Leo_Ames Here is some insight by Washington based Clear Air Watch, one of the big pushers of this EPA mandate. It essentially amounts to that they should do it because they aren't already doing it. Ashame to see people that just refuse to use the brain that the good Lord gave them like this individual. Frank O'Donnell (President of the group) dismissed the concerns as the companies just wanting to "keep their big stinkers on the water." He said ships that are 50 to 100 years old are a major pollution problem, not something to preserve. "Isn't it about time some of these ships were modernized?" he asked. "Since we're doing it with trucks and we're doing it with tractors and we're cleaning up trains, isn't it time to deal with ships?"
Here is some insight by Washington based Clear Air Watch, one of the big pushers of this EPA mandate. It essentially amounts to that they should do it because they aren't already doing it. Ashame to see people that just refuse to use the brain that the good Lord gave them like this individual.
Frank O'Donnell (President of the group) dismissed the concerns as the companies just wanting to "keep their big stinkers on the water." He said ships that are 50 to 100 years old are a major pollution problem, not something to preserve.
"Isn't it about time some of these ships were modernized?" he asked. "Since we're doing it with trucks and we're doing it with tractors and we're cleaning up trains, isn't it time to deal with ships?"
Comming soon to recreational, historic steam railroading.
Bucyrus Leo_Ames: Here is some insight by Washington based Clear Air Watch, one of the big pushers of this EPA mandate. It essentially amounts to that they should do it because they aren't already doing it. Ashame to see people that just refuse to use the brain that the good Lord gave them like this individual. Frank O'Donnell (President of the group) dismissed the concerns as the companies just wanting to "keep their big stinkers on the water." He said ships that are 50 to 100 years old are a major pollution problem, not something to preserve. "Isn't it about time some of these ships were modernized?" he asked. "Since we're doing it with trucks and we're doing it with tractors and we're cleaning up trains, isn't it time to deal with ships?" Comming soon to recreational, historic steam railroading.
Leo_Ames: Here is some insight by Washington based Clear Air Watch, one of the big pushers of this EPA mandate. It essentially amounts to that they should do it because they aren't already doing it. Ashame to see people that just refuse to use the brain that the good Lord gave them like this individual. Frank O'Donnell (President of the group) dismissed the concerns as the companies just wanting to "keep their big stinkers on the water." He said ships that are 50 to 100 years old are a major pollution problem, not something to preserve. "Isn't it about time some of these ships were modernized?" he asked. "Since we're doing it with trucks and we're doing it with tractors and we're cleaning up trains, isn't it time to deal with ships?"
The EPA's problem with the Badger is flushing the ash into the great lakes water, not an air pollution problem.
Go back and read the original post of mine that he quoted. What you quoted has nothing to do with the EPA ash mandate that is the Badger's most immediate concern and I wasn't suggesting it had anything to do with it.
It was an answer to you when you inquired why steam power is essentially being banned on the Great Lakes and why the Badger doesn't have the option of simply going to oil fired boilers in lieu of coal (Which I'm sure they would if they had to if they're not allowed to use coal since they need to be able to dump ash and containment isn't viable). And it was also a complaint in general about the EPA and the logic (or lack of it) that they use with such decisions.
Anyways, the reason for all this is that they're banning Bunker C in their fight against high sulfer fuels. That ban on heavy fuel oil was supposed to be put into place after this season, automatically killing off American commercial steam power on the Great Lakes that burn Bunker C (Which is everything except the Badger). Low sulfer fuel simply isn't an option for steamships for mechanical reasons so it basically equates to a ban on steam (And combine it with the witch hunt against the Badger makes it a total ban). Only extensive lobbying by some members of Congress like Oberstar pushed the EPA mandate out to 2020 and grandfathered in existing steamers that burn Bunker C until that time.
Thus, not only does the Badger not have the option even if they wanted to since they're not grandfathered in since they didn't burn Bunker C at the time of the compromise, they never would make such an investment to convert in the first place with the knowledge that it's a temporary solution at best and will be facing the same problem in well under a decade from now.
