Mozart – a Penguin Lives Biography

I began reading at age 4, starting out with elementary school texts such as Fun With Dick and Jane.  Some time shortly after that I read Mark Twain, Robert Louis Stevenson, The Bobbsey Twins and The Wizard of Oz series of books.  But, I fell in love with Plutarch’s Lives, which introduced me to the wonderful world of the ancient Greeks and Romans.  To this day biographies remain my favorite genre, followed closely by mysteries.

Over the past few years, I have begun acquiring the many biographies in Penguin Lives.  I recently vacationed in Williamsburg, VA. where I found an extraordinary bookshop, Mermaid Books located at 421 Prince George St., selling, among other things, first editions and signed editions of works by well and lesser known but highly collectible authors.  I was pleased to find a boxed set of three editions including Leonardo da Vinci, Jane Austin, and Mozart.

While I have a Masters in Liberal Arts with a focus on literature, I do not presume to be a qualified book reviewer.  However, I am an avid reader and am sharing my thoughts on Peter Gay’s biography Mozart.

My previous exposure to Mozart’s life and times has been limited to the movie and stage versions of Amadeus and reading libretti for his various operas.  Some of what Peter Gay writes about can be gleaned from those sources, but much of what he passes on to us was either new information or a different take on popular myths surrounding Mozart’s life and death.  The prime examples of which are the myths surround Salieri and the manner of Mozart’s burial.  The scenes in Amadeus with the scatological and lewd comments are confirmed as traits of both his youth and adulthood.

Chapters 1 to 3 focus on Mozart’s early years, describing Mozart’s prodigious talents and his troubled relationship with Leopold Mozart, Wolfgang’s overbearing father.  Peter Gay describes in great detail how the father tried to control every aspect of Wolfgang’s life, including his married life.  Leopold quickly learned that he had been surpassed in every musical way by his talented son.  He also learned that Wolfgang’s earnings capacity could be exploited and at a very young age, Wolfgang became the major source of financial support for his entire family.  There is no surprise then when one reads that Leopold did everything possible to control every aspect of Wolfgang’s life, including making attempts to prevent Wolfgang from marrying and taking the largesse from his talents elsewhere.  Young Wolfgang’s nature which was one of trying to please his father made it difficult for him to break free.  As Gay writes, Leopold was able to control Mozart from beyond the grave.

It is during these years that Wolfgang becomes tired, bored and stifled with living in Salzburg which, in those days, was a kind of provincial backwater and he constantly looked to escape to the larger stages of Vienna, Prague, London and Paris.  His father and to a greater degree, the Archbishop of Salzburg did everything possible to keep him in Salzburg.

Wolfgang did break free in 1781, resigning from the Archbishop’s service.  The Archbishop’s Chamberlain, Count Karl Felix Arco rudely terminated Mozart’s services by kicking him in the rear end.  According to Gay, “This definitive dismissal has become a standby in the storehouse of legends about Mozart, yet it seems to have actually happened:  Mozart himself vouches for it.”

Mozart went freelance after receiving the ceremonial kick in the behind.  In the 1780s Vienna, as the cultural center of the Hapsburg Empire and the third largest music center in Europe, had a growing class of well-to-do aristocrats who relocated to Vienna in much the same way as people looking to improve their financial lot move to within the Beltway these days.  These people, seeking exposure and the power and influence that go along with successful exposure were more than willing to be seen as supporting the arts.

Mozart’s timing was spot on; with Vienna’s heady music scene, he was sure to profit.  With his enhanced  financial resources took the first important step toward breaking away from the influence of his father by marrying Constanze Weber who, along with her sisters, was an accomplished musician.  Mozart fended off his father’s attacks against the union by describing his bride-to-be as far from beautiful, but a good housekeeper.  One can only wonder whether Constanze read that letter.  On the plus side Constanze’s sensual appetites matched Mozart’s.  According to Gay’s account, “their marriage would be shadowed by tensions but marked also by companionship and sensual satisfaction.”  As an aside I would observe that, were it true, this would have been a great marriage.

These years were a time of prodigious professional and economic growth for Mozart.  Chapter Four, Freelance, describes the works produced during these years in great detail.  When we get to Chapter 5, Beggar, we see that the childish Mozart was unable to manage money; spending the time up to his death constantly begging for financial aid and ending up in desperate financial straits.  Constanze was much the better business person.  After Mozart’s death she shrewdly marketed his work and did quite well for herself and her family.

