While they now have 2 more years to operate as they have been (disposing the coal ash into the lake) they have now signed a consent decree that gives them a drop-dead to stop dumping the ash into the water, and these agreements always have stiff automatic penalties if they don't follow thru. Previously the ferry owner said that they looked for ways to contain the ash (which is mixed with lake water to flush it out of the boiler compartment) but could find no feasible way to capture and store it on board. It will be interesting to see now what they come up with.
The Chicago Tribune has a picture of the Badger with black smoke coming out of its stack. The first sentence of the article says:
"The last coal-powered steamship on the Great Lakes will be allowed to dump toxic pollution into Lake Michigan for another two years under an agreement announced today by federal officials."
Here is a link to the article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-badger-ferry-to-stop-dumping-ash-in-lake-michigan-20130322,0,7611577.story
The days of unbiased reporting ended long ago. The article should mention that a single traditional fever thermometer has more mercury, the primary contaminant, than decades of coal ash discharge from the Badger would.
It's at such small levels that they can't even read the presence of it with scientific instruments.
John WR The Chicago Tribune has a picture of the Badger with black smoke coming out of its stack. The first sentence of the article says: "The last coal-powered steamship on the Great Lakes will be allowed to dump toxic pollution into Lake Michigan for another two years under an agreement announced today by federal officials." Here is a link to the article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-badger-ferry-to-stop-dumping-ash-in-lake-michigan-20130322,0,7611577.story
Not to mention all the toxic pollution involved in printers ink and the paper making process that are the backbone of the Chicago Tribune.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Some years ago there was a major 'scare' regarding the levels of mercury in the Great Lakes. Fingers were pointed every which way.
Then an archeologist discovered a fish fossil from the area with comparable levels of mercury, indicating that said levels were most likely a natural occurance. The hoopla ended shortly thereafter.
That's not to say that we shouldn't recognize high levels of any substance and react accordingly, but not all pollution is the fault of human intervention.
Reporting such as this just shows the bias that can exist in the media.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Perhaps the paper was referring to the fact that as part of the consent agreement, the ferry operator has agreed that they had exceeded safe mercury levels in their ash dumping last year and would pay a $25,000 fine.
Mike,
The report did give information about the $25,000 fine and about the fact that originally the company asked for a much longer period of time than two years. But over all the general theme of the article follows from the first sentence.
John
tree68 Some years ago there was a major 'scare' regarding the levels of mercury in the Great Lakes. Fingers were pointed every which way. Then an archeologist discovered a fish fossil from the area with comparable levels of mercury, indicating that said levels were most likely a natural occurance. The hoopla ended shortly thereafter. That's not to say that we shouldn't recognize high levels of any substance and react accordingly, but not all pollution is the fault of human intervention. Reporting such as this just shows the bias that can exist in the media.
Unfortunately, the danger was/is real. Mercury levels in the Great Lakes were reduced substantially, overall by a factor of 2-3 from mid-1970's to ~2000, and have plateaued since. The problem is when relatively harmless elemental mercury becomes (probably through bacterial action) the highly toxic form, monomethylmercury, and it then concentrates as it moves up in the food chain. The highest concentrations are in walleyes and lake trout. Coal ash represents the source of approximately half of the mercury pollution.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Where did you read that coal ash, which means primarily coal burning steamships, was responsible for approximately half of mercury pollution in the Great Lakes?
As for the Chicago Tribune and Senator Durbin, their readers were having nothing with that nonsense of an article. The vast majority disagreed, pointed out glaring inconsistencys with his positions, his close relationship with the Badger's business competitor, and accused him of being a hypocrite and failing to grasp the issues at hand.
Leo_Ames Where did you read that coal ash, which means primarily coal burning steamships, was responsible for approximately half of mercury pollution in the Great Lakes?
Actually, it's utility boilers that generate a significant amount of coal ash. The biggest culprit in 1990, though, was incinerators, municipal and medical, according to this report from the Great Lakes Commission. Those incinerators are no longer a major factor, leaving the utilities as a major culprit.
Industrial boilers are a mere fraction of the overall total.
US emmissions of mercury in the great lakes region have dropped 48% over the past 25 years. Pollution from outside the US has increased 17%, however, meaning that the small amount of pollution created by the badger is likely far overshadowed by that from sources beyond US control.
What has not been established, however, at least to my knowledge, is how much mercury enters the waters of the Great Lakes naturally. Is it possible that even if all new mercury pollution were to cease, and all traces of man-made pollution could be erased, that the Great Lakes might remain polluted by mercury above acceptable levels?
I'm not sure why anyone would interpret my statement about coal ash as referring only to the Badger. Obviously it refers to coal-fired boilers from utilities: (from the GLC)
"In 2005, coal-fired power plants were by far the largest source of anthropogenic mercury emissions to the atmosphere in the Great Lakes states and Ontario, accounting for an estimated 57 percent of total anthropogenic emissions (Figure 4a). They are also the single largest sources in Ontario and most of the Great Lakes states except Minnesota and New York (GLRC 2010). Among the Great Lakes states, Pennsylvania has the highest annual emissions of mercury followed by Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana. However, the mapping of major and minor sources indicates that there is a high density of anthropogenic mercury emission sources across the region (Figure 4b).Total mercury emissions to the atmosphere from inventoried anthropogenic sources in the Great Lakes states declined by approximately 50 percent between 1990 and 2005 (NEI 1990, NATA 2005). This decline reflects the leadership the region has demonstrated in controlling mercury emissions through state, regional, binational, and voluntary actions (Cain et al. 2011). Approximately 43 percent of anthropogenic emissions from sources in the Great Lakes basin are reactive gaseous mercury (RGM) or particulate mercury (PHg), the forms that are most likely to be deposited within the region (Denkenberger et al. 2011). This emissions profile suggests that regional and local scale mercury emissions are undoubtedly important to mercury deposition and effects in the Great Lakes basin (Denkenberger et al. 2011)." http://www.watershedcouncil.org/learn/mercury-in-the-great-lakes/files/glmercuryconnections_finalreport.pdf
As to the question about source of atmospheric mercury: http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury / However, the large reduction in industrial emissions in the great Lakes from 1970-2000 and the corresponding reduction in methylated mercury levels in fish strongly implies that the man-made source is key. And obviously, it is the only one within our control.
Converting railroad steam locomotives from coal burners to oil burners has been accepted practice for decades; what would be so difficult to convert the Badger to an oil burner and put an end to all of this controversy?
BaltACDNot to mention all the toxic pollution involved in printers ink and the paper making process that are the backbone of the Chicago Tribune.
Balt,
As you point out the objection is not necessarily to causing pollution. It is rather to causing pollution in ways that we, the public, do not. Clearly, few ordinary citizens have coal fired steam engines. However, florescent lamp bulbs contain a small amount of mercury. They should be safely disposed of but I have to wonder about how many are not.
Blackhawk NRHS Converting railroad steam locomotives from coal burners to oil burners has been accepted practice for decades; what would be so difficult to convert the Badger to an oil burner and put an end to all of this controversy?
I suspect you would find those who would be opposed to such a conversion. They might buy into LP or LNG, but there's no guarantee.
Of course, many of those foes don't really care about keeping the boat in service anyhow... To them it's an anachronism not worth saving.
tree68 Blackhawk NRHS Converting railroad steam locomotives from coal burners to oil burners has been accepted practice for decades; what would be so difficult to convert the Badger to an oil burner and put an end to all of this controversy? I suspect you would find those who would be opposed to such a conversion. They might buy into LP or LNG, but there's no guarantee. Of course, many of those foes don't really care about keeping the boat in service anyhow... To them it's an anachronism not worth saving.
The NIML's
There were a few oil fired steam lake freighters operating, but they were laid up during the recession for lack of traffic. The problem with the oil fired It seems is there was some concern with smoke stack air quality (rather than the ash dumping problem with the coal fired car-ferry). Leo Ames could probably give a more detailed history.
schlimmI'm not sure why anyone would interpret my statement about coal ash as referring only to the Badger. Obviously it refers to coal-fired boilers from utilities: (from the GLC)
Because the issue at hand isn't emissions. It's the coal ash mixed with boiler water and then flushed into the lakes that is at question. If the Badger develops and installs a system to contain that onboard, she's free and clear to continue as a coal burner.
So unless powerplants and such do the same thing around the Great Lakes with their ash which they most certainly don't (For one reason, fly ash is a commodity and not a waste... but on a steamship there are space and operating constraints that traditionally have made it not be practical to store onboard), naturally I just assumed that you were referring to coal fired steamships. And since the Badger is the last such vessel on the Great Lakes in operation, naturally I made that very small leap and assumed.
I just assumed you were actually talking about the subject at hand and responded as such. My mistake...
John WRAs you point out the objection is not necessarily to causing pollution. It is rather to causing pollution in ways that we, the public, do not. Clearly, few ordinary citizens have coal fired steam engines. However, florescent lamp bulbs contain a small amount of mercury. They should be safely disposed of but I have to wonder about how many are not.
As I understand it, the EPA's objection is the poor example it sets. It's not important how safe the discharge is, what's important to them is that any waste is being dumped in the first place (Despite dozens of heavy polluters doing far worse with the EPA's consent around the Great Lakes). It's essentially the principle of the deal here.
