop at nothing to retrieve the jewel, which gives him control of Jumanji's animals. They begin tackling the game's increasingly-difficult "levels", losing lives as they do so. The four are rescued by Alex, the missing fifth player, whose avatar is pilot Jefferson "Seaplane" McDonough. Taking shelter in a jungle house built by the game's previous player Alan Parrish, Alex believes that he has been in the game for a few months and is distressed to learn that it is really twenty years. The newcomers vow to help him return home. They break into a transportation shed, commandeering a helicopter to fly to the jaguar statue and return the jewel, but Fridge drops the jewel into a herd of white rhinoceros. Spencer sacrifices one of Fridge's lives, pushing him out of the helicopter as a distraction, and retrieves the jewel. Alex loses his last life when a mosquito bites him, but Bethany performs CPR and transfers one of her lives to him.

text: At the statue, the players are surrounded by a pack of jaguars and Van Pelt's forces. They outmaneuver their opposition while Spencer and Martha race to the statue. Van Pelt confronts Martha (trapped in a pit of mambas) and demands the jewel, but she sacrifices one of her lives to re-spawn and get it to Spencer. With the players on their last lives, they end the game with Van Pelt disintegrating into a bunch of rats and return to the real world, but Alex does not appear with them. They find the formerly-dilapidated Vreeke home restored and decorated for a Christmas family gathering. An adult Alex arrives, having had returned to where he left off in 1996. Now married with children, he named his eldest daughter after Bethany out of gratitude for saving his life and introduces them to his infant son, Andy.

text: Spencer and Fridge reconcile, Bethany begins caring for others more than herself and plans a summer wilderness backpacking adventure, Martha and Spencer become romantically involved and the four are now friends after their experiences in the game. When they hear Jumanji's drumbeats, they bring the game behind the school and Fridge destroys it with a bowling ball to prevent anyone from playing it again.

text: Cast[edit]

text: Players

text:
Dwayne Johnson as Dr. Smolder Bravestone, an Indiana Jones-like archaeologist and explorer who is Spencer's avatar; he is the leader of his team.
Alex Wolff as Spencer Gilpin, a nerdy gamer at Brantford High School. Panphobic; his experience as Smolder Bravestone helps him cope with his anxiety and develop assertiveness.
Jack Black as Professor Sheldon "Shelly" Oberon, a cartographer, cryptographer, archaeologist, and paleontologist who is Bethany's male avatar.
Madison Iseman as Bethany Walker, a pretty, popular, self-centered teenage girl at Brantford High School.
Kevin Hart as Franklin "Mouse" Finbar, a zoologist and weapons specialist who is Fridge's avatar.
Ser'Darius Blain as Anthony "Fridge" Johnson, a Brantford High School football jock coasting on his athletic prowess who cares more about dating than studying.
Karen Gillan as Ruby Roundhouse, a Lara Croft-like martial artist, and dance fighter who is Martha's avatar.
Morgan Turner as Martha Kaply, a shy and cynical intellectual at Brantford High School who believes that physical education is needless and who dislikes popular peers like Bethany and Fridge.
Nick Jonas as Jefferson "Seaplane" McDonough, a young aircraft pilot in Jumanji who is Alex Vreeke's avatar.[9]
Mason Guccione as Alex Vreeke, a teenage gamer who was trapped inside the Jumanji video game for two decades.
Colin Hanks plays the adult Alex when he appears two decades later.

tag: ul

text: Game

text:
Bobby Cannavale as Russel Van Pelt, an archeologist-turned-mercenary and an enemy of Smolder Bravestone. He tries to retrieve the Jaguar's Eye, whose power possesses him.
Rhys Darby as Nigel Billingsley, the main guide.
William Tokarsky as a food vendor.
Rohan Chand as a young guide at the bazaar.

text: Reality

text:
Marc Evan Jackson as Principal Bentley, who makes Spencer, Bethany, Fridge, and Martha clean up the basement as part of their detention.
Carlease Burke as Miss Mathers, Spencer and Fridge's U.S. History teacher.
Sean Buxton as Mr. Vreeke, Alex's father who discovered the Jumanji game.
Tim Matheson (uncredited) as Old Man Vreeke. His narration at the beginning of the film implies that seeing his son teleported into the game had traumatized him. After Alex's return to him, he is a happy family man and close to his son and grandchildren.
Maribeth Monroe as Bethany's English teacher.
Missi Pyle as Coach Webb; Martha, Spencer and Bethany's gym teacher.
Kat Altman as Lucinda, Bethany's friend.
Marin Hinkle as Mrs. Gilpin, Spencer's mother.
Tracey Bonner as Mrs. Johnson, Fridge's mother.
Natasha Charles Parker as Mrs. Walker, Bethany's mother.
Michael Shacket as Fussfeld, a friend of Spencer at Brantford High School who is infatuated with Bethany.