Chapters Six and seven cover his tremendous growth in talent, fame and influence.  Chapter Six describes his musical mastery and Chapter Seven, my favorite tells about his role and dramatist where, he and Lorenzo da Ponte created the greatest operas ever written and produced.  I have been fortunate enough to have seen two versions of The Marriage of Figaro performed live in Los Angeles.  I have seen The Magic Flute at the Garnier Opera House in Paris, in German with French subtitles, but I have never heard or seen Cosi fan Tutti.  Gay’s descriptions and anecdotes related to Mozart’s  work and the popular reaction, alone, make this book a more than worthwhile read.  In fact, I have just purchased the dvd of Cosi fan Tutti and eagerly await its arrival.

Chapter Eight, the Classic covers Mozart’s mysterious commissioning of his Requiem.  Gay writes:  “Decades later Mozart’s widow recalled his telling her that he was writing the Requiemwith the greatest pleasure since it was his favorite kind of music; his friends  and enemies would study it after his death as his masterpiece and swan song.”  I had not know that he did not live to finish this work but a combination of his notes and access to Mozart’s gifted pupil, Xaver Sussmayer, a minor composer resulted in a filling of the gaps.

The remainder of this final chapter covers the time until Mozart’s untimely death.  It discusses the wrong-headed myth about Salieri poisoning Mozart and what has been often described as Mozart having been buried in an unmarked pauper’s grave.

Penguin Lives publications are, in a way swords that cut both ways.  They are concise and to the point, but they leave out a lot.  The various authors attempt to compensate for the lack of detail by including lengthy lists of sources.  Should you read this book, I recommend reading the Notes section and following up on your own.

I do wish that there had been room to cover the influence on Mozart’s operas of the sopranos he used, especially Nancy Storace.  Wikipedia has a good article on her life and work.  According to Gay and his sources, Mozart wrote the part of Susanna in the Marriage of Figaro especially for her and to take advantage of her voice and comedic skills.  This topic is one that I will research further when I have time.

China Leading the Way in Clean Energy

China to Invest Heavily in Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technology

By EcoSeed | Wed, 12 September 2012 22:24 | 0

Benefit From the Latest Energy Trends and Investment Opportunities before the mainstream media and investing public are aware they even exist. The Free Oilprice.com Energy Intelligence Report gives you this and much more. Click here to find out more.

While China is taking on renewable sources to slash emissions, coal remains a big part of the country’s energy mix accounting for about two thirds, according to International Energy Agency projections.

How to make both ends of using coal and reducing carbon footprint meet?

Carbon capture store system technology could be the way to do so.

As China reinforces its emissions reduction efforts and yet keeps on consuming coal, it is eyeing C.C.S. technology to meet its mitigation goals.

In Beijing and Shanghai, China Huaneng Group Corporation, one of the largest state-owned utilities, adopted C.C.S. in its operations in response to the government’s call.

It sets an ambitious goal to capture 60 percent of carbon emissions in its Tianjin-based power plant by 2016.

“Beijing has set its mind on becoming a leader in C.C.S. The Chinese government has been actively pursuing and supporting a technology development agenda that very quickly allowed China to make a breakthrough in the new generation of various technologies, and carbon capture and storage technology development was at first riding on this wave,” I.E.A. analyst Ellina Levina told ClimateWire.

The Huaneng Group’s C.C.S. scheme is the second of its kind, following the one owned by Chinese state-owned mining and energy company Shenhua Group in Inner Mongolia, which has been reported to lock up about 46,000 tons of carbon since last year.

Companies across China have also begun employing the technology and are boasting notable emissions reductions, said The Climate Group.

The nation seeks to bury about 300,000 tons of carbon by June 2014.

“[C.C.S.] demonstration led by the industry in China is expected to play a significant role in tackling the emissions of greenhouse gas from its heavy reliance on coal, said Changhua Wu, Greater China Director at The Climate Group.

“I believe that China can lead clean revolution through such clean coal technology and solutions,” she added.