The statistics are out there for the Badger's discharge. If you're to believe that the inert discharge is a real problem, be aware that the component in question here as the biggest issue is the mercury component of the ash. And then visualize an ordinary citizen with a old fashioned mercury thermometer breaking it over one of the Great Lakes and in doing so dumping much more mercury all at once and in a concentrated location then decades of the Badger operating over a long water route as is would. If the Badger was such a real problem, imagine the environmental catrosophe then compared to decades of the Badger continuing to dump inert coal ash into the lake.
Does anyone really believe if some loser intentionally broke a thermometer into the lake to dump some mercury that it would be some sort of ecological diasaster? I'm sure it's not going to do any favors, but I personally really doubt it would be some sort of diasaster. But if the Badger is a real problem, then that citizen could easily eclipse decades of the Badger operating all at once with the snap of their fingers.
Think of that comparison to visualize the numbers at play with the Badger's ash output and the threat of it.
Blackhawk NRHSConverting railroad steam locomotives from coal burners to oil burners has been accepted practice for decades; what would be so difficult to convert the Badger to an oil burner and put an end to all of this controversy?
To an organization like the Union Pacific burning diesel fuel in the boiler of their steamers, the increased operating cost is insignificant compared to the other cost involved. It's not economical compared to coal based on the price of each unit of fuel burned, but the program is subsized and the point isn't to make money and fuel cost is a small factor in the overall program. If they wanted to make money or minimize the loss, they'd be sticking GE Evolution diesels and such at the front. But they see intangible benefits of steamers and are willing to pay a premium for the past. That includes paying extra for fuel for the convenience, operating advantages, and ready supply that diesel represents.
And just the savings alone in being able to fuel right where the rest of the fleet does with the same fuel more than saves enough I suspect to justify the increased fuel cost of what they're burning compared to the days when they still burned coal back in the 1980's. I'm sure the savings in logisitics more than justifys the extra cost.
But the Badger is a business out to make a profit and not a relic giving people joy rides. Her boilers would be far too inefficent because of their design if they had to burn diesel if it's even an option engineering wise. It's a non option for the Bunker C powered steam freighters out there that will have to be retired or repowered by the time the decade is out due the EPA. Diesel is just too expensive even if it was an option, but the boilers in vessels like the Wilfred Sykes weren't engineered in mind to withstand it according to the Lake Carriers Association, the trade group for the Great Lakes merchant fleet. So when Bunker C goes, so do their steam plants.
And there's no point in easily converting to Bunker C because they're going to just be facing the same deadline. Plus the existing vessels were grandfathered in when the fuel was set to be banned and then extended a few years ago. So it's probably a nonoption even if they wanted to.
Plus part of the allure of the Badger is that she is a coal burner.
MidlandMikeThere were a few oil fired steam lake freighters operating, but they were laid up during the recession for lack of traffic. The problem with the oil fired It seems is there was some concern with smoke stack air quality (rather than the ash dumping problem with the coal fired car-ferry).
The problem is the airborne emissions leaving the stack of the steamers burning Bunker C (like Union Pacific's turbine fleet burned back in the 50's and 60's). But steamships are still sailing for now. The Montrealais, a Canadian vessel, was one of the first vessels to start the season this year over the past couple of days for instance.
On the American side, there are seven oil fired bulk carriers that will be sailing as the season starts and one laid up until increased tonnage demands later this year call her out after some drydock work. And for steamers that stand a chance in the future that are held in reserve these days due to the lack of cargos over the past half decade from this recession, there are three self unloaders and one straight decker that are very unlikely to sail this year. And there are two intact steam powered freighters used for powdered cement storage that were retired half a decade ago by a new articulated tug/barge unit that could sail again but are highly unlikely ever to.
And on the Candian side, in addition to the Montrealais, the Quebecois is supposed to sail in the Fall grain rush before sadly supposedly calling it quits after this year. And the Algoma Provider is a long shot not currently planned to sail as a flood of newbuilds from China sees the Canadian fleets revamping their fleets and retiring their 30-50 year old fleets over the next few years. Last Fall was probably the end of her 49 year career that won't make her 50th anniversary of entering service this May. But the same was said a decade ago so I'm keeping my finger's crossed for her.
If anyone lives around the shipping lanes of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, this is steam's equivalent in the US and Canada to just about of 1958 or so for American & Canadian railroads. Now's the time to catch the sounds, sights, and smells of the last steam turbine powered freighters. The window of opportunity to enjoy the survivors is growing ever smaller and chances are barely anything will be left soon.
And of course enjoy the last active coal fired steamship, last active Uniflow steam engine outside of possibly a few WWII Naval relics in Taiwan and Vietnam (I believe they still have a Uniflow powered ship captured from South Vietnam) whose navy's often have had the appearance of museums, the last active Great Lakes carferry, and last commercial passenger steamship on the Lakes. In other words, enjoy the Badger while you can.
Even if compliance goes smoothly over the next two seasons, the EPA will be back someday. She burns coal and that in itself is a problem in the eyes of the EPA, NIMBY's, and environmental groups "protecting" the environment that don't take into account all the fuel and emissions saved by the Badger that otherwise would occur if she wasn't there. Then you have the additional rounds of emission standards if she's repowered with a modern powerplant that she'll have to meet even afterwards since I can assure you that Tier 4 for railroads for instance isn't going to be the end of it. Rather, this is just the beginning.
And who knows what SOLAS could do to her down the road even if the American EPA doesn't manage to scuttle her.
Leo_AmesAs I understand it, the EPA's objection [to the Badger] is the poor example it sets. It's not important how safe the discharge is, what's important to them is that any waste is being dumped in the first place (Despite dozens of heavy polluters doing far worse with the EPA's consent around the Great Lakes). It's essentially the principle of the deal here.
Leo,
You make an interesting assessment of the EPA. In this case, then, you suggest a regulatory agency is not interested in actually controlling and reducing harm to the environment. Rather, it is interested in making an example of a company that is doing no significant harm. It all sounds rather cynical.
The amount of elemental mercury in a thermometer (which is being phased out in much of the world) is approximately 0.5 to 3.0 grams. By contrast, the Detroit Edison coal-fired plant in Monroe, MI emits 1631 pounds. Nationwide, 491 coal-fired power plants emit 78,367 lbs. of toxic mercury each year. The Badger emits 500 tons of coal ash annually. @ an average of 0.1 ppm Hg, that works out to 50 mg Hg, just under two ounces. Contrast with Bob Manglitz, LMC CEO and president, who has said the total amount of mercury discharged through a season is less than a half-ounce. So the amount of mercury is small, though almost four times what he claims. One exacerbating factor is that the release into water rather than into the air or on the ground is that the elemental mercury (a less toxic state) converts to the dangerous methyl mercury form more rapidly and completely.
does coal have any radioactivity? Like if it comes from wyoming? there was the radon scare a couple of years ago and coal been the ground a lot longer
Bonasdoes coal have any radioactivity? Like if it comes from wyoming? there was the radon scare a couple of years ago and coal been the ground a lot longer
You name it and in all probability some coal has it. It all depends on what kind of stuff was around the coal when it was being made. But of course not all coal has all other elements.
John WR Leo_AmesAs I understand it, the EPA's objection [to the Badger] is the poor example it sets. It's not important how safe the discharge is, what's important to them is that any waste is being dumped in the first place (Despite dozens of heavy polluters doing far worse with the EPA's consent around the Great Lakes). It's essentially the principle of the deal here. Leo, You make an interesting assessment of the EPA. In this case, then, you suggest a regulatory agency is not interested in actually controlling and reducing harm to the environment. Rather, it is interested in making an example of a company that is doing no significant harm. It all sounds rather cynical.
While I'm certainly cynical about the EPA, I believe I was just paraphrasing statements that have been made by the EPA in the past about the Badger. While there hasn't always been agreement that the testing methodology has been perfect, the amounts of contaminants that the Badger puts out during an operating season is very small and the output is scientifically classified as "inert".
It's the fact that the coal ash is being dumped in the first place that is their primary objection rather than the very small amount of pollutants present in the material. In their eyes, the Badger sets a poor example and if they let the Badger continue unhindered, my assumption is that they worry that it might lead to a real problem being able to continue when approached by the EPA in the future (Even though dozens pollute far worse than the Badger could ever dream about around the Lakes with their permission).
If there was a major problem, that Great Lakes water basin would be completely poisoned by mercury pollution at this point. The Badger is just doing what thousands of other vessels from tug boats and the yaucts of the rich once did right up to the giant bulk carriers and passenger ships that plied the lakes. From about 1840 until the 1970's, coal was the fuel of choice for most of the fleet. The Badger even had company as recently as the 1990's when the last few remants of the coal powered bulk carrier fleet sadly finally died out.
As for the mercury content, in an earlier thread I brought up several amounts listed both by the EPA and the Badger's operating company themselves and compared them mathmatically to several statistics I found for mercury content in several common household items of the past and today. I don't believe my comparison between a thermometer and the Badger's output of mercury is incorrect, but stranger things have happened.
According to Schlimm's post, I made a mistake somewhere with my conversions that night I did that. My apologies to the community if I did things incorrectly.
The calculations are fairly easy but the hard part was finding the concentration of Hg in coal ash and how much mercury is actually in a thermometer.
Leo_Ames While I'm certainly cynical about the EPA, I believe I was just paraphrasing statements that have been made by the EPA in the past about the Badger. While there hasn't always been agreement that the testing methodology has been perfect, the amounts of contaminants that the Badger puts out during an operating season is very small and the output is scientifically classified as "inert"...
While I'm certainly cynical about the EPA, I believe I was just paraphrasing statements that have been made by the EPA in the past about the Badger. While there hasn't always been agreement that the testing methodology has been perfect, the amounts of contaminants that the Badger puts out during an operating season is very small and the output is scientifically classified as "inert"...