text: Production[edit]

text: Development[edit]

text: In July 2012, rumors circulated that a remake of Jumanji was in development. In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Columbia Pictures president Doug Belgrad said: "We're going to try and reimagine Jumanji and update it for the present."[10] On August 1, 2012, it was confirmed that Matthew Tolmach would produce the new version with William Teitler (who produced the original film).[11]

text: In August 2015, Sony Pictures Entertainment announced that the film was scheduled for release on December 25, 2016.[12] Online reception to the news was negative, with some saying that the announcement came too soon after the August 2014 death of Robin Williams (who played Alan Parrish in the original film).[13][14] The announcement was criticized by Bradley Pierce (who played Peter Shepherd in Jumanji) and by E! News, which called the remake "unnecessary and kind of insulting".[15][16] On October 23, 2015, Scott Rosenberg was hired to rewrite the script for the film, whose production was a high priority for the studio.[17] On January 14, 2016, Deadline Hollywood reported that Jake Kasdan had been hired to direct the film from a script by Rosenberg and Jeff Pinkner based on a draft by original writers Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers.[18]

text: In March 2017, during CinemaCon, it was announced that the film's complete title was Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle. Its plot involved teenagers cleaning out a school's basement who find a vintage video-game version of Jumanji and are sucked into the first film's jungle setting. Although fans debated whether the film was a sequel or a reboot, the second trailer (released on September 20, 2017) indicated that the sequel is set 21 years after the first.

text: Casting[edit]

text: On April 15, Variety reported that Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart were in early talks to star in the film (although both actors had other projects).[19] Later in the month, Johnson confirmed his casting on Instagram.[20] In July, it was reported that Nick Jonas had joined the film's cast with Johnson, Hart, and Jack Black.[21] The following month, Johnson said that the film would not be a reboot but a continuation of the 1995 film;[22] Karen Gillan was announced as part of the cast.[23] On September 20, Ser'Darius Blain was cast as Anthony "Fridge" Johnson and Madison Iseman as Bethany Walker. Two days later, Rhys Darby was cast as Nigel Billingsley, Morgan Turner as Martha Kaply, and Alex Wolff as Spencer Gilpin.[24][25][26] In November 2016, Bobby Cannavale announced his casting in the film,[27] and in December 2016, Tim Matheson joined the cast as Old Man Vreeke.[28]

text: Filming[edit]

text: Principal photography began on September 19, 2016, in Honolulu, Hawaii,[19][29] primarily at the Kualoa Ranch nature reserve.[30] The film wrapped on December 8 in Atlanta, Georgia.[31]

text: Music[edit]

text: James Newton Howard was originally signed to compose the film's score,[32] he was replaced by Henry Jackman when the film's release date was postponed six months.[1]The soundtrack was released digitally on 15 December 2017 by Sony Masterworks

text: Release[edit]

text: In August 2015, Sony gave the film a release date of December 25, 2016.[33] Since filming did not begin until September 2016, the release was pushed back to July 28 and then to December 20, 2017.[2]

text: On November 29, 2017, it was announced that Amazon Prime members in the United States would have early access to tickets for a December 8 screening of the film at select Regal, National Amusements, ArcLight Cinemas and AMC theaters.[34] The screenings sold out at 1,200 theaters and earned $1.9 million.[35] The film was released on IMAX 2D on January 12, 2018.

text: Box office[edit]

text: Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle grossed $404.5 million in the United States and Canada and $557.7 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $962.2 million.[6] On April 10, 2018, the film passed Spider-Man ($403.7 million) to become Sony's highest-grossing film domestically. Deadline Hollywood calculated its net profit as $305.7 million when factoring all expenses and revenues, making it 2017's fourth-most-profitable release.[36]

text: In the U.S. and Canada, the film was released on December 20, 2017 with The Greatest Showman and was projected to gross about $60 million from 3,765 theaters in its six-day opening weekend; the studio predicted a $45 million debut.[37][38] It earned $7.2 million on its first day and $7.6 million on its second day. Over the three-day weekend, the film grossed $36.2 million (for a six-day total of $71.9 million), finishing second at the box office behind Star Wars: The Last Jedi.[4] Its weekend-only earnings increased to $50.1 million during its second weekend, again finishing in second place at the box office.[39] The 38.4-percent weekend-to-weekend increase was the fourth-largest for a film playing in over 3,000 theaters; The Greatest Showman set the record for best hold the same weekend.[40][41] The film passed Star Wars: The Last Jedi for the top spot the following weekend, declining 28.1 percent to $36 million,[42] and finished first again the following week with $28.1 million (and a total of $35.2 million over the four-day MLK weekend).[43] Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle remained atop the box office for its third weekend, earning $19.5 million.[44]