Leo_Ames Go back and read the original post of mine that he quoted. What you quoted has nothing to do with the EPA ash mandate that is the Badger's most immediate concern and I wasn't suggesting it had anything to do with it...
Go back and read the original post of mine that he quoted. What you quoted has nothing to do with the EPA ash mandate that is the Badger's most immediate concern and I wasn't suggesting it had anything to do with it...
I had forgotten the post from last December concerning commercial steam ships. What I was commenting on was the statement:
I don't see an EPA issue with large commercial steam ships, as inevitably leading to an EPA ban on recreational, historic steam railroading. As a geologist, mostly in oil and gas, I have had occasional contact with the EPA. They are way too busy dealing with big companies or larger environmental issues, then to concern themselves with tourist steam trains. And with the political and legal constraints that they must work under, I don't think railfans need to be overly worried. I remember some one once saying that the things we worry most about, are the things which never happen.
This is an Agency of the Goverment that wants to Regulate COW FARTS and BREATHING. Yep a few years ago their Boogeyman so to speak was Methane Gas that Cow Farts produced and so they wanted it STOPPED aka they wanted all COWS TO STOP FARTING. Now they are going after CO2 Hello We need CO2 to have Plants on this Planet. What will be Next for the EPA they go after WATER. Oh Yeah they are saying a Mudpuddle on Property makes it a Protected Wetland. At least they lost that one in COURT.
edbenton This is an Agency of the Goverment that wants to Regulate COW FARTS ,,,
This is an Agency of the Goverment that wants to Regulate COW FARTS ,,,
You will have to come up with a better anecdote than that. In the meantime I will not be holding my breath worrying they will outlaw tourist steam trains.
S.S. Badger's home page: http://www.ssbadger.com/home.aspx
"Save Our Ship" page: http://sosbadger.com/
Schedules & Fares: http://www.ssbadger.com/content.aspx?Page=Schedule (crossing takes 4 hours; fare is $74 for autos, vans, SUVs, and pickups, plus $74 per adult = $222 for a car and a couple).
Web pages on the Uniflow/ Unaflow engine, or things you probably never knew, or even thought about (but others did) [tech geek and engineer heaven ]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniflow_steam_engine
http://www.carferries.com/skinner/
http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5496.pdf - S.S. Badger Engines and Boilers (12 pages, approx. 1.08 MB file size).
THE UNIFLOW STEAM ENGINE - http://www.bartbeck.com/page141.html
- Paul North.
Well if your someone in CA that wants to see Classic Diesels YOUR SCREWED thanks to the EPA's little Brother that is a Bigger Bully the CARB board. Under CARB Rules even the E Units that UP has CAN NOT RUN THERE. Why do you think UP sent the Rotary to Relco for an Overhaul it SURE AS HELL WAS NOT Because of the time Between one. Nope in the Lines on the Build sheet helps I have a Buddy out there one of them was TO COMPLY WITH CARB RULES. Where do most of the EPA head shots come from Californa so the EPA is not even begun with the Attacks YET.
MidlandMikeI don't see an EPA issue with large commercial steam ships, as inevitably leading to an EPA ban on recreational, historic steam railroading.
Steam has had trouble at more local levels for 40 years now. The Mount Washington Cog Railway in the early 1970's comes to mind at the state level. Not too big of a stretch imagining the EPA in their push to expand their power and justify their continued existence as they meet goals elsewhere to go after historic locomotives someday.
And ask the operators of classic piston engined aircraft in this country, mostly WWII warbirds, what they think of the EPA. It's foolish to suggest that steam locomotives and 1st generation diesels are going to be immune from the EPA's idiocy.
OK me lads, let's keep one thing in mind. If EPA and all the other dragon-slayers out there run out of dragons, what happens? They have to look for more dragons to slay or go out of business. That's how bureaucracies work. No return for the tax dollar and even in this day and age of profligate government spending they stand in good danger of losing their happy home. Edbenton may be ungrammatical at times but give him the respect of knowing what he's talking about.