I don't know who said it was "inert", but in EPA's recent complaint they determined that the Badger exceeded both Michigan's and Wisconsin's water quality standards for mercury throughout 2012 based on samples supplied by the ferry company. The company agreed by signature of the consent decree and will pay a hefty fine. See page 6 of the complaint, paragraph 42 and following:
http://www.justice.gov/enrd/ConsentDecrees/ENV_ENFORCEMENT-2344260-v1-LAKE_MICHICAN_TRANS-LAKE_COMPLAINT.PDF
The last time I saw the Badger in person in Ludington, Michigan, the CSX had removed the railyard.
How long after the 1987 CSX merger of the C&O did they stop tranporting freight cars on the Badger?
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
The Badger's last trip as a railroad car ferry was November 16th, 1990. Her current career as a vehicle ferry started on May 15th, 1992.
Does anyone know when her and her fleetmates stopped carrying passengers? Did the Michigan-Wisconsin Transportation Company, the company that bought C&O's remaining three ferrys (Which included the Badger's sistership the Spartan and the City of Midland 41) and continued the rail service for several years, ever carry passengers?
M-WT continued to carry passengers and autos after it took over the service sometime in the late 1980's. I rode "City of Midland 41" twice in that period from Ludington to Kewaunee (the only route in operation) and rail service was minimal, apparently freight cars were carried only on the overnight trips with nothing but passengers and autos on the day trips. "Spartan" and "Badger" were both laid up at the time.
Why have the current operators of "Badger" been given an additional two years to violate the law?. They already have had plenty of time to come into compliance and it appears to me that they are trying to postpone a financial day of reckoning that will eventually come when major repairs are needed to the propulsion system.
CSSHEGEWISCH ... Why have the current operators of "Badger" been given an additional two years to violate the law?. They already have had plenty of time to come into compliance and it appears to me that they are trying to postpone a financial day of reckoning that will eventually come when major repairs are needed to the propulsion system.
...
They are not actually violating the law until a court determines that. The consent decree is a sort of settled-out-of-court agreement that the company will do the work, and there are stipulated penalties if they miss deadlines and are on an enforcement fast track. Up until now it has only been the EPA saying one thing, and the company saying something else. Among things the Badger must do long before the 2 years is up: submit schedule of coal ash mitigation by this June; reduction of coal ash by 15% each year; and reduction of sulfur.
CSSHEGEWISCH M-WT continued to carry passengers and autos after it took over the service sometime in the late 1980's. I rode "City of Midland 41" twice in that period from Ludington to Kewaunee (the only route in operation) and rail service was minimal, apparently freight cars were carried only on the overnight trips with nothing but passengers and autos on the day trips. "Spartan" and "Badger" were both laid up at the time. Why have the current operators of "Badger" been given an additional two years to violate the law?. They already have had plenty of time to come into compliance and it appears to me that they are trying to postpone a financial day of reckoning that will eventually come when major repairs are needed to the propulsion system.
I suspect that Schlimm is right on the mark with "Badger". The whole financial situation looks similar to more than a few interurbans which were able to continue operations as long as no major capital expenditures were required.
I wrote this to the so-called journalist at the Chicago Tribune. We'll see if he has a come back.
The 611' freighter Henry Ford II (and her sister ship the Benson Ford) from 1924 was equipped with a single opposed piston 4 cylinder Sun-Doxford diesel that could put out 3,000 HP. These two power plants ran reliably for many years and could've easily lasted until very recently but the decline in tonnages in the1980's eventually led to their early exit from service. They were as powerful or more powerful than the reciprocating steam plants going into similar vessels at the time (USS was getting vessels at just 2,200 hp half a decade later).
By the 1950's, shipbuilders had a wide variety of selections for diesel plants well past 2,000 HP from companies like Hamilton, MAN, Fairbanks-Morse, and many others. Hamilton for instance had a 12 cylinder inline model that could provude 5,800 HP. Baldwin (Which already had a long history supplying diesel power plants for maritime customers) supplied USS with a 3,570HP two-cycle direct reversing 8-cylinder diesel engine in 1951 to repower the Eugene W Pargny in a test of different propulsion methods for the future and she ran until about 1980 when the recession, resulting decimation of the domestic steel industry, and new 1,000' freighters to handle much of what was left ended her career.
So don't mistake the American railroading scene (Where FM had 2,400HP engines already in 1952) as evidence that under 2,000HP was the rule.
The real confusion with the Badger's power plant isn't that it was steam and isn't that she had coal fired boilers (Which were still being installed in large Great Lakes vessels throughout the 1950's). It's why they just didn't install a 8,000 to 9,000 HP geared steam turbine. That was what the worldwide standard for large ships, merchant and military, in 1952 including Great Lakes merchant ships was. So I'd love to know what advantage the C&O saw with Uniflow engines since I'm sure they had a sound reason behind their decision. Their only other Great Lakes use outside of carferrys was on a few smaller freighters, usually repowering projects of older ships that didn't need a large amount of power with 4,000 HP or so more than adequate (And usually being a big boost over the HP of the reciprocating steam plant they were replacing).
As for the finances of this company being speculated on and being presented here by some individuals almost as if it was a fact that they're near the brink, time will tell. Your hopes just might be true since as far as I'm aware, they've made no public financial statements and are privately held. But considering what they've invested over the years, that they started with private capital, and have been very successful, I'll choose to think otherwise.
I'm puzzled why a bunch of railfans seem to be against her. I thought this segment could appreciate the environmental benefits of different modes of transport, loved history, appreciated her railroading connection, and would be keeping their fingers crossed hoping for the best while extolling her virtues for the 21st century while still having so many connections to the past. Instead we've continually at this forum had individuals almost betting against them and making claims about things they don't even know anything about like their financial situation.
If we had railfans like that back in 1950's, Trains would've probably ran a counter each month showing how many coal burning, loud, dirty, and expensive monstrositys were left running as everyone in their zeal to see that era put behind them couldn't wait for the day and wanted a count down to zero.
Thank Heavens that wasn't the case back then. If the Badger goes the way of the interurbans, there will be at least one person here that will feel sadness over the situation and be discouraged that such a unique asset in so many ways was forced to be towed to the scrapyard by 21st century idiocy instead of when her usefulness has ended.
Possible reasons for using a uniflow steam engine versus a diesel or steam turbine include:
#1 Being able to reverse the engine, two turbines would be needed (e.g. PRR S-2) if using steam turbines, reversing a diesel is possible but requires starting mechanisms
#1a Being able to into reverse immediately from forward (rules out diesel, though diesel electric would work)
#2 Being able to run efficiently at low speeds
- Erik
Thank you for the engine information.
I suspect you're right since the ability to easily go into reverse is critical for a carferry during docking. Thanks
There actually was a large lake freighter that was diesel electric but it was never repeated if that's of any interest to anyone. The ship was actually the first major use of a steam turbine on the Great Lakes as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if something like the Viking was a diesel electric though for the reasons you said (A railroad carferry that was repowered with diesels). And of course diesel electric is near universal in tugs where maneuverability and the ability to go in reverse is so important.
Something to keep in mind, "Badger" hasn't hauled railroad cars for several years now as it no longer serves Kewaunee. In the 1980's, when C&O sold the service to Michigan-Wisconsin Transportation (not the current operator), only the Ludington-Kewaunee route was still being operated by "City of Midland 41" and "Spartan" and "Badger" were both laid up. Freight cars were being carried only on the overnight runs to connect at Kewaunee with Green Bay & Western. Freight car traffic continued to dry up and M-WT eventually went bankrupt. The operation was sold to the current firm, which moved the routing to Ludington-Manitowoc, which no longer had any freight connections. "City of Midland 41" was eventually sold and cut down to a barge, leaving "Spartan" and "Badger" to cover the service.
The EPA is justifiably loathe to grant "Badger" a continued waiver to dump toxic crud into Lake Michigan as it would set a precedent for any other vessel operator to request permission to do the same. Denial of such a waiver is a public relations dream for the operators of "Badger" as they can blame someone else for the shutdown of an operation that they may not be able to maintain much longer anyway.
C&O ordered "Spartan" and "Badger" as coal-burners as a favor of sorts to its largest customers, the coal mining business. C&O was not yet sold on diesels at the time of the order and wanted to show off to the world a pair of modern coal-burning steamships. Considering the decrease of the traffic on the car ferry routes that was already apparent at the time, it's reasonable to assume that "Spartan" and "Badger" should never have been built.
greyhounds ... You never cited the actual amount of toxic substances discharged by the Badger. They are, in fact, less than insignificant. Elements such as mercury occur naturally in our environment...
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "insignificant". To reiterate an earlier post in this thread:
1. The EPA's complaint cites that the ferry companies own sample data shows that the Badger discharged Mercury above contamination criteria limits for substantially the entire 2012 season. (They violated both MI and WI pollution limits which are based on toxicological risk analysis. Contamination limits are procedurally established subject to legislative approval.)
2. The ferry company, by signing the consent agreement, admits to this.
3. The fact that it has been legally established that they have exceeded Mercury limits seems significant.
I hope that the Badger can some how work thru this problem and continue to operate, preferably as a coal burner, but I am not going to gloss over the problem.
erikem Possible reasons for using a uniflow steam engine versus a diesel or steam turbine include: #1 Being able to reverse the engine, two turbines would be needed (e.g. PRR S-2) if using steam turbines, reversing a diesel is possible but requires starting mechanisms #1a Being able to into reverse immediately from forward (rules out diesel, though diesel electric would work) ...