text: It again topped the box office for a fourth consecutive week (its sixth week overall in theatres) with $20 million, easily surpassing new releases 12 Strong and Den of Thieves (both films finished their entire run with box office lower than Jumanji: Welcome...  grossed in its first 10 days).[45] The film continued to do well the following week, dropping 16 percent (to $16.4 million) and finishing second to Maze Runner: The Death Cure,[46] before regaining the top spot for a fifth time the following weekend with $11.1 million.[47]

text: Critical reception[edit]

text: On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 76% based on 189 reviews (143 fresh and 46 rotten), and an average rating of 6.1/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle uses a charming cast and a humorous twist to offer an undemanding yet solidly entertaining update on its source material."[48] On Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average, the film has a normalized score of 58 out of 100, based on 44 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews."[49] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A–" on an A+ to F scale, while PostTrak reported filmgoers gave it an 84% overall positive score.[4]

text: Dave White of TheWrap praised the cast and called the film a pleasant surprise: "Jumanji: Welcome to The Jungle is the Christmas tentpole release that aims to please and succeeds, a funny family entertainment product that subverts more expectations than it was obligated to contractually".[50] David Ehrlich of IndieWire gave the film a C grade, calling it unnecessary but mildly amusing: "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is further proof that even the stalest whiff of brand recognition has become preferable to originality. Only part of the blame for that belongs to the studios but after cannibalizing themselves for much of the last 20 years, Hollywood has clearly eaten their way down to the crumbs".[51] For Variety, Owen Gleiberman wrote: "Excitement! Suspense! Childlike innocence! Ingeniously staged action set pieces! These are a few of the things you will not find, anywhere, in Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle ... It's supposed to be a board game come to life but really, it's just a bored game."[52]

text: Accolades[edit]

text:
Award

Date of ceremony

Category

Recipient(s) and nominee(s)

Result

Ref.

Kids Choice Awards

March 2018

Kids Choice Awards for Favorite Movie

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle

Won

[53][54]

Kids Choice Awards for Favorite Actor

Dwayne Johnson

Won

Kevin Hart

Nominated

MTV Movie & TV Awards

June 16, 2018

Best Comedic Performance

Jack Black

Nominated

Best On-Screen Team

Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Jack Black, Karen Gillan and Nick Jonas

Nominated

Saturn Awards

June 27, 2018

Best Fantasy Film

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle

Nominated

[55]

Teen Choice Awards

August 12, 2018

Choice Comedy Movie

Nominated

[56]

Choice Comedy Movie Actress

Karen Gillan

Nominated

Choice Comedy Movie Actor

Dwayne Johnson

Won

Choice Comedy Movie Actor

Jack Black

Nominated

Choice Comedy Movie Actor

Kevin Hart

Nominated

text: Home media[edit]

text: Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle was released on Digital HD on March 6, 2018 and on DVD, Blu-ray and 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray on March 20, although the film was still in theatres. The Blu-ray and digital versions include two additional featurettes: "Surviving the Jungle: Spectacular Stunts!" and "Book to Board Game to Big Screen & Beyond! Celebrating The Legacy of Jumanji."[57]

text: Sequel[edit]

text: Dwayne Johnson, Jack Black and Nick Jonas discussed Jumanji 3's plot in interviews, including the possibility of the film's exploring the origins of the game. According to Karen Gillan, the alternate ending of Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle would have left the door open for another installment.[58][59][60][61] In February 2018, it was announced that Kasdan would direct the sequel, with Rosenberg and Pinkner again writing the script and Johnson, Hart, Black and Gillan reprising their roles.[62] The film is slated to be released December 13, 2019.[63]


document_title: List of U.S. states and territories by population

question_text: which state in us has the largest population

text: Methodology[edit]

text: The United States Census counts most persons residing in the United States including citizens, non-citizen permanent residents, and non-citizen long-term visitors.[1] Civilian and military federal employees serving abroad and their dependents are counted in their home state.[2]

text: Electoral apportionment[edit]

text: Based on data from the decennial census, each state is allocated a proportion of the 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives, although each state is guaranteed a minimum of one seat, regardless of population. This apportionment is based on the proportion of each state's population to that of the Fifty States together (without regard to the populations of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or other U.S. dependencies). The Electoral College is the body that, every four years, elects the President and Vice President of the United States. Each state's representation in the Electoral College is equal to that state's total number of members in both houses of the United States Congress. The Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution effectively grants the District of Columbia, which is separate from any state, three votes. More precisely, the district gets as many votes in the Electoral College as it would have if it were a state, with the caveat that the district can have no more votes than the least populous state (which is currently Wyoming). Currently, this caveat is a moot point since the District would only be entitled to one Representative if it were a state, and is more populous than only two of the seven states with a single member in the House since 2013. Since the Constitution guarantees every state at least one Representative and guarantees every state two Senators, it effectively guarantees every state (and, since the ratification of the 23rd Amendment, the District of Columbia) at least three electoral votes. Thus, the total representation in the College is 538 members (equal to 100 senators plus 435 representatives, plus 3 members for the District of Columbia).[3]

text: The eleven most populous states, representing 56% of the population, currently have a majority of the Electoral College votes, enough to elect the president. These eleven states have not voted for the same candidate in any presidential election since 1984.