If natural gas fueling is what it takes to keep "Badger" alive then so be it. It's certainly a lot easier to handle than coal. But spare me the nonsense of how toxic coal ash is. It's not. My grandparents, and I suspect a lot of other peoples grandparents used to use it for garden fertilizer and it didn't hurt anyone. All this "Chicken Little" stuff just burns me up to no end.
edbenton Well if your someone in CA that wants to see Classic Diesels YOUR SCREWED thanks to the EPA's little Brother that is a Bigger Bully the CARB board. Under CARB Rules even the E Units that UP has CAN NOT RUN THERE...
Well if your someone in CA that wants to see Classic Diesels YOUR SCREWED thanks to the EPA's little Brother that is a Bigger Bully the CARB board. Under CARB Rules even the E Units that UP has CAN NOT RUN THERE...
Do the tourist railroads with diesels have some sort of exception? Hopefully UP could get an historical exception.
Leo_Ames Steam has had trouble at more local levels for 40 years now. The Mount Washington Cog Railway in the early 1970's comes to mind at the state level. Not too big of a stretch imagining the EPA in their push to expand their power and justify their continued existence as they meet goals elsewhere to go after historic locomotives someday.
I had not heard about the Mount Washington Cog problem, but apparently saner heads prevailed, as the line remained steam powered until recently when the company decided on their own to make some changes. Any institution (gov't or otherwise) that is run by people, is capable of making bonehead mistakes. That is why government has built in checks and balances, and in the Mt. Washington case the process apparently worked out to the right answer. Every year thousands of new chemicals are created, so I don't think the EPA will ever effectively catch up to us. But, if they do then they would have to have public hearings, and that would be a good time to speak up.
My observation on these issues boils down to this: Everybody is in favor of clean air and water, but most are quite unwilling to pay the price to get it. The EPA is following the law as enacted by Congress and interpreted by the courts.
Firelock76 ... If natural gas fueling is what it takes to keep "Badger" alive then so be it. It's certainly a lot easier to handle than coal. But spare me the nonsense of how toxic coal ash is. It's not. My grandparents, and I suspect a lot of other peoples grandparents used to use it for garden fertilizer and it didn't hurt anyone. All this "Chicken Little" stuff just burns me up to no end.
...
I don't know if plant roots take up mercury, but fish defiantly do.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/Statewide_Mercury_Advisory_Fact_Sheet_2010-07_327066_7.pdf
If you have been following the thread under the Steam & Preservation subtopic about the Santa Fe loco retrofit to biofuel you will have heard about a coal substitute that is essentially like charcoal briquettes. I would think the Badger would be a good candidate to try this on a boat. The fuel handles just like coal and might not require mechanical modifications. The ash is free of heavy metals so it could be flushed into the lake as is presently done. It supposedly has less ash so it should also cut down on the fly ash that puts a coating on the docked recreational boats, whose owners are some of the most vocal opponents of the Badger. The Ludington area is surrounded by forest so wood supply would be close. The town already has one chemical plant. They may welcome a biofuels plant to replace the other chemical plant that closed down.
To Midland Mike: Yes, plant roots can take up any metals that are in the ground, but weeds typically do it better than any other species of vegetation. At any rate, how many tons of coal ash is "Badger" putting over the side as opposed to how many billions of gallons of water are in Lake Michigan? If there were hundreds of coal fired ships on Michigan I could see a possible concern, but only one? At any rate coal is a naturally occuring substance, made of decayed vegetable matter compressed into carbon over eons of time, the original "biomass" fuel if you want to call it that. And considering water is a universal solvent those billions of gallons of water will take care of the ash over time.
Anyway, as I said before if "Badger" is converted to another fuel source (and I'm kind of surprised it wasn't a long time ago) that's fine. What I object to is the constant drumming up of "panic-panic-panic" by those dedicated to making the world a better place for THEMSELVES to live in and never mind the consequences for others. Look, I'm 58 and this country is a LOT cleaner than it was when I was a boy 50 years ago, trust me.