#1a Being able to into reverse immediately from forward (rules out diesel, though diesel electric would work) ...
Surely a gearbox would be more cost-effective and better than duplicating the turbine?
And much simpler to arrange the necessary shaft brake for rapid reversal of rotation. Or if a double-ended ferry, changing between shafts.
And, added to that, that a piston engine can run more efficiently at part load which is a different measure than low -- I presume you mean 'maneuvering' speed or traversing restricted channels. (Lower water rate for equivalent shp at low output/high turndown, too -- benefits of positive displacement with cutoff vs. the 'slip' in an impulse/reaction machine...
Hi All
I wonder if a gear box would do the job effectively.
Although I was not a marine engineer, I do remember well that gear boxes were not used in large stationary applications such as power houses. Everything was direct drive from .5-15MW machines. I was taught the reason is that gear boxes could fail under the heavy loads in power generation especially if the load had to be picked up quickly as can often happen in powerhouses.
Here in BC the Ferry Corporation has suffered several significant docking accidents in the last couple of years because of shaft drive gearing failures in several of their ferries, one at the Nanaimo (Duke Point) Terminal which significantly damaged a dock and the ship, another at Tsawwassen Terminal which although less serious, still was attributed to gearing failure on the shaft drive while docking. Both boats I believe were about 25 years old.
My wife and I were on the Nieuw Amsterdam last year and I was interested to learn that prop shaft propulsion on that boat is diesel electric as are many in Holland America's fleet now. It's more efficient they said and less prone to mechanical failure than a gear box especially under rapidly changing loads, especially reversals. I wouldn't want to be the engineer who had to deal with a propulsion gearbox failure while at sea.
IIRC Badger had a docking failure a year or two ago but it was, IIRC, an engine connecting rod failure, which considering the age of the ship wasn't entirely surprising. That old equipment was well built. I sometimes wonder about the fancy new lightweight stuff.
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
Overmod erikem Possible reasons for using a uniflow steam engine versus a diesel or steam turbine include: #1 Being able to reverse the engine, two turbines would be needed (e.g. PRR S-2) if using steam turbines, reversing a diesel is possible but requires starting mechanisms #1a Being able to into reverse immediately from forward (rules out diesel, though diesel electric would work) ... Surely a gearbox would be more cost-effective and better than duplicating the turbine?
If you had ever checked out the gearing used for marine propulsion turbines, you would know that trying to make it into the equivalent of an automotive transmission would have been anything but cost-effective. OTOH, reversing a reciprocating engine requires nothing more complex than shifting the valve motion from forward to reverse - just like the reciprocating engines under the boilers of innumerable steam locomotives.
A reciprocating steam engine is its own shaft brake. Since S.S.Badger is single ended, the, "Double-ended ferry," line is inapplicable. (Although it should be noted that the contemporaneously-constructed Staten Island ferries were powered by reciprocating steam engines.) Just as an aside, what, "Necessary shaft brake?" The ship I spent my engine room time on didn't have any such critter. We could LOCK the shaft to prevent rotation, but stopping it was done with the reverse (or forward) turbine.
#2 Being able to run efficiently at low speeds And, added to that, that a piston engine can run more efficiently at part load which is a different measure than low -- I presume you mean 'maneuvering' speed or traversing restricted channels. (Lower water rate for equivalent shp at low output/high turndown, too -- benefits of positive displacement with cutoff vs. the 'slip' in an impulse/reaction machine...
"Low speed" in this context should mean reduced shaft RPM. I have never encountered any other definition in a maritime environment.
Another little detail - reverse turbines very seldom equal the power of forward turbines. A ferry needs full power in both forward and reverse.
Chuck (ex-USMMA engine cadet)
EMD has been furnishing marine propulsion unit with reversible marine gears since the LST's of WW 2, All the tugs I can think of have either Falk, Lufkin or Reintjes gears. The only exception is the largest Washington State Ferries with ironically GE electric drive where even the propulsion motors drive through a reduction gear. The gears aren't a problem its usually the airflex clutches which only have to be replaced about once a year. The USNS Zeus is an odd ball in that it has very large direct drive motors I think that were left over from WW 2 submarines.
As far as power generators they are always direct drive like on locomotives. The difference is that the A20 "synchronous generator" is 8 pole instead of 10 pole to get 60 cycles at 900 rpm and usually operates at 4160 volts.
creepycrank EMD has been furnishing marine propulsion unit with reversible marine gears since the LST's of WW 2, All the tugs I can think of have either Falk, Lufkin or Reintjes gears. The only exception is the largest Washington State Ferries with ironically GE electric drive where even the propulsion motors drive through a reduction gear. The gears aren't a problem its usually the airflex clutches which only have to be replaced about once a year. The USNS Zeus is an odd ball in that it has very large direct drive motors I think that were left over from WW 2 submarines. As far as power generators they are always direct drive like on locomotives. The difference is that the A20 "synchronous generator" is 8 pole instead of 10 pole to get 60 cycles at 900 rpm and usually operates at 4160 volts.
Creepy
Thanks for the reference about Washington State Ferries. I guess BC Ferries is similar.
So the gearing has a clutch...is that for quick release on overload?? How does it work?? IIRC the RPM and generator voltage you reference sounds about what I remember. The memory is a bit fuzzy after 35+ years. I can't remember if I ever knew about the number of poles wound in the alternator.
Thanks Much
On the Falk gear they have 2 drums on concentric shafts, the front drum is reverse and the rear drum is forward. Bolted to the fly wheel are the clutches which are activated by a rubber tire like device that squeezes the clutch blocks locking up the whole rotating assembly. The Lufikin gear has a different arraignment with the clutch at the rear of the gear, and the Reintjes has an internal hydraulic clutch. Since the Falk clutch glands rotate all the time it is considered heavy enough for a flywheel effect to damp out the torsional vibrations from the engine. On engines equipped with Lufkin or Reintjes gears an weight ring must be used as is a rubber Vulcan coupling to achieve the damping effect. The Reintjes salesman said that the 2 stroke EMD has such a soft torsional that they can use a smaller gear than on a 4 stroke engine of similar power. That may be part of the problem on the BC ferries. WSF is building new 54 and 144 ferries with EMD's with gear drive but reversible pitch propellors which don't require the reversing feature.
Well, here's the Chicago Tribune's Michael Hawthorne's attempted response to my email:
Thanks for your message. There is nothing misleading or deceptive about my writing. Records submitted by the Badger’s owners show the ship dumps at least 507 tons of coal ash into Lake Michigan every year. Here’s a definition of coal ash from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/coalandcoalash.html Note how the EPA says the waste is concentrated. When you burn coal, this is some of the waste you get. Metals and radionuclides that aren’t emitted are concentrated in the ash left behind. Basic science.
The Badger does not report the specific amount of mercury in its discharges. But to get an idea about the toxicity of the metal, consider the fact that federal standards require the massive BP refinery in Whiting, Ind., to limit its mercury discharges to Lake Michigan to 8/100ths of a pound. Federal laws and regulations limit discharges of mercury into water bodies like Lake Michigan because it is a well-known toxic substance. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you aren’t entitled to your own facts.
There is a reason why the Badger is the last coal-powered steamship on the Great Lakes. The other old coal-burners were retired years ago, or converted to diesel. The law requires the Badger’s owners to clean up the discharges to they comply with laws that all other ships already follow. It appears the Badger’s owners now agree. They have agreed to a court-enforced deadline to stop discharging coal ash into Lake Michigan and they also will pay a fine for violating mercury water quality standards. Hardly insignificant, as you describe it.
As for Senator Durbin, I can’t control what he says or does. He is a public official who reacted to a newspaper story I wrote. That isn’t unusual. So much for your grand conspiracy theory.
Michael Hawthorne
It seems Mr. Hawthorne has chosen to dodge some issues. 1) Senator Durbin took money from Lake Express, a Badger competitor, about five months before Hawthorne's writing.. I said that is relevant and should have been mentioned. Hawthorne doesn't address that issue. 2). Hawthorne cites the mercury discharge from BP's Whiting refinery as being 8/100ths of a pound. Then he fails to say 8/100ths of a pound per what. Per year? Per ton of discharge? What? If I wrote reports that left out such important information I'd be looking for a new job.
Anyway 8/100ths of a pound is more than an ounce. Discharged right on Chicago's border. Chicago draws its drinking water from Lake Michigan. If it's OK for the refinery to discharge more than an ounce of mercury (over what time or amount of discharge we don't know) why isn't it OK for the Badger to discharge an ounce?
That amount of mercury isn't going to hurt anything. Hawthorne gives a hint of being a coal hater.
creepycrank On the Falk gear they have 2 drums on concentric shafts, the front drum is reverse and the rear drum is forward. Bolted to the fly wheel are the clutches which are activated by a rubber tire like device that squeezes the clutch blocks locking up the whole rotating assembly. The Lufikin gear has a different arraignment with the clutch at the rear of the gear, and the Reintjes has an internal hydraulic clutch. Since the Falk clutch glands rotate all the time it is considered heavy enough for a flywheel effect to damp out the torsional vibrations from the engine. On engines equipped with Lufkin or Reintjes gears an weight ring must be used as is a rubber Vulcan coupling to achieve the damping effect. The Reintjes salesman said that the 2 stroke EMD has such a soft torsional that they can use a smaller gear than on a 4 stroke engine of similar power. That may be part of the problem on the BC ferries. WSF is building new 54 and 144 ferries with EMD's with gear drive but reversible pitch propellors which don't require the reversing feature.