The global market for C.C.S. will continue to grow, because the alternatives, such as energy efficiency and energy markets, will eventually be dominated by leading businesses, according to a recent report by the I.E.A.

By. EcoSeed Staff

Popeye Would Love This news!

Spinach – The New Ingredient for a Biohybrid Solar Cell

By Futurity | Tue, 11 September 2012 22:23 | 0

Benefit From the Latest Energy Trends and Investment Opportunities before the mainstream media and investing public are aware they even exist. The Free Oilprice.com Energy Intelligence Report gives you this and much more. Click here to find out more.

Scientists have combined spinach’s photosynthetic protein, which converts light into electrochemical energy, with silicon in a new “biohybrid” solar cell.

“This combination produces current levels almost 1,000 times higher than we were able to achieve by depositing the protein on various types of metals. It also produces a modest increase in voltage,” says David Cliffel, associate professor of chemistry at Vanderbilt University, who collaborated on the project with Kane Jennings, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering.

“If we can continue on our current trajectory of increasing voltage and current levels, we could reach the range of mature solar conversion technologies in three years.”

The research was reported online on September 4 in the journal Advanced Materials and Vanderbilt University has applied for a patent on the combination.

The researchers’ next step is to build a functioning PS1-silicon solar cell using this new design. Jennings has an Environmental Protection Agency award that will allow a group of undergraduate engineering students to build the prototype. The students won the award at the National Sustainable Design Expo in April based on a solar panel that they had created using a two-year old design.

With the new design, Jennings estimates that a two-foot panel could put out at least 100 milliamps at one volt—enough to power a number of different types of small electrical devices.

More than 40 years ago, scientists discovered that one of the proteins involved in photosynthesis, called Photosystem 1 (PS1), continued to function when it was extracted from plants like spinach. Then they determined PS1 converts sunlight into electrical energy with nearly 100 percent efficiency, compared to conversion efficiencies of less than 40 percent achieved by human-made devices. This prompted various research groups around the world to begin trying to use PS1 to create more efficient solar cells.

Another potential advantage of these biohybrid cells is that they can be made from cheap and readily available materials, unlike many microelectronic devices that require rare and expensive materials like platinum or indium. Most plants use the same photosynthetic proteins as spinach. In fact, in another research project Jennings is working on a method for extracting PS1 from kudzu.

Since the initial discovery, progress has been slow but steady. Researchers have developed ways to extract PS1 efficiently from leaves. They have demonstrated that it can be made into cells that produce electrical current when exposed to sunlight. However, the amount of power that these biohybrid cells can produce per square inch has been substantially below that of commercial photovoltaic cells.

Another problem has been longevity. The performance of some early test cells deteriorated after only a few weeks. In 2010, however, the Vanderbilt team kept a PS1 cell working for nine months with no deterioration in performance.

“Nature knows how to do this extremely well. In evergreen trees, for example, PS1 lasts for years,” says Cliffel. “We just have to figure out how to do it ourselves.”

‘Doping’ silicon

The researchers report that their PS1/silicon combination produces nearly a milliamp (850 microamps) of current per square centimeter at 0.3 volts. That is nearly two and a half times more current than the best level reported previously from a biohybrid cell. The reason this combo works so well is because the electrical properties of the silicon substrate have been tailored to fit those of the PS1 molecule.

This is done by implanting electrically charged atoms in the silicon to alter its electrical properties: a process called “doping.” In this case, the protein worked extremely well with silicon doped with positive charges and worked poorly with negatively doped silicon.

To make the device, the researchers extracted PS1 from spinach into an aqueous solution and poured the mixture on the surface of a p-doped silicon wafer. Then they put the wafer in a vacuum chamber in order to evaporate the water away leaving a film of protein. They found that the optimum thickness was about one micron, about 100 PS1 molecules thick.

Protein alignment

When a PS1 protein exposed to light, it absorbs the energy in the photons and uses it to free electrons and transport them to one side of the protein. That creates regions of positive charge, called holes, which move to the opposite side of the protein.

In a leaf, all the PS1 proteins are aligned. But in the protein layer on the device, individual proteins are oriented randomly. Previous modeling work indicated that this was a major problem.