Not trying to get into a "you know what" contest here, but I just have to state my opinion. By the way, I enjoy the intelligent discussion of topics the Forum provides, and the mix of opinions. Makes you stop and think.
MidlandMike Do the tourist railroads with diesels have some sort of exception? Hopefully UP could get an historical exception.
So no, don't assume or take for granted that any such operation is immune or exempt forever from severely restrictive environmental regulations. We may have to accept a change in fuel - i.e., from coal to natural gas - to keep the essence of the machine - the boiler and steam power to the cylinders, etc. - in operation.
To Firelock76: Glad you noticed that the country is cleaner than it was 50 years ago. I'm 5 years older than you, and have noticed it to. Much of the easy stuff has been cleaned up, and now we are dealing with the persistent legacy contaminants like Mercury. At first the polluters didn't clean up voluntarily, but now many companies see it's good business, or at least good PR, to be clean. I suppose It's possible that the lake is cleaning itself of metals faster than the Badger puts it back in, but until things like fish eating warnings are a thing of the past I have a concern with incremental introduction of metals into the lakes.
I like your characterization of coal as the original biomass fuel. In my particular geologic endeavors, coal was never my thing, but generally sediments are buried with their entrained water, and are further subject to metal enrichment or leaching by geologic waters as well as heat and pressure. Despite any qualifications, your turn-of-phrase was a good one.
Here is a link to a news video from the local TV station yesterday.
http://www.9and10news.com/story/18619639/ss-badger-stranded-on-wisconsin-coastline-owners-working-to-keep-s
Today they are reporting the Badger ran aground on the Wisconsin side due to mechanical problems. It was also windy today
Both played a role. A piston ring failed on the starboard engine shortly before docking. With significantly reduced power, the wind got her when she was trying to turn at her usual spot before docking and she ran slightly aground. A tug pulled her off easily once it arrived a few hours earlier and it sounds like the passengers took the deal in stride.
They also announced just prior to that trip that they've submitted their new application to the EPA a month early. Glad to see they're not dragging their feet on the issue. And since we're back to discussion about her pollutants and such, here are some choice highlights from a recent article about the Badger by Bob VandeVusse that was in the Holland Sentinel.
"Multiple tests by EPA approved laboratories show that the Badger’s discharges are a small fraction of the amount that has been routinely approved for similar permits on the Great Lakes, said Bob Manglitz, president and chief executive officer of Lake Michigan Carferry (LMC). The materials discharged by the Badger that are tracked by the EPA are literally hundreds of times less than what others are permitted to discharge into Lake Michigan."
"In 2008, EPA said the discharges were appropriate under the Clean Water Act given the lack of harm and the lack of feasible or affordable alternatives. At that time, EPA told the Badger’s owners to apply for an individual permit if no feasible alternative was found by 2012. "
"Our company has done all that has been asked of us by the EPA in the Permit application process. Tests show that our discharges are well within the limits set by Michigan, Wisconsin and the EPA and less than 146 other permitees on the Great Lakes."
"For example, he said, the total mercury discharge from the Badger over an entire year is two one-hundredths of an ounce, far less than what has been considered acceptable in other permits. In fact, 146 approved Great Lakes Clean Water Act individual permits on Lake Michigan discharge on average 36 times more mercury than the Badger, according to data from the highly respected Argonne National Laboratory. The Badger would have to operate for another 50 years for its mercury discharges to total a single ounce (The primary pollutant in coal ash)".
And to put that into context with something we're all familiar with, fever thermometers contain an average of between .5 to 3 grams of mercury according to Wikipedia. And there are just slightly over 28 grams to an ounce. And for a single year, that mercury total the Badger puts into the Lake Michigan will be .02 milligrams. A fluorescent lamp by comparison varies from 3 to 46 mg, depending on size and age (According to Wikipedia). Newer low mercury lamps contain 3-4mg's of mercury and are sold as low mercury bulbs (And CFL's under 25 watts as of 2007 are capped to 5 mg and 25 to 40 watts is capped at 6 mg).