Thanks for this.
Sounds like a variety of different marine clutch mechanisms, depending on the mfr and the way they choose to dampen the torsional forces on the propeller shafts based on 2-4 cycle engine power output characteristics. Sounds a bit like power generation where they have moved from fixed blade to variable pitch turbines to deal with the load shifts on the alternators.
You in the engine room??
"There is a reason why the Badger is the last coal-powered steamship on the Great Lakes. The other old coal-burners were retired years ago, or converted to diesel. The law requires the Badger’s owners to clean up the discharges to they comply with laws that all other ships already follow. It appears the Badger’s owners now agree. They have agreed to a court-enforced deadline to stop discharging coal ash into Lake Michigan and they also will pay a fine for violating mercury water quality standards. Hardly insignificant, as you describe it."
Clueless
Coal fired steamships on the Great Lakes disappeared due to progress. More efficient power plants appeared causing older vessels to be retired or be repowered. And it had a cascade effect as owners of even modern coal burning ships abandoned coal as the infrastructure to resupply vessels with it disappeared around the lakes thus reducing its viability and creating a vicious circle that killed it off as a fuel.
Time made the Badger last, not the EPA like the author suggests. The only thing coal burning steamships ever had to contend with for years was inspectors with meters checking how clean burning they were to keep soot down (There's a name for the device used to gauge it that I can't recall). The Badger's encountering something that other vessel operators on the Lakes never did as coal disappeared from the 1960's into the 1990's.
To suggest that the Badger is getting away with something that other operators didn't is nonsense. There simply aren't any other affected vessel operators due to the march of time to be affected by the EPA's nonsense.
The EPA didn't cause it. Sound business reasons caused coal's demise on the Lakes. So to single out the Badger as if they're doing something wrong by still burning coal is rubbish. They simply have the misfortune of trying to deal with a law that just applies to them since they're the only vessel operator that is affected by it or will be affected by it.
CSSHEGEWISCHSomething to keep in mind, "Badger" hasn't hauled railroad cars for several years now as it no longer serves Kewaunee. In the 1980's, when C&O sold the service to Michigan-Wisconsin Transportation (not the current operator), only the Ludington-Kewaunee route was still being operated by "City of Midland 41" and "Spartan" and "Badger" were both laid up. Freight cars were being carried only on the overnight runs to connect at Kewaunee with Green Bay & Western. Freight car traffic continued to dry up and M-WT eventually went bankrupt. The operation was sold to the current firm, which moved the routing to Ludington-Manitowoc, which no longer had any freight connections. "City of Midland 41" was eventually sold and cut down to a barge, leaving "Spartan" and "Badger" to cover the service.
What's to keep in mind? I think everyone is aware that the Badger's business today is to haul vehicles and passengers with her railroad days behind her. The disappearance of rail traffic isn't a mark against the current company since they never tried for it. But she's still a freight hauler today of the 18 wheel sort along with a healthy passenger business.
City of Midland 41's boiler foundations was shot and renovations would've been very expensive. So the Badger with its raised clearances compared to her sistership got the nod.
CSSHEGEWISCHThe EPA is justifiably loathe to grant "Badger" a continued waiver to dump toxic crud into Lake Michigan as it would set a precedent for any other vessel operator to request permission to do the same.
That's something that's very much debatable.
And there is no other coal burning vessel operator to grant that exemption to and hasn't been since the mid 1990's on the Great Lakes. So who do you propose that they're worried about jumping in requesting a waiver to dump coal ash?
CSSHEGEWISCHDenial of such a waiver is a public relations dream for the operators of "Badger" as they can blame someone else for the shutdown of an operation that they may not be able to maintain much longer anyway.
And just why do you think that there's any value in that "dream" if they were shutting down? They're not going through these motions just so they can have a parting shot as they bank her fires for the final time. There's no public relations value in something if the company is dead.
Public relations value means that it will make them money. Blaming the EPA if the Badger ceases service isn't going to make them money.
And again, please stop acting like you're aware of their financial situation.
CSSHEGEWISCHC&O ordered "Spartan" and "Badger" as coal-burners as a favor of sorts to its largest customers, the coal mining business. C&O was not yet sold on diesels at the time of the order and wanted to show off to the world a pair of modern coal-burning steamships. Considering the decrease of the traffic on the car ferry routes that was already apparent at the time, it's reasonable to assume that "Spartan" and "Badger" should never have been built.
Carferry traffic was booming during the 1950's. And significant investment in railroad carferrys continued well into the 1960's such as when Ann Arbor had the Ann Arbor No. 7 rebuilt at Fraser with a new diesel electric power plant, raising the upper deck several feet to accomodate hi-cube boxcars, and the installation of a bow thruster. The Arthur K. Atkinson saw a significant rebuild as well just a bit earlier. Not to mention regular upgrades and repair for several other vessels that continued sailing into the late 60's when the business started to decline.
And while I'm sure that C&O's coal interest played a role in their selection of fuel, coal was a very common fuel on the Lakes at the time. Not only as the fuel for hundreds of older vessels but in many of the new vessels coming off the slips around the Great Lakes during the 1950's.
For instance, the ill fated 729' ore carrier Edmund Fitzgerald built in the late 1950's that sank in 1975 with the loss of all hands in a bad storm on Lake Superior burned coal from her launch until her boilers were converted to oil firing a few years before she sank.
There's nothing odd about the fuel of choice for the Badger and the Spartan. Was still a common choice for new Great Lakes freighters which were the largest cargo ships in the world during the 1950's. And as a knowledgeable poster already pointed out, there appears to have been excellent reasons to go with Uniflows as their choice for a steam powerplant to satisfy the special needs of a carferry.
MidlandMike greyhounds ... You never cited the actual amount of toxic substances discharged by the Badger. They are, in fact, less than insignificant. Elements such as mercury occur naturally in our environment... I'm not sure I know what you mean by "insignificant". To reiterate an earlier post in this thread: 1. The EPA's complaint cites that the ferry companies own sample data shows that the Badger discharged Mercury above contamination criteria limits for substantially the entire 2012 season. (They violated both MI and WI pollution limits which are based on toxicological risk analysis. Contamination limits are procedurally established subject to legislative approval.) 2. The ferry company, by signing the consent agreement, admits to this. 3. The fact that it has been legally established that they have exceeded Mercury limits seems significant. I hope that the Badger can some how work thru this problem and continue to operate, preferably as a coal burner, but I am not going to gloss over the problem.
Just because the EPA claims something doesn't make it so.
It's a witch hunt and nothing else. Meanwhile the EPA sits by while things like millions of gallons of raw sewage are dumped into the Great Lakes by a city like Milwaukee under their sanctioning.
Nobody is going to get me to believe that a substance viewed as scientifically inert that thousands of vessels dumped for well over a century in the Great Lakes is suddenly an issue of the slightest importance now that we're down to one.
Leo_Ames The only thing coal burning steamships ever had to contend with for years was inspectors with meters checking how clean burning they were to keep soot down (There's a name for the device used to gauge it that I can't recall).
Orsat? Opacity meter?
Leo_AmesNobody is going to get me to believe that a substance viewed as scientifically inert that thousands of vessels dumped for well over a Great Lakes is suddenly an issue of the slightest importance now that we're down to one.
It is the methylated form of mercury that is very hazardous. If you looked back and read some of the previous posts, you would realize that is what occurs and is the reason for the concerns. The company running the Badger has been stalling for some years as CSSHegewisch points out.
Leo_Ames MidlandMike I'm not sure I know what you mean by "insignificant". To reiterate an earlier post in this thread: 1. The EPA's complaint cites that the ferry companies own sample data shows that the Badger discharged Mercury above contamination criteria limits for substantially the entire 2012 season. (They violated both MI and WI pollution limits which are based on toxicological risk analysis. Contamination limits are procedurally established subject to legislative approval.) 2. The ferry company, by signing the consent agreement, admits to this. 3. The fact that it has been legally established that they have exceeded Mercury limits seems significant. I hope that the Badger can some how work thru this problem and continue to operate, preferably as a coal burner, but I am not going to gloss over the problem. Just because the EPA claims something doesn't make it so. It's a witch hunt and nothing else. Meanwhile the EPA sits by while things like millions of gallons of raw sewage are dumped into the Great Lakes by a city like Milwaukee under their sanctioning. Nobody is going to get me to believe that a substance viewed as scientifically inert that thousands of vessels dumped for well over a Great Lakes is suddenly an issue of the slightest importance now that we're down to one.
MidlandMike I'm not sure I know what you mean by "insignificant". To reiterate an earlier post in this thread: 1. The EPA's complaint cites that the ferry companies own sample data shows that the Badger discharged Mercury above contamination criteria limits for substantially the entire 2012 season. (They violated both MI and WI pollution limits which are based on toxicological risk analysis. Contamination limits are procedurally established subject to legislative approval.) 2. The ferry company, by signing the consent agreement, admits to this. 3. The fact that it has been legally established that they have exceeded Mercury limits seems significant. I hope that the Badger can some how work thru this problem and continue to operate, preferably as a coal burner, but I am not going to gloss over the problem.
Nobody is going to get me to believe that a substance viewed as scientifically inert that thousands of vessels dumped for well over a Great Lakes is suddenly an issue of the slightest importance now that we're down to one.