When the proteins are deposited on a metallic substrate, those that are oriented in one direction provide electrons that the metal collects while those that are oriented in the opposite direction pull electrons out of the metal in order to fill the holes that they produce. As a result, they produce both positive and negative currents that cancel each other out to leave a very small net current flow.

The p-doped silicon eliminates this problem because it allows electrons to flow into PS1 but will not accept them from protein. In this manner, electrons flow through the circuit in a common direction.

“This isn’t as good as protein alignment, but it is much better than what we had before,” says Jennings.

Graduate students Gabriel LeBlanc, Gongping Chen, and Evan Gizzie contributed to the study.

The research was supported by National Science Foundation and by the Scialog Program of the Research Corporation for Scientific Advancement.

By. David Salisbury

Stop Sign in the Woods

I took this picture yesterday afternoon.  The Aspens leaves are beginning to turn yellow.  Soon they will be gone, returning next Spring.  I converted the image to black and white but used a brush from Photoshop CS 5 to color the stop sign.  I really like the effect.  I could have done a bit better with this had I brought my pen tablet to Evergreen.

Republicans Dissing Each Other?

7 hours ago

McConnell sidesteps Romney diss with a smile

mug.dana
Posted by

Washington (CNN) – Often, a person’s body language says more than words.

That appeared true Tuesday afternoon when Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell forced a big smile instead of responding to a CNN question about Mitt Romney’s weekend comments criticizing fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill.

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

– Check out the CNN Electoral Map and Calculator and game out your own strategy for November.

Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, Romney called it a mistake for President Obama to propose the deal that ended last year’s debt limit fight, and added that it was “a mistake for Republicans to go along with it.”

That deal calls for some $100 billion in mandatory spending cuts at the end of this year – half from the defense budget – unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

When asked by CNN for his reaction to Romney “dissing” him and other GOP lawmakers for going along with the cuts, known as “sequestration,” McConnell grinned widely, if not sincerely.

“Look, I don’t have any interest in getting into a debate with the nominee of our party,” McConnell responded, going on to say – smile still firmly in place – “I know you would like for me to do that but I don’t have any interest in doing that.”

Trying one more time to get him to bite, we asked why he thinks Romney made the comment.
“You’ll have to ask him why he said what he said,” replied McConnell.

Earlier in the day, House Speaker John Boehner didn’t answer directly a reporter’s question about Romney’s criticism of him and other congressional Republicans, but defended his own role.

“Listen it was a difficult time. I still look at my failure to come to an agreement with the president as the biggest disappointment of my speakership,” Boehner said, speaking about his ill-fated discussions with President Obama last summer over a broad deal to cut spending and reduce the deficit.

Boehner was also partisan in his response, even pointing people to a specific page in Bob Woodward’s new book on the saga as a defense.

“The president didn’t want to have a second round of a fight over increasing the debt limit. And ya know, look at Mr. Woodward’s book that came out this morning, page 326, it’ll make it perfectly clear where the sequester came from. We’d been in discussion over a trigger, but the president didn’t want his re-election inconvenienced by another fight over a 1.2 trillion dollar increase in the debt ceiling. That’s why we have it,” said Boehner.

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate, was among the many Republicans who backed the sequestration deal Romney is now slamming.

Filed under: 2012 • Congress • Mitch McConnell • Mitt Romney

Yawning Fox

Mama fox waking up from her nap outside our kitchen window in Evergreen, CO.  I took this two years ago and have not had the same opportunity since.

Standing up to Gazprom – from Oilprice.com

Europe Has Had Enough, But Can It Stand Up to Gazprom?

By Jen Alic | Sun, 09 September 2012 00:00 | 2

Benefit From the Latest Energy Trends and Investment Opportunities before the mainstream media and investing public are aware they even exist. The Free Oilprice.com Energy Intelligence Report gives you this and much more. Click here to find out more.

Gazprom has Europe’s natural gas market in a stranglehold and Europe is attempting to fight back, first with a raid last year on the Russian giant’s offices and then with a probe launched earlier this week against its allegedly illicit efforts to control the EU’s natural gas supplies.

The bottom line is that the same natural gas revolution in the US, which was enabled by hydraulic fracturing (fracking), is now threatening to loosen Gazprom’s noose on the EU, and Gazprom simply won’t have it.