In other words the breakage of a single thermometer or fluorescent bulb could easily release dozens of times more mercury into the environment than the Badger's coal ash would over the course of an entire season.
She's harmless beyond a shadow of a doubt..
To MidlandMike: Thanks! I appreciate your appreciation!
Leo_Ames They also announced just prior to that trip that they've submitted their new application to the EPA a month early. Glad to see they're not dragging their feet on the issue.,,
They also announced just prior to that trip that they've submitted their new application to the EPA a month early. Glad to see they're not dragging their feet on the issue.,,
Glad to see they got their application in. EPA gave themselves a 60 day deadline to review the application for completeness. It's a good thing they got the application in a month early to give them extra time to re-submit anything that may have gotten left out. Hopefully once the application is accepted they will have legal standing to continue to operate until at least the EPA makes a determination. So far the process seems to be working. The local congressman is also monitoring the situation. Here is a link to the EPA updates:
http://www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/badger/
Application or no application, they're clear to sail this year.
Apparantly she didn't run softly aground on a sandbar yesterday. Just needed the tug to maneuver into port due to reduced power after the piston failure. After repairing three pistons, she departed Ludington without any passengers this afternoon. More repairs are underway.
Hopefully the rest of her season will be smooth sailing.
I should have been more clear that the new application was for coal fired operation beyond this year. I heard on the local news last night that the Badger made it back to Ludington (where the mothballed sister ship Spartan is kept, which I understand is used for spare parts.)
A story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal last Thursday reported that the congressmen representing the Badger's two port districts, inserted a provision into a Coast Guard re-authorization bill to bypass EPA regulation that could have shut down the ship's operation. However, similar provisions were inserted into other bills, and the Senate was able to have them deleted. The competing cross-lake ferry is also fighting special treatment for the Badger. I wonder if Trains NewsWire passed on the story in their hometown paper, perhaps because they had seen this maneuver before, and would wait to see if it survived the legislative process?
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/house-provision-would-allow-ss-badger-to-dump-coal-ash-in-perpetuity-9v7rj49-181433331.html
The ship's owner replied in the local Ludington, MI paper.
http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/news/68226-lmc-confident--badger-will-sail--in-2013
Hopefully it works out in favor of the Badger.
Leo_Ames Hopefully it works out in favor of the Badger.
Why does SS Badger deserve a legal exemption to which the competition is not entitled?
Go back and read the thread. I think I've adequately explained why the Badger should be allowed to continue.
MidlandMike A story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal last Thursday reported that the congressmen representing the Badger's two port districts, inserted a provision into a Coast Guard re-authorization bill to bypass EPA regulation that could have shut down the ship's operation. However, similar provisions were inserted into other bills, and the Senate was able to have them deleted. The competing cross-lake ferry is also fighting special treatment for the Badger. I wonder if Trains NewsWire passed on the story in their hometown paper, perhaps because they had seen this maneuver before, and would wait to see if it survived the legislative process? http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/house-provision-would-allow-ss-badger-to-dump-coal-ash-in-perpetuity-9v7rj49-181433331.html The ship's owner replied in the local Ludington, MI paper. http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/news/68226-lmc-confident--badger-will-sail--in-2013
I suspect they passed on it because of the political nature of the discussion - you know railroads and politics exist in separate worlds that never meet, at least not in Kalmbach land.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Congress has backed off giving an EPA execption to the SS Badger, and the coast Guard re-authorization bill was passed by both houses without it. The ship owner will have to continue to work toward EPA approval.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-coal-ferry-20121206,0,334544.story
Local TV news coverage with video:
http://www.9and10news.com/story/20282460/congress-shuts-down-ss-badger-coal-ash-dumping
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.