The Badger's Mercury levels exceeded Michigan and Wisconsin legal limits. Besides EPA saying it's so, the ferry company and their lawyers also signed the consent decree, along with the US Dept of Justice, and is on track to be signed by the US District Court after the public comment period. In addition newspapers at the time quoted Congressmen from both MI and WI who had been pushing for a congressional reprieve for the Badger, as praising the agreement. I don't know how much more consensus you can get.
Elemental Mercury is an inhalation hazard at room temperature. In the environment it is eventually converted to the even more toxic methylmercury by aquatic organisms and vegetation, which is bio-accumulated in fish and has led to public health advisories on eating certain Lake Michigan fish.
Your point in an earlier thread is well taken, that many Great Lakes ships have discharged ash into the lake for over a century, and yet most big cities on Lake Michigan take their drinking water from the lake (after processing). The ash from ships has been somewhat replaced by power company stack outfall. To call a hazardous substance inert, you would have to study all pathways to contaminant exposure (such as the fish example above). Sometimes seemingly hazardous substances receive an official declaration of inertness, but if the ash ever did, it's evidently been rescinded, at least for now.
Overmod Leo_Ames The only thing coal burning steamships ever had to contend with for years was inspectors with meters checking how clean burning they were to keep soot down (There's a name for the device used to gauge it that I can't recall). Orsat? Opacity meter?
I believe it was an opacity meter. But Orsat isn't the name I've seen before for it.
I believe it started with a g. I'll do some digging around in my DVD collections of Trains Magazine and Classic Trains since I've seen the name there before over the years since railroads were dealing with smoke ordinances in cities the last few years of steam as well.
Edit: It's not an Orsat. A sample isn't taken with what I'm talking about. Instead the level of blackness in the smoke is visually compared with the meter by holding it up next to the smoke in the distance and if it's above a certain threshold, a violation would be issued. It was a way to combat soot by encouraging both ships and locomotives to keep their stack exhaust clean.
schlimm Leo_AmesNobody is going to get me to believe that a substance viewed as scientifically inert that thousands of vessels dumped for well over a Great Lakes is suddenly an issue of the slightest importance now that we're down to one. It is the methylated form of mercury that is very hazardous. If you looked back and read some of the previous posts, you would realize that is what occurs and is the reason for the concerns. The company running the Badger has been stalling for some years as CSSHegewisch points out.
And if you'd go back, there's no shortage of evidence that very little of this is released into the environment. In fact it can't even be actually detected.
It's that low.
MidlandMikeThe Badger's Mercury levels exceeded Michigan and Wisconsin legal limits. Besides EPA saying it's so, the ferry company and their lawyers also signed the consent decree, along with the US Dept of Justice, and is on track to be signed by the US District Court after the public comment period. In addition newspapers at the time quoted Congressmen from both MI and WI who had been pushing for a congressional reprieve for the Badger, as praising the agreement. I don't know how much more consensus you can get.
A: The government says a lot of things but that doesn't make it correct. And I'm not contesting that they're claiming something is above their limit.
B: As far as I know, the consent decree means that they agree to disagree that there's a real problem, concede that the level of mercury is slightly above their threshold, and that they're going to find a mutually acceptable resolution. It's not a statement that means that they accept that they've been wrong to contest things.
C: They're praising the agreement since hopefully the compromise will protect the Badger, protect hundreds of jobs, protect the tourist centric industries of several communities, protect our heritage and the ability to present it to a 21st century audience, protect a viable business, and protect the environment by continuing to keep thousands of vehicles off highways going well out of their way instead of going aboard a ship that can efficiently haul many vehicles and passengers on a much more direct routing.
They're not praising it since they see it as some sort of environmental godsend. If anything, most of these concerns wanted to see the Badger be left alone. And the same environmental groups with their anti coal stance will be back along with the special interest concerns that gain to benefit from the Badger's demise.
And you all will be here claiming that the coal smoke from the single Great Lakes steamship is a threat, that somehow if she's left to operate that hundreds more will suddenly pop up wanting to burn coal after over a half century without a single coal burning vessel being built on the Lakes, that the Badger dragged her feet by not ripping out her historic engineering plant and installing something like LNG engines, etc.
Yawn...
Back in the day the opacity of stack exhaust in a stationary plant was measured with a Ringelmann Smoke Chart. Was it the same with marine exhaust.
That's it
Thanks
Leo_Ames ... B: As far as I know, the consent decree means that they agree to disagree that there's a real problem, concede that the level of mercury is slightly above their threshold, and that they're going to find a mutually acceptable resolution. It's not a statement that means that they accept that they've been wrong to contest things. ...
I would not presume that either party thinks "the consent decree means that they agree to disagree that there's a real problem..." In the decree it states:
"WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed, and this Court by entering this Consent Decree finds, that this Consent Decree has been negotiated in good faith and at arm’s length and that this Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, in the public interest, and consistent with the goals of the Act;"
I give both parties the benefit of the doubt and that they signed the decree in good faith, concerning a problem that needs to be resolved. I don't think that anyone inferred "that they've been wrong to contest things."
I can't disagree with you that the congressmen probably don't see it "as some sort of environmental godsend."
In the last paragraph of your post you say something about everyone thinking that letting the Badger go would bring back all the coal burners. I'm not sure who you are talking about, but you are not describing me.
Well, I found this:
http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5496.pdf
Those engines are fascinating to me. And I'm not a big mechanical guy. Two pistons, high pressure steam on the upstroke, lower pressure steam on the downstroke. With a common connection to the crankshaft. Who'd a thunk it?
I'm very glad the SS Badger is still steaming with coal fires. I don't believe anyone with an ounce of common sense could claim she's hurting a thing. (The ounce of common sense obviously leaves out Michael Hawthorne of the Chicago Tribune and my own on the take senator, Dick Durbin.)
Because of her railroad heritage and her coal fired steam propulsion, I nominate the SS Badger as an honorary train. She's history in motion. Long may she steam.
Edit: Here's another interesting take on the SS Badger:
http://outerboundarymagazin.wix.com/outer-boundary#!article-3/c16gd
MidlandMikeIn the last paragraph of your post you say something about everyone thinking that letting the Badger go would bring back all the coal burners. I'm not sure who you are talking about, but you are not describing me.
I never said that.
What I said was essentially that several times in this thread and the earlier thread it has been inferred that if the Badger was allowed to continue dumping coal ash that other vessel operator's would request similar permission. Thus there's just cause to specifically go after the Badger despite the fact that any damage she would cause to the environment herself is negligible.
And that's just nonsense. The only chance coal has of ever coming back as a fuel source on ships would be if large scale coal gasification ever becomes viable, the environmental lobby fails to torpedo it, and the stigma that coal carries in this country is somewhat rectified by education, common sense, and technology.
If the Badger continues it's not going to open a pandora's box. So on that basis, that's no reason for all this effort to have been expended in going after one 410' ship. There's zero threat if the Badger is allowed to continue dumping coal ash that other vessel operators would request similar permission.
greyhounds Well, I found this: http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5496.pdf Those engines are fascinating to me. And I'm not a big mechanical guy. Two pistons, high pressure steam on the upstroke, lower pressure steam on the downstroke. With a common connection to the crankshaft. Who'd a thunk it? I'm very glad the SS Badger is still steaming with coal fires. I don't believe anyone with an ounce of common sense could claim she's hurting a thing. (The ounce of common sense obviously leaves out Michael Hawthorne of the Chicago Tribune and my own on the take senator, Dick Durbin.) Because of her railroad heritage and her coal fired steam propulsion, I nominate the SS Badger as an honorary train. She's history in motion. Long may she steam.
Hear! Hear!
There's some good Youtube IIRC of the Badger's Control Room, engine telegraph and all, in operation.
In summer 2005 my wife and I tried to take her eastbound. She was booked full for nearly a week around the time we wanted to travel. Sure wish I'd tried to reserve space earlier. The trip would have been a treat, I bet.
Leo Ames, I think we agree that exempting the Badger will not lead to a resurgence in coal burning lakers (are there many still left that could be put back in working order?). I further don't think it would lead to relaxing coal fired power plant emissions because there is little bearing between stack and water discharges. I don't even think it would lead to a flood of requests for power plant ash disposal to water.
Each must make its own case, including the Badger. I remember earlier that the ferry company's environmental consultant inferred that there was ho problem based on available data, but there was not much data to draw any firm conclusions. The consultant presented it in the best possible light, but that's their job to advocate. If that conclusion could have been vetted, then the Badgers problems probably would be behind her. Since then, 2012 sample data shows Mercury levels above contaminant criteria, and proving no harm got a quantum leap harder. This may have been one of the factors that pointed them to a consent decree. Trying to say what the ash dumping may or may not effect in the greater environment without an extensive/expensive study is conjecture and somewhat philosophical.
Leo_AmesAnd you all will be here claiming ... that somehow if she's left to operate that hundreds more will suddenly pop up wanting to burn coal after over a half century without a single coal burning vessel being built on the Lakes,
I was not a part of your "you all" either.
Reposting this story from the Ludington Daily News that has been published on Boatnerd.com's news page.
"4/26 - A story “Attacking the SS Badger, the Deception of Environmental Activism,” in the most recent edition of Outer Boundary Magazine, a Wisconsin-based family outdoor magazine, details what it concludes to be an effort by Lake Michigan Carferry’s competitor to push the coal ash issue/environmental issue to gain the Milwaukee-based competitor a competitive advantage — not for the good of the environment.