text: State information[edit]

text:
Rank in the fifty states, 2016
Rank in all states & territories, 2010
State or territory
Population estimate, July 1, 2016[4]
Census population, April 1, 2010
Total seats in House of Representatives, 2013–2023
Estimated pop. per House seat, 2016
Census pop. per House seat, 2010
Percent of total U.S. pop., 2016[note 1]

7000100000000000000♠1
7000100000000000000♠1
 California
39,250,017
37,254,503
7001530000000000000♠53
738,581
702,905
12.15%

7000200000000000000♠2
7000200000000000000♠2
 Texas
27,862,596
25,146,105
7001360000000000000♠36
763,031
698,487
8.62%

7000300000000000000♠3
7000400000000000000♠4
 Florida
20,612,439
18,804,623
7001270000000000000♠27
750,788
696,345
6.38%

7000400000000000000♠4
7000300000000000000♠3
 New York
19,745,289
19,378,087
7001270000000000000♠27
733,177
717,707
6.11%

7000500000000000000♠5
7000500000000000000♠5
 Illinois
12,801,539
12,831,549
align=cen
714,444
712,813
3.96%

7000600000000000000♠6
7000600000000000000♠6
 Pennsylvania
12,784,227
12,702,887
7001180000000000000♠18
711,250
705,688
3.96%

7000700000000000000♠7
7000700000000000000♠7
 Ohio
11,614,373
11,536,725
7001160000000000000♠16
725,839
721,032
3.59%

7000800000000000000♠8
7000900000000000000♠9
 Georgia
10,310,371
9,688,681
7001140000000000000♠14
729,633
691,975
3.19%

7000900000000000000♠9
7001100000000000000♠10
 North Carolina
10,146,788
9,535,692
7001130000000000000♠13
772,523
733,498
3.14%

7001100000000000000♠10
7000800000000000000♠8
 Michigan
9,928,300
9,884,129
7001140000000000000♠14
708,755
705,974
3.07%

7001110000000000000♠11
7001110000000000000♠11
 New Jersey
8,944,469
8,791,936
7001120000000000000♠12
746,501
732,658
2.77%

7001120000000000000♠12
7001120000000000000♠12
 Virginia
8,411,808
8,001,045
7001110000000000000♠11
762,090
727,366
2.60%

7001130000000000000♠13
7001130000000000000♠13
 Washington
7,288,000
6,724,543
7001100000000000000♠10
717,035
672,454
2.26%

7001140000000000000♠14
7001160000000000000♠16
 Arizona
6,931,071
6,392,307
7000900000000000000♠9
758,674
710,224
2.15%

7001150000000000000♠15
7001140000000000000♠14
 Massachusetts
6,811,779
6,547,817
7000900000000000000♠9
754,936
727,514
2.11%

7001160000000000000♠16
7001170000000000000♠17
 Tennessee
6,651,194
6,346,275
7000900000000000000♠9
733,367
705,123
2.06%

7001170000000000000♠17
7001150000000000000♠15
 Indiana
6,633,053
6,484,229
7000900000000000000♠9
735,520
720,422
2.05%

7001180000000000000♠18
7001180000000000000♠18
 Missouri
6,093,000
5,988,927
7000800000000000000♠8
760,459
748,615
1.89%

7001190000000000000♠19
7001190000000000000♠19
 Maryland
6,016,447
5,773,785
7000800000000000000♠8
750,800
721,694
1.86%

7001200000000000000♠20
7001200000000000000♠20
 Wisconsin
5,778,708
5,687,289
7000800000000000000♠8
721,417
710,873
1.79%

7001210000000000000♠21
7001220000000000000♠22
 Colorado
5,540,545
5,029,324
7000700000000000000♠7
779,511
720,704
1.72%

7001220000000000000♠22
7001210000000000000♠21
 Minnesota
5,519,952
5,303,925
7000800000000000000♠8
686,199
662,991
1.71%

7001230000000000000♠23
7001240000000000000♠24
 South Carolina
4,961,119
4,625,401
7000700000000000000♠7
699,449
660,766
1.54%

7001240000000000000♠24
7001230000000000000♠23
 Alabama
4,863,300
4,780,127
7000700000000000000♠7
694,140
682,819
1.51%

7001250000000000000♠25
7001250000000000000♠25
 Louisiana
4,681,666
4,533,479
7000600000000000000♠6
778,454
755,562
1.45%