To head off a potential natural gas revolution in the EU, Gazprom is pulling out all the stops, and EU officials say that the company has been illegally throwing obstacles in the way of European gas diversification.

Poland’s situation is a case in point. Last year, a US Department of Energy report estimated Poland’s shale gas reserves at 171 trillion cubic feet. Gazprom got nervous. In March this year, the Polish Geological Institute suddenly felt compelled to contradict that report, saying reserves were only around 24.8 trillion cubic feet. In June, Exxon announced it would pull out of its shale gas projects in Poland. Investors started getting cold feet and shares began to drop. Chevron and ConocoPhillips are plodding along with their shale gas operations, for now.

Still, 24.8 trillion cubic feet is no paltry volume and enough to ensure that Gazprom remains nervous. And then there is Ukraine, which also has sizable shale gas reserves and where the Russian noose is even tighter.

Right now, the only thing keeping the shale gas revolution from hitting Europe as it has in the US is technology: the shale reserves in Europe are on land that is more inaccessible, there is a lack of necessary infrastructure and fracking equipment, and protests against the environmental impact of fracking are more serious. But the biggest problem is Gazprom.

EU governments are both desperate to break the Russian stranglehold by developing shale gas reserves and wary of going up against a gas giant on whom they depend for supplies. It’s a tough position and the outcome will depend on how the EU hedges its bets: Can it develop enough shale gas reserves quickly enough to take on Gazprom?

Poland is still a long way off from being able to fully develop its shale gas reserves. It will take time to conduct the necessary environmental impact studies and infrastructure would require a major overhaul.

The EU publics are divided between those who fear fracking and those who fear Gazprom and so far, the former fear is trumping the latter. France and Bulgaria have both banned fracking under pressure from the public, but Poland is marching on, its officials relentlessly insisting that fracking is safe.

Earlier this week, Germany’s Environmental Ministry urged a ban on fracking near drinking water reservoirs and mineral springs and called for environmental impact studies from developers, prompting concerns that Germany will tighten fracking regulations. Germany has massive natural gas potential, but environmental concerns are keeping a tight rein on development for now.

The end victory for Gazprom would come in the form of a European Commission ruling banning fracking—a ruling which would be applied to all EU countries, including Poland which has shown more political will to stand up to the Gazprom boogey man than others.

In the meantime, the EU is investigating Gazprom’s actions in eight countries—Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. In Bulgaria, where fracking has been banned, Gazprom is the only supplier of gas. It is also the sole supplier to the Baltic states and Slovenia. It supplies over 80% of gas needs to Poland and Hungary, and nearly 70% of the Czech Republic’s.

It has strengthened its grip on Europe further due to the fact that it owns the one-way gas pipelines into the region and forces buyers into long-term contracts in which prices are tied to oil.

The EU has tried numerous tactics to loosen the Gazprom grip, including the implementation of new energy policies designed to separate supply from delivery and by seeking new pipelines that could deliver gas from elsewhere. While the EU’s alternative pipeline dreams have largely failed so far, it is eyeing developments now in Northern Iraq, where Turkey is courting the Kurds to build a new pipeline that could eventually deliver gas to EU markets. But this is a long way, and possibly a war, off.

Having failed so far in the area of alternative suppliers, the EU is now moving the front lines of the battle to the legal field, targeting unfair competition, which it stands a better, but still only minimal, chance of changing the rules of the game. The probe into Gazprom is looking at three things: Gazprom’s attempts to hinder the free flow of gas across the EU; its purposeful blocking of diversification efforts; unfair pricing and contractual arrangements.

Specifically, the EU says Gazprom has implemented a strategy to segment national markets by preventing gas exports and limiting delivery options, as well as by obligating buyers to use Gazprom infrastructure. Most significantly to the consumer, Gazprom’s pricing policies, which fix gas prices to oil prices, mean that European consumers see no benefit from the natural gas revolution in the US, which has increased global supplies and reduced prices on the open market.

Will the EU be able to actually levy fines for unfair competition and unravel the monopoly? Not unless it plays as dirty as Gazprom, which will simply cut off supplies and the circulation of those European countries that used to be in its back yard. Eastern and Central Europe will be the ones to pay the price for the European Union’s battle.