The lead story by Steve Krueger tries to put in perspective the small amounts of toxins in the coal ash discharged by the SS Badger, but more notably creates a flowchart of how the magazine believes Sheldon Lubar, the founder and chairman of Lubar & Co. which lists Lake Express as its investment, hired both a Michigan lobbying firm and a national lobbying firm to foment opposition to the Ludington ferry based on exaggerated environmental claims.
The magazine links Sen. Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat and the U.S. Senate majority leader who has been notably outspoken about the Badger’s coal ash, with the Lake Express’s national lobbyist, Broydrick & Associates. The magazine times at least one of Durbin’s seven-minute Senate floor bashings to having occurred just days after a Dec. 12, 2012 fundraiser the lobbying firm hosted for Durbin in
At the National Historic Landmarks committee hearing concerning the SS Badger being recommended for NHL status, Broydrick testified in opposition to the idea. The committee rejected the lobbying firm’s arguments, as was reported in the Ludington Daily News at the time. According to the Outer Boundary story, later that same day Durbin wrote a letter to Ken Salazar, then- U.S. Secretary of the Interior who had the ultimate authority for the decision, opposing the committee’s recommendation. The designation so far has not been given to the Badger.
Broydrick also represented Lake Express in its opposition to the City of Ludington’s Tiger II federal grant application sought on behalf of LMC to provide funds to repower the Badger with diesel engines. The grant was not awarded to Ludington.
Broydrick also lobbied the EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration — all entities involved in matters pertaining to the SS Badger. It is not illegal to hire lobbyists. LMC has its own lobbyists in Washington, D.C.
And while Durbin and Broydrick push opposition to the Badger on environmental grounds, Lubar & Co lists on its web page as one of its investments, Hallador Petroleum Co., through its subsidiary Sunrise Coal LLC. The company is engaged in the production of coal from an underground mine in Carlisle, Indiana. Lubar & Co. is the second largest investor with 9.8 percent ownership. The web link to the coal company on Lubar’s investment portfolio page is directly next to the web link to Lake Express.
Hallador Energy Energy’s CEO Vic Stabio told the Denver Business News in 2011 Hallador will focus on coal indefinitely. Although Hallador considered developing environmentally sustainable energy projects Stabio said the company doesn’t anticipate an economic benefit from seeking alternatives to coal, the Denver publication reported.
“We are a group that believes in coal as a base load [the minimum amount of power required from a power plant] electrical producer and we quite frankly don’t see a threat from wind or solar, especially wind,” Stabio said.
Outer Boundary stated Hallador has urged people to write members of Congress “to stop the war on coal.” Sheldon Lubar is on Hallador’s board of directors.
While Broydrick was working the national front, Outer Boundary states the Lansing lobbying firm of Kelley Cawthorne, whose two principles are former Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelley and former State Representative Dennis Cawthorne who once represented Mason County, did the same in Michigan. The magazine’s flow chart also lists Organik Consulting and Movement Advocate as involved. Outer Boundary states Movement Advocate’s managing director is Joe Serwach who the magazine says organized the “Save Our Great Lakes” campaign which the magazine ties to “Stop Dumping Coal Ash.” The “Stop Dumping Coal Ash” was a web-based campaign against LMC and SS Badger. Its ads and videos did not clearly state the people involved in the organization as it launched sometimes preposterous claims about the Badger such as showing a photo of a foot supposedly stepping in what it intimated was black coal ash on a beach. The campaign employed techniques often seen in negative political advertising.
Stop Dumping Coal Ash also was the name placed on web-based anti-Badger Google advertising that was shown to be paid for by Lake Express and Kelly Cawthorne. The Ludington Daily News in the fall verified that link when shown it by a local marketing agent who discovered it and wanted the ads off the local company’s web site.
“The conclusion Outer Boundary Magazine has a arrived at is simple. The only reason a movement against the SS Badger has taken place is to eliminate the competition for Lake Express car ferry service. When you follow the money trail the piggy bank resides with Sheldon B. Lubar and Lake Express, and when consideration is taken showing an orchestrated environmental movement against an insignificant operation, while large discharges like British Petroleum’s refinery and the cities of Chicago and Milwaukee sewage discharges do not even show up on the activist radar, there is no other path that can be considered,” the Outer Boundary story concludes.
Calls for comments this morning made to Lake Express and Kelly Cawthorne had, as of deadline, not received response. Sen. Durbin's office in late morning said was unaware of the magazine story and early this afternoon said it contained errors, but has not yet stated what are the errors. Lake Michigan Carferry this morning praised the Outer Boundary article.
“We are pleased that Steve Krueger, of Outer Boundary Magazine, has taken this issue on. We appreciate the time and effort that he’s dedicated to bringing awareness and greater clarification to the assault that LMC has been under from our adversaries,” stated Terri Brown, director of marketing and media relations."
The impression that I'm getting from these postings is that Lake Express is expected to comply with existing environmental laws while "Badger" is allowed to get an exemption. What happened to equal protection under the law?
I imagine the Lake Express is operating under some exemptions as well.
I doubt the Lake Express high speed catamaran has need of an ash dumping exception. From the article it sounds like the Lake Express lobbyist and friends generate their own toxic output.
And there are more exemptions in the world than just coal ash discharge permits.
When all the coal ash settles, the shoestring outfit running the Badger will get its extension through deception and later suspend services after one more season, leaving the gulled folks of Ludington to figure out what to do with the abandoned hulk. LMC is simply another business. In this case they are simply exploiting legitimate nostalgia to circumvent the law and obfuscate the issue, which is that they agreed to the findings in a legal proceeding..
Leo_Ames And there are more exemptions in the world than just coal ash discharge permits.
It's just that I can't find any exemptions or adverse actions searching under "Lake Express" in either the EPA or Michigan DEQ websites.
Even if there aren't (And there very well may not be), there are all kinds of exemptions beyond for environmental issues.
And something that keeps going over the opponents head's here is that when the EPA got involved, active Great Lakes coal fired steamships were a species of one. There isn't anyone else to give an exemption to or seeking an exemption for coal ash discharge since there isn't anyone else.
Stop acting like the Badger is getting preferential treatment. The EPA rules didn't force a single coal fired steamship to the wall while letting the Badger keep on steaming.
I vaguely remember some Coast Guard inspection reports, but I don't remember it there were issues, or even which of the 2 ships it was for. I'm sure you would know more about that subject than me.
I'm sure the Coast Guard finds issues pretty regularly with both the Lake Express and the Badger. So it very well may of been either ship.
At pretty much any inspection for any vessel there's going to be something detected that the Coast Guard will either mandate that it be fixed immediately, at the next port with the proper facilities, at the next dry docking, or find something that they want to monitor for a possible issue.
It's not at all uncommon for that list to be a lengthy one. I've seen several over the years through postings at Boatnerd.com for older freighters that are expected to be retired shortly. But I'm unable to locate a database for the Coast Guard where they're posted to bring up an example for the Badger.
schlimmWhen all the coal ash settles, the shoestring outfit running the Badger will get its extension through deception and later suspend services after one more season, leaving the gulled folks of Ludington to figure out what to do with the abandoned hulk. LMC is simply another business. In this case they are simply exploiting legitimate nostalgia to circumvent the law and obfuscate the issue, which is that they agreed to the findings in a legal proceeding..
Hogwash
Here's the type of things they've taken exception at with the Badger in recent years during inspections...
http://cgmix.uscg.mil/PSIX/PSIXDetails.aspx?VesselID=42827
Hit Submit at the bottom of the page.
And for the Lake Express.
http://cgmix.uscg.mil/PSIX/PSIXDetails.aspx?VesselID=666999
Just par for the course for issues to come up. Happens pretty much anywhere with rigorous inspections from restaurants all the way to large vessels. Some of this stuff isn't even the type where the inspector found an issue that either the vessel operator didn't locate on their own or just had neglected to address, since some stuff has to be reported by the vessel operator when a problem is discovered and then inspected by the Coast Guard when repaired to get their approval that it was done correctly.
Just as an update for the SS Badger supporters here, she successfully had new combustion controls installed during her winter layup that have increased her fuel efficency and will result in a significant reduction in coal ash. Cost for Lake Michigan Carferry Services was over $1 million dollars. Next winter, the easier and cheaper portion of the project will happen when she's retrofitted for containing her coal ash onboard.
And late last month, the National Parks System Advisory Board voted to recommend to Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell to recognize the SS Badger for National Historic Landmark status. Those that support this cause should lend their support which can easily be done via signing the following petition.
https://www.change.org/petitions/sally-jewell-please-approve-the-designation-of-the-s-s-badger-as-a-national-historic-landmark
And since this thread was last active, the last Great Lakes freighter with a Skinner Marine Unaflow engine, the St. Mary's Challenger from 1906 (That's 6 years before the Titanic sank), was cut down into a barge last winter and is now an articulated tug/barge combination pushed by a tug in a notch in what's left of her stern.
The railroad carferry Badger is now the last of its kind for this marine engine outside of possibly the former USS Comstock, an ex USN LSD from 1945 that was still active in the Taiwanese Navy a half decade ago.
Thanks for the good news and lot of people will sign, certainly.
I'm not sure how it would work, but I believe that granting landmark status to "SS Badger" would be the kiss of death. The owners would have to jump through all kinds of hoops to make any modifications to the boat from its existing design, including a probable diesel re-powering when the EPA exemption expires or any safety modifications required by the Coast Guard.
When what EPA exemption expires? They won't be dumping coal ash after this season so the need for that exemption will be gone.
And unless federal money is involved, they're free to do whatever they want with their property.