7001260000000000000♠26
7001260000000000000♠26
 Kentucky
4,436,974
4,339,349
7000600000000000000♠6
737,515
723,228
1.37%

7001270000000000000♠27
7001270000000000000♠27
 Oregon
4,093,465
3,831,073
7000500000000000000♠5
805,795
766,215
1.27%

7001280000000000000♠28
7001280000000000000♠28
 Oklahoma
3,923,561
3,751,616
7000500000000000000♠5
782,268
750,270
1.21%

7001290000000000000♠29
7001300000000000000♠30
 Connecticut
3,576,452
3,574,118
7000500000000000000♠5
718,177
714,819
1.11%

7001710000000000000♠ —
7001290000000000000♠29
 Puerto Rico
3,411,307
3,726,157
1 (non-voting)
—
—
1.06%

7001300000000000000♠30
7001310000000000000♠31
 Iowa
3,134,693
3,046,869
7000400000000000000♠4
780,975
761,589
0.97%

7001310000000000000♠31
7001350000000000000♠35
 Utah
3,051,217
2,763,888
7000400000000000000♠4
748,083
690,221
0.94%

7001320000000000000♠32
7001320000000000000♠32
 Mississippi
2,988,726
2,968,103
7000400000000000000♠4
748,083
741,824
0.93%

7001330000000000000♠33
7001330000000000000♠33
 Arkansas
2,988,248
2,915,958
7000400000000000000♠4
744,551
728,980
0.93%

7001340000000000000♠34
7001360000000000000♠36
 Nevada
2,940,058
2,700,691
7000400000000000000♠4
722,711
675,110
0.91%

7001350000000000000♠35
7001340000000000000♠34
 Kansas
2,907,289
2,853,132
7000400000000000000♠4
727,910
713,280
0.90%

7001360000000000000♠36
7001370000000000000♠37
 New Mexico
2,081,015
2,059,192
7000300000000000000♠3
695,036
686,393
0.64%

7001370000000000000♠37
7001390000000000000♠39
 Nebraska
1,907,116
1,826,341
7000300000000000000♠3
632,063
608,780
0.59%

7001380000000000000♠38
7001380000000000000♠38
 West Virginia
1,831,102
1,853,011
7000300000000000000♠3
614,709
617,665
0.57%

7001390000000000000♠39
7001400000000000000♠40
 Idaho
1,683,140
1,567,652
7000200000000000000♠2
827,465
783,791
0.52%

7001400000000000000♠40
7001410000000000000♠41
 Hawaii
1,428,557
1,360,301
7000200000000000000♠2
715,802
680,151
0.44%

7001410000000000000♠41
7001430000000000000♠43
 New Hampshire
1,334,795
1,316,466
7000200000000000000♠2
665,304
658,235
0.41%

7001420000000000000♠42
7001420000000000000♠42
 Maine
1,331,479
1,328,361
7000200000000000000♠2
664,664
664,181
0.41%

7001430000000000000♠43
7001440000000000000♠44
 Rhode Island
1,056,426
1,052,931
7000200000000000000♠2
528,149
526,284
0.33%

7001440000000000000♠44
7001450000000000000♠45
 Montana
1,042,520
989,417
7000100000000000000♠1
1,032,949
989,415
0.32%

7001450000000000000♠45
7001460000000000000♠46
 Delaware
952,065
897,936
7000100000000000000♠1
952,065
897,934
0.30%

7001460000000000000♠46
7001470000000000000♠47
 South Dakota
865,454
814,191
7000100000000000000♠1
858,469
814,180
0.27%

7001470000000000000♠47
7001490000000000000♠49
  North Dakota
757,952
672,591
7000100000000000000♠1
756,927
672,591
0.24%

7001480000000000000♠48
7001480000000000000♠48
 Alaska
741,894
710,249
7000100000000000000♠1
741,894
710,231
0.23%

7001610000000000000♠—
7001510000000000000♠51
 District of Columbia
681,170
601,767
1 (non-voting)
—
—
0.21%

7001490000000000000♠49
7001500000000000000♠50
 Vermont
624,594
625,745
7000100000000000000♠1
626,042
625,741
0.19%

7001500000000000000♠50
7001520000000000000♠52
 Wyoming
585,501
563,767
7000100000000000000♠1
586,107
563,626
0.18%

7001720000000000000♠—
7001530000000000000♠53
 Guam
161,785
159,358[5]
1 (non-voting)
—
—
0.06%

7001730000000000000♠—
7001540000000000000♠54
 U.S. Virgin Islands
103,574
106,405[6]
1 (non-voting)
—
—
0.04%

7001740000000000000♠—
7001550000000000000♠55
 American Samoa
54,343
55,519[7]
1 (non-voting)
—
—
0.01%

7001750000000000000♠—
7001560000000000000♠56
 Northern Mariana Islands
52,344
53,883[8]
1 (non-voting)
—
—
0.00%