Let’s not pretend that energy companies are clean and that governments aren’t using them to forward nefarious geopolitical objectives (US multinationals in Northern Iraq, for instance). The point is not to paint Gazprom as the ultimate evil in energy. This is about Europe, and the EU’s “Mommy Dearest” struggle with Gazprom, which is undoubtedly playing an underhanded energy-politics game worthy of the most sinister of accolades.

One would not be surprised to discover that Gazprom has gone environmental and has had a hand in shaping the environmental concerns of the EU publics. As such, it is highly convenient that Gazprom has recently come under very public attack by our leading international environmental group. Everyone plays dirty, any means to an end.

By. Jen Alic of Oilprice.com

On the Road with Marcel

Marcel in his backpack for a hike.  He also rides in it when we take our bikes out.

 

Fox in Snow

This is from last winter.  We might get some snow before we leave here early next month.

Definitely Not the A List – from Oilprice.com

America’s 10 Most Polluted States

By Jen Alic | Thu, 06 September 2012 22:45 | 3

Benefit From the Latest Energy Trends and Investment Opportunities before the mainstream media and investing public are aware they even exist. The Free Oilprice.com Energy Intelligence Report gives you this and much more. Click here to find out more.

Do you know where you live? Half of all industrial toxic air pollution comes from power plants and 6,700 power plants and heavy industries are responsible for 80% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Coal- and oil-fired power plants contribute 44% of all toxic air pollution. Toxic mercury and emissions from the country’s electricity sector are estimated to cause tens of thousands of premature deaths, heart attacks, asthma cases and chronic bronchitis every year.

While there are varying lists of America’s most toxic, we’ll focus on the latest top 10 list from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which ranks states in terms of overall industrial pollution, along with reporting from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Many of the US’ most toxic states have seen a reduction of pollution over the past several years, but a federal court of appeals ruling to scrap an EPA regulation on “Cross-State Air Pollution”, designed to reduce air pollution carried from one state to another. Power plants had been expecting this ruling to be approved for over a year, and had adjusted their practices accordingly. The immediate reaction to the federal court’s scrapping of the rule resulted in a queuing up of power plants to abandon preparations for this compliance. Likewise, the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics standards (MATs), designed to cut mercury air pollution beginning in 2015 by 79% from 2010 levels failed in the Senate in June.

So where are we now? Well, we’re stuck with this list of states that are the most toxic, and while much progress has been made, the list is likely to contain the usual suspects next year and fewer improvements on pollution.

Number 1: Ohio

Ohio’s electricity-generation sector emitted more than 36.4 million pounds of harmful chemicals in 2010, accounting for 62% of state pollution and about 12% of toxic pollution from all US power plants. The state also ranked 2nd in industrial mercury air pollution from power plants, emitting almost 4,210 pounds in 2010 (73% of the state’s mercury air pollution and 6% of US electricity sector mercury pollution).

Ohio is home to the Gen J M Gavin coal plant in Cheshire, which is the 9th biggest polluter in the United States, according to the EPA, which estimates the plant’s greenhouse gas emissions for 2010 at 16,872,856 CO2e.

Number 2: Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania is ranked third on the second annual “Toxic 20” ranking of states whose residents are exposed to the most pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants. It represents a small improvement over last year, when Pennsylvania ranked second in the nation in the percentage of toxic pollution generated by power plants. Pennsylvania is responsible for some 10% of all toxic pollution from power plants in the US, releasing nearly 32 million pounds of harmful chemicals in 2010 alone.

From 2009 to 2010, air pollution from all sources in Pennsylvania dropped by 20 percent and from coal-fired power plants by 24%, according to HRDC.

Number 3: Florida

While the EPA ranked Florida the 6th worst polluter in 2010, the NRDC ranked it as 2nd worst in its 2012 list. Florida’s electricity-generation sector emitted nearly 16.7 million pounds of harmful chemicals in 2010, according to the EPA, accounting for 57% of all state pollution and 5% of toxic pollution from all US power plants. Florida’s electricity sector emitted some 1,710 pounds of mercury into the air, accounting for 75% of the entire state’s mercury air pollution for that same year.