7001760000000000000♠—
7001590000000000000♠59
 Wake Island
188
382
0
—
—
0.00%

7001780000000000000♠—
7001580000000000000♠58
 Johnston Atoll
40
1,100
0
—
—
0.00%

7001790000000000000♠—
7001570000000000000♠57
 Midway Atoll
75
2,220
0
—
—
0.00%

7001800000000000000♠—
7001600000000000000♠60
 Palmyra Atoll
20
n/a
0
—
—
0.00%

7001810000000000000♠—
7001810000000000000♠—
Contiguous United States
320,975,339
306,687,555
432 (+ 1 non-voting)
—
—
98.18%

7001820000000000000♠—
7001820000000000000♠—
The fifty states
322,464,620
308,156,338
435
737,348
708,376
98.48%

7001830000000000000♠—
7001830000000000000♠—
Fifty states + D.C.
323,145,790
308,758,105
435 (+ 1 non-voting)
—
—
98.67%

7001840000000000000♠—
7001840000000000000♠—
Total U.S. territory
326,929,143
312,913,872
435 (+ 6 non-voting)
—
—
100.00%

text: Jump up ^ Because of rounding of the individual percentages, the entries in this column may not sum to 100%.

tag: ol

text: Summary of population by region[edit]

text:
Legend

Division totals – 9 divisions for 50 states and D.C.

Region totals – 4 regions ( 2 or 3 divisions each)

Individual territories

Total U.S. Territories

50 States + District of Columbia

Divisions & regions as defined by U.S. Census Bureau

Last col. shows larger region which contains entity in col. 1

text:
Population of states, territories, divisions and regions

State/Territory/
Division/Region
Rank
2013
population
Rank
2010
population
Rank
2000
population
Rank
2000-
2010
change
Geographic
sort

21 ! Massachusetts
14 !14
28 !6,692,824
14 !14
28 !6,547,629
13 !13
27 !6,349,097
43 !43
56 !3.1%
01 !NEng

07 ! Connecticut
29 !29
44 !3,596,080
29 !29
45 !3,574,097
29 !29
45 !3,405,565
35 !35
45 !4.9%
02 !NEng

19 ! Maine
41 !41
56 !1,328,302
41 !41
57 !1,328,361
40 !40
56 !1,274,923
39 !39
49 !4.2%
03 !NEng

29 ! New Hampshire
42 !42
57 !1,323,459
42 !42
58 !1,316,470
41 !41
57 !1,235,786
32 !32
41 !6.5%
04 !NEng

39 ! Rhode Island
43 !43
58 !1,051,511
43 !43
59 !1,052,567
43 !43
59 !1,048,319
49 !49
65 !0.4%
05 !NEng

45 ! Vermont
49 !49
65 !626,630
49 !49
65 !625,741
49 !49
65 !608,827
44 !44
60 !2.8%
06 !NEng

55 !       New England
59 !9
18 !14,618,806
59 !9
18 !14,444,865
59 !9
18 !13,922,517
57 !7
52 !3.8%
07 !NEast

32 ! New York
03 !3
15 !19,651,127
03 !3
15 !19,378,102
03 !3
14 !18,976,457
46 !46
62 !2.1%
08 !MAtl

38 ! Pennsylvania
06 !6
20 !12,773,801
06 !6
20 !12,702,379
06 !6
20 !12,281,054
41 !41
53 !3.4%
09 !MAtl

30 ! New Jersey
11 !11
25 !8,899,339
11 !11
25 !8,791,894
09 !9
23 !8,414,350
37 !37
47 !4.5%
10 !MAtl

53 !       Mid-Atlantic
54 !4
09 !41,324,267
54 !4
09 !40,872,375
54 !4
09 !39,671,861
58 !8
57 !3.0%
11 !NEast

61 !       Northeast
63 !4
06 !55,943,073
63 !4
06 !55,317,240
63 !4
05 !53,594,378
63 !4
55 !3.2%
12 !USA

09 ! Florida
04 !4
16 !19,552,860
04 !4
16 !18,801,310
04 !4
17 !15,982,378
08 !8
09 !17.6%
13 !SAtl

10 ! Georgia
08 !8
22 !9,992,167
09 !9
23 !9,687,653
10 !10
24 !8,186,453
07 !7
08 !18.3%
14 !SAtl

33 ! North Carolina
10 !10
24 !9,848,060
10 !10
24 !9,535,483
11 !11
25 !8,049,313
06 !6
07 !18.5%
15 !SAtl

46 ! Virginia
12 !12
26 !8,260,405
12 !12
26 !8,001,024
12 !12
26 !7,078,515
16 !16
21 !13.0%
16 !SAtl

20 ! Maryland
19 !19
33 !5,928,814
19 !19
33 !5,773,552
19 !19
33 !5,296,486
23 !23
30 !9.0%
17 !SAtl

40 ! South Carolina
24 !24
38 !4,774,839
24 !24
38 !4,625,364
26 !26
41 !4,012,012
10 !10
13 !15.3%
18 !SAtl

48 ! West Virginia
38 !38
53 !1,854,304
37 !37
53 !1,852,994
37 !37
53 !1,808,344
45 !45
61 !2.5%
19 !SAtl

08 ! Delaware
45 !45
60 !925,749
45 !45
61 !897,934
45 !45
61 !783,600
11 !11
14 !14.6%
20 !SAtl

64 ! District of Columbia
64 !--
64 !646,449
64 !--
66 !601,723
64 !--
66 !572,059
64 !--
44 !5.2%
21 !SAtl

57 !       South Atlantic
51 !1
05 !61,783,647
51 !1
05 !59,777,037
51 !1
06 !51,769,160
53 !3
12 !15.5%
22 !South

42 ! Tennessee
17 !17
31 !6,495,978
17 !17
31 !6,346,105
16 !16
30 !5,689,283
19 !19
24 !11.5%
23 !ESC

01 ! Alabama
23 !23
37 !4,833,722
23 !23
37 !4,779,736
23 !23
37 !4,447,100
27 !27
35 !7.5%
24 !ESC

17 ! Kentucky
26 !26
40 !4,395,295
26 !26
40 !4,339,367
25 !25
40 !4,041,769
28 !28
36 !7.4%
25 !ESC

24 ! Mississippi
31 !31
46 !2,991,207
31 !31
47 !2,967,297
31 !31
47 !2,844,658
38 !38
48 !4.3%
26 !ESC

52 !       East South Central
58 !8
17 !18,716,202
58 !8
17 !18,432,505
58 !8
16 !17,022,810
55 !5
32 !8.3%
27 !South

43 ! Texas
02 !2
12 !26,448,193
02 !2
12 !25,145,561
02 !2
12 !20,851,820
05 !5
06 !20.6%
28 !WSC

18 ! Louisiana
25 !25
39 !4,625,470
25 !25
39 !4,533,372
22 !22
36 !4,468,976
48 !48
64 !1.4%
29 !WSC

36 ! Oklahoma
28 !28
42 !3,850,568
28 !28
43 !3,751,351
27 !27
43 !3,450,654
24 !24
31 !8.7%
30 !WSC

04 ! Arkansas
32 !32
47 !2,959,373
32 !32
48 !2,915,918
33 !33
49 !2,673,400
22 !22
29 !9.1%
31 !WSC

59 !       West South Central
55 !5
11 !37,883,604
55 !5
11 !36,346,202
55 !5
11 !31,444,850
52 !2
11 !15.6%
32 !South

62 !       South
60 !1
02 !118,383,453
60 !1
02 !114,555,744
60 !1
02 !100,236,820
60 !1
15 !14.3%
33 !USA

13 ! Illinois
05 !5
19 !12,882,135
05 !5
19 !12,830,632
05 !5
19 !12,419,293
42 !42
54 !3.3%
34 !ENC

35 ! Ohio
07 !7
21 !11,570,808
07 !7
21 !11,536,504
07 !7
21 !11,353,140
47 !47
63 !1.6%
35 !ENC

22 ! Michigan
09 !9
23 !9,895,622
08 !8
22 !9,883,640
08 !8
22 !9,938,444
50 !50
66 !-0.6%
36 !ENC

14 ! Indiana
16 !16
30 !6,570,902
15 !15
29 !6,483,802
14 !14
28 !6,080,485
31 !31
39 !6.6%
37 !ENC

49 ! Wisconsin
20 !20
34 !5,742,713
20 !20
34 !5,686,986
18 !18
32 !5,363,675
34 !34
43 !6.0%
38 !ENC

51 !       East North Central
53 !3
08 !46,662,180
53 !3
08 !46,421,564
52 !2
07 !45,155,037
59 !9
59 !2.8%
39 !MWest

25 ! Missouri
18 !18
32 !6,044,171
18 !18
32 !5,988,927
17 !17
31 !5,595,211
29 !29
37 !7.0%
40 !WNC

23 ! Minnesota
21 !21
35 !5,420,380
21 !21
35 !5,303,925
21 !21
35 !4,919,479
26 !26
34 !7.8%
41 !WNC

15 ! Iowa
30 !30
45 !3,090,416
30 !30
46 !3,046,355
30 !30
46 !2,926,324
40 !40
50 !4.1%
42 !WNC

16 ! Kansas
34 !34
49 !2,893,957
33 !33
49 !2,853,118
32 !32
48 !2,688,418
33 !33
42 !6.1%
43 !WNC

27 ! Nebraska
37 !37
52 !1,868,516
38 !38
54 !1,826,341
38 !38
54 !1,711,263
30 !30
38 !6.7%
44 !WNC