Florida has undergone a major shift from coal to natural gas. Twelve years ago, natural gas accounted for less than 30% of Florida’s electricity production. By 2011, Florida was generating 62% of its total power from natural gas, with coal accounting for 23%. (Only Texas has a higher percentage). Florida has three nuclear power plants, which accounted for just under 10% of electricity generation in 2011.  Florida has 10 large power plants, eight of which are now fueled by natural gas.

However, despite the shift from coal to natural gas, Florida’s carbon dioxide emissions have continued to increase, while sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced. Florida has seen its greenhouse gas emissions increase from 91 million tons in 1990 to 124 million tons in 2010.

Number 4: Kentucky

Kentucky may not have been ranked the worst overall polluter in the US, but it is ranked worst in terms of toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants, with HRDC officials specifically citing Kentucky’s poor control over these plants and its failure to adopt any laws or regulations that would lead to a notable reduction in pollution.

Kentucky’s electricity sector actually saw an increase in toxic air pollution from 8.8 million pounds in 2009 to 9.6 million pounds in 2010.

It’s not likely to improve much. Just one day after a federal appeals court scrapped the EPA rule to curb long-distance power plant pollution drifting, the Kentucky-based Big Rivers Electric Cooperative power plant announced it would abandon pollution controls that would have allowed it to comply with the EPA’s regulation.

Number 5: Maryland

Ranked 5th overall for total industrial pollution, coal-burning power plants keep Maryland higher on the pollution list than the state would like. In terms of coal-burning power plant pollution, Maryland is ranked 19th by the NRDC, which also noted that the state’s toxic emissions from power plants dropped by 88% over the course of one year. The biggest polluters are the Chesterfield, Chesapeake and Clinch River power plants.

Number 6: Indiana

The Gibson coal plant in Owensville had total greenhouse gas emissions of 17,993,350 CO2e in 2010, according to the EPA, which ranked the plant the fifth worst polluter in the US. The state’s Rockport coal plant ranked the 10th worth polluter in the country, with total greenhouse gas emissions of 16,666,035 CO2e.

Number 7: Michigan

Michigan’s electricity sector emitted over 15.5 million pounds of harmful chemicals, which translates into 61% of all state pollution and 5% of power plant pollution countrywide. The sector also caused around 2,250 pounds of mercury air pollution, which is 82% of the state’s entire mercury air pollution and 3% of the country’s electricity sector mercury pollution.

The Monroe coal plant registered total greenhouse gas emissions 17,850,341 CO2e with the EPA in 2010, making it the country’s 6th worst polluter.

Michigan has not increased or reduced pollution in the electricity sector since the last ranking in 2009. The only thing saving Michigan’s air—a decline in manufacturing, which of course is not the ideal.

Number 8: West Virginia

West Virginia’s electrical power generation was responsible for over 80% of toxic industrial air pollution in the state, while the chemical sector was responsible for 10%. In 2010, West Virginia’s electricity sector emitted 18.1 million pounds of harmful chemicals, or 81% of all state pollution and 6% of the country’s total power plant pollution. In terms of mercury air poisoning, 2,500 of toxic mercury were released into the air in 2010.

The biggest polluters are power plants owned by Allegheny Energy, AEP and Dominion.

Incidentally, West Virginia has the highest per capita mortality risk from fine particle pollution among states.

Number 9: Georgia

According to the EPA, Georgia’s Scherer coal-fired power plant near Macon is the number one producer of greenhouse gases in the United States, emitting 22.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide alone in 2010.

Georgia is also home to the second worst polluter in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, with its Bowen Plant in Cartersville, which boasted total greenhouse gas emissions of 21,026,397 in 2010. This plant was also listed as the largest emitter of sulfur dioxide in 2006 and blamed for a variety of health issues, from asthma, bronchitis and heart disease to lung disease and pneumonia. Plans are reportedly under way for the installation of scrubbers on the plant’s four cooling towers to remove sulfur dioxide from exhaust before it is released into the air.

Number 10: North Carolina

North Carolina’s electric sector ranked 8th in industrial toxic air pollution in 2010, emitting more than 14.6 million pounds of harmful chemicals, or 48% of state pollution and about 5% of total US toxic pollution from power plants.  In terms of mercury air pollution from power plants, North Carolina ranked 24th, producing some 960 tons of toxic mercury in 2010, or 47% of mercury air pollution in the state.

By. Jen Alic of Oilprice.com