41 ! South Dakota
46 !46
61 !844,877
46 !46
62 !814,180
46 !46
62 !754,844
25 !25
33 !7.9%
45 !WNC

34 !  North Dakota
48 !48
63 !723,393
48 !48
64 !672,591
47 !47
63 !642,200
36 !36
46 !4.7%
46 !WNC

58 !       West North Central
57 !7
14 !20,885,710
57 !7
14 !20,505,437
56 !6
13 !19,237,739
56 !6
40 !6.6%
47 !MWest

60 !       Midwest
62 !3
04 !67,547,890
62 !3
04 !66,927,001
61 !2
03 !64,392,776
62 !3
51 !3.9%
48 !USA

03 ! Arizona
15 !15
29 !6,626,624
16 !16
30 !6,392,017
20 !20
34 !5,130,632
02 !2
02 !24.6%
49 !Mtn

06 ! Colorado
22 !22
36 !5,268,367
22 !22
36 !5,029,196
24 !24
38 !4,301,261
09 !9
10 !16.9%
50 !Mtn

44 ! Utah
33 !33
48 !2,900,872
34 !34
50 !2,763,885
34 !34
50 !2,233,169
03 !3
03 !23.8%
51 !Mtn

28 ! Nevada
35 !35
50 !2,790,136
35 !35
51 !2,700,551
35 !35
51 !1,998,257
01 !1
01 !35.1%
52 !Mtn

31 ! New Mexico
36 !36
51 !2,085,287
36 !36
52 !2,059,179
36 !36
52 !1,819,046
15 !15
20 !13.2%
53 !Mtn

12 ! Idaho
39 !39
54 !1,612,136
39 !39
55 !1,567,582
39 !39
55 !1,293,953
04 !4
05 !21.1%
54 !Mtn

26 ! Montana
44 !44
59 !1,015,165
44 !44
60 !989,415
44 !44
60 !902,195
21 !21
28 !9.7%
55 !Mtn

50 ! Wyoming
50 !50
66 !582,658
50 !50
67 !563,626
50 !50
67 !493,782
12 !12
16 !14.1%
56 !Mtn

54 !       Mountain
56 !6
13 !22,881,245
56 !6
13 !22,065,451
57 !7
15 !18,172,295
51 !1
04 !21.4%
57 !West

05 ! California
01 !1
10 !38,332,521
01 !1
10 !37,253,956
01 !1
10 !33,871,648
20 !20
26 !10.0%
58 !Pac

47 ! Washington
13 !13
27 !6,971,406
13 !13
27 !6,724,540
15 !15
29 !5,894,121
13 !13
17 !14.1%
59 !Pac

37 ! Oregon
27 !27
41 !3,930,065
27 !27
42 !3,831,074
28 !28
44 !3,421,399
18 !18
23 !12.0%
60 !Pac

11 ! Hawaii
40 !40
55 !1,404,054
40 !40
56 !1,360,301
42 !42
58 !1,211,537
17 !17
22 !12.3%
61 !Pac

02 ! Alaska
47 !47
62 !735,132
47 !47
63 !710,231
48 !48
64 !626,932
14 !14
19 !13.3%
62 !Pac

56 !       Pacific
52 !2
07 !51,373,178
52 !2
07 !49,880,102
53 !3
08 !45,025,637
54 !4
25 !10.8%
63 !West

63 !       West
61 !2
03 !74,254,423
61 !2
03 !71,945,553
62 !3
04 !63,197,932
61 !2
18 !13.8%
64 !USA

65 ! 50 states and D.C.
65 !--
01 !316,128,839
65 !--
01 !308,745,538
65 !--
01 !281,421,906
65 !--
27 !9.7%
65 !NAmer

69 ! Puerto Rico
66 !1
43 !3,615,086
66 !1
44 !3,725,789
66 !1
42 !3,808,610
68 !3
68 !-2.2%
66 !Terr.

67 ! Guam
67 !2
68 !--
67 !2
68 !159,358
67 !2
68 !154,805
66 !1
58 !2.9%
67 !Terr.

70 ! U.S. Virgin Islands
68 !3
69 !--
68 !3
69 !106,405
68 !3
69 !108,612
67 !2
67 !-2.0%
68 !Terr.

66 ! American Samoa
69 !4
70 !--
69 !4
70 !55,519
70 !5
71 !57,291
69 !4
70 !-3.1%
69 !Terr.

68 ! Northern Mariana Islands
70 !5
71 !--
70 !5
71 !53,883
69 !4
70 !69,221
70 !5
71 !-22.2%
70 !Terr.

71 !       Total Territories
71 !--
67 !--
71 !--
41 !4,100,954
71 !--
39 !4,198,539
71 !--
69 !-2.3%
71 !USA