As Paul said above, with landmark status, they are no longer "free to do whatever they want with their property." Any changes in the external appearance, and many internals must be approved with difficulty.
Again, that's not correct. Unless federal grant money is taken, there are no restrictions.
I stand corrected. The restrictions are not substantive in that category. But if it then is added to a state or local listing, there may be more restrictions.
I'm not aware of any state programs being even more restrictive. But it should also be noted that they can't be put on such a list involuntarily. You can rest assured that they're not willingly going to tie their own hands. If this succeeds, it will be with their full support.
This is great news, that they are able to make good progress on meeting their EPA consent agreement requirements. I hope that they are right about their recent work putting the hardest part behind them. I will breath a sigh of relief when they finally have a functioning ash retention system.
http://www.shorelinemedia.net/ludington_daily_news/business/article_43734e9a-d2e4-11e3-a0ee-001a4bcf887a.html
The latest issue of Seaway Review has a nice article about the Badger's 1.5 million dollar combustion control system that was installed last winter.
http://harborhouse.com/digital/seawayreview43-1.htm
Next up is the coal ash retention system which gets a brief mention at the end of the article. Should cost under $500,000 and work is underway right now to get it ready for spring.
Well you have to laugh at Chicago. It is OK to reverse the flow of the Chicago River to flush sewage in the direction of the Mississippi....and thats OK. They are overly concerned about a little coal ash dumping by a small Ferry. As if there was no runoff via the large lakeside coal piles surrounding the lake.
Flat Landers at their best.
Yeah, difficult to understand how millions of gallons of untreated raw sewage can be dumped in the lakes (And much worse than that with EPA approval), but folks were getting their underwear in a bunch over a single steamship.
At least they've been able to successfully respond. I just hope that my fears are unfounded since I suspect the EPA will be back in 5-10 years with further complaints.
I remembered that the old ash removal system flushed it with water. The article says they will use "blowers". Does that mean it will be a dry system?
That's my understanding. The blowers remove the ash that then goes by a conveyor in a tube to portable containers (which unfortunately takes a bit of space away on the cardeck) that will be removed once filled. The fly ash will hopefully be sold and serve a useful purpose, instead of just being hauled away to a dump. The slurry idea has always been prohibitive (Too much to store onboard, too much time to pump it out between trips, and too expensive to dispose of) and was why this idea was initially deemed not viable.
Sadly, the vast majority of the 146 polluters that were putting more mercury into Lake Michigan than the Badger was back in 2012 according to the Argonne National Labratories (On average, 36 times more), such as BP, continue with the EPA's blessing with permits despite the Great Lakes Clean Water Act. BP dumps 23.1 parts per trillion of mercury throughout the year (When the standard is supposed to be 1.3).
And that's just one of the many harmful things being dumped into our waters by a single refinery (And in one concentrated area at that, unlike a ship). Badger on the other hand had a mercury output several years ago (before modifying their schedule, switching coal, and the new combustion control system) that was two 1/100th's of an ounce of mercury during the course of a season and was well under the limit during 80% of its time under steam. Its other contaminants were undebatably always under the allowable limits. And unlike a refinery, it had a net benefit for the environment (A savings of approximately 1 million gallons of gas and diesel each year).
Speaks volumes about the process that went on with the Badger...
Leo_AmesSpeaks volumes about the process that went on with the Badger...
I have to say I'm impressed with Great Lakes Carferry's actions here in retrofitting combustion control and ash handling systems at a not inconsiderable cost. These retrofits wouldn't be the easiest to design and instal, I expect' given the age of the boilers, their firing systems and associated controls. No 'plug and play' here.
They don't sound to me like they're cutting corners. They sound like a responsible company doing what they need to do in order to comply with enviroregs and spending the necessary money to do so on the one boat I believe they run. $1M isn't an inconsiderable amount to spend and the work isn't complete. I wonder what the total bill will be?
I know my wife and I tried to get on an EB trip in midsummer several years ago and found out how busy Badger really is.
Good for them.
Charlie,
If memory serves, the restrictions were forced on them after years and years of extensions. I don't believe they installed the ash retention facilities before they were forced to.
Norm
Cost that I'm aware of are at least 250,000 in engineering studies, 1.5 million for the combustion control system, and something under half a million for the project underway this winter. So safe to assume that the bill, when all is said and done, will be well over two million dollars.
As for the last post, it's definitily not accurate. The EPA came knocking in 2008 and the Badger fully provided the necessary information. The EPA gave them a permit that lasted through the end of 2012, agreeing that the current system was the BAT at the time, with LMC believing that they could devise a solution for 2013 that would change that. It was them that told the EPA in 2008 that they thought they could devise a zero discharge system. It wasn't the EPA's mandate. The EPA told them that if this ended up not being possible, that LMC should pursue an extension.
LMC spent that quarter of a million dollars I mentioned after this permit was granted as they pursued their goal of zero dischage into Lake Michigan. Sadly, they weren't able to find a technically feasible and economically viable solution at the time. Coal slurry as I said, simply would take up far too much room to store, too much time to pump out in port, and cost too much to dispose of. And storing the fly ash dry onboard would've required about 2-3 days of idleness after every 12 hours of operation. So LMC filed for that permit to extend things and that's when things heated up thanks to the competitor's lobbying.
But they're going to satisfy the consent decree that gave them a single extension for two seasons, with penalties each year. And this is something never before done, that had no demonstrable technologies available for LMC to fall back on. This is all unknown territory and they've done a fine job of it so far.
And they hardly dragged their feet before this. They were making improvements long before the EPA got involved, like the stack camera that was installed in 2000 for one of the more minor but very useful retrofits that has been done (Allows the engineers to monitor the stack smoke).
The entire boiler system was overhauled and upgraded over approximately the decade before the EPA came around, providing for significant efficency gains that directly benefited the environment.
Leo
Thank you for the information you provided above.
I thought that any company that is spending this kind of money on retrofits must have had some history of (pre)planning and perhaps doing other work to comply.
Like I said previously, old boilers, combustion equipment and firing controls would take a lot of professional research/design time, never mind the cost of boilermakers and other trades to retrofit. That process would take a lot of time and money for a marine (or indeed any) plant as old as this.
Sounds like they got it right after time.
Good for EPA...they must have seen something positive happening to grant an extension.
The Badger's ash collection and conveyor system has now been delivered.
A local news story has said they have begun installation.
http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?list=194409&id=1149981#.VLh-vCvF-o8
Concerning conversion to oil fire, there was a item somewhere that EPA had mandated production of Bunker C is banned by 2020. I'm not a ship guy, but I believe most modern ships run on Bunker C as it is cheap. There is a switch to a lighter grade when coming into ports with air quality restrictions.
I would think that the market for Bunker C as ship fuel will decline over time as more vessels are built or re-powered with diesels.
They run on a variety of fuels, including LNG (Particularly for vessels that haul that cargo, but other operators are also exploring burning that in their existing diesels, such as Interlake Steamship's plans for their footers).
And technically, Bunker C, like what oil fired steam locomotives commonly burned, is just one of several residual heavy fuel oils available.
Exemptions for cheap high sulphur fuels will be available to allow it to continue to be used, but the standards will still have to be met via alternate means. Interlake Steamship, an American company that operates a fleet of lakers on the Great Lakes, just announced that they'd be retrofitting scrubbers on a late 1950's laker that was repowered with Rolls Royce diesels 5 years ago or so, in order to fulfill this requirement.
That will allow her to continue to burn heavy fuel oil with today's sulphur content, if successful in eliminating the sulphur levels.
Good article about this.
http://www.shorelinemedia.net/ludington_daily_news/news/local/article_f072d2de-9c1d-11e4-9977-5f1907d33838.html
While it will be with much annoyance for a couple of people around here that were betting against her and wanted to see her scrapped, the sailing season is only a couple of weeks away now for the Badger.
:)
Leo_Ames While it will be with much annoyance for a couple of people around here that were betting against her and wanted to see her scrapped, the sailing season is only a couple of weeks away now for the Badger. :)
Did they get the dry ash handling system (I think was the next upgrade to be completed) in.....or have they finished it and are now on to another project.
As I've said here before, good for them. Hope it's a good and busy season on the Lake.
That was this winter's project. She won't be dumping any coal ash this season, bringing to completion Lake Michigan Car Ferry's goal that they independently developed before all the shameful antics of the last two or three years started.
Here's the last official update they posted, showing parts of the system.
http://www.ssbadger.com/manager/ext/filemanager/download.php?id=989
Nothing specifically about this in recent weeks. Rather, all indications are that they're instead ready to return to normal business once again, with the focus squarely on the upcoming sailing season instead.
Good article about the Badger.
http://www.shorelinemedia.net/ludington_daily_news/news/local/article_dab3d696-f8ed-11e4-9a4f-af4d1e2ca189.html
Tomorrow is the big day.
Takes about 4 hrs. (elapsed time) to cross - local times at each end vary +/- 1 hr. since it crosses from the Eastern to Central time zone on the westward trip, and back again when heading eastward.
Fares are $59 one-way (early season discount) per person plus a $5 security fee; autos are another $59 (does not include any passengers). See:
http://www.ssbadger.com/schedule-fares/
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr Takes about 4 hrs. (elapsed time) to cross - local times at each end vary +/- 1 hr. since it crosses from the Eastern to Central time zone on the westward trip, and back again when heading eastward. Fares are $59 one-way (early season discount) per person plus a $5 security fee; autos are another $59 (does not include any passengers). See: http://www.ssbadger.com/schedule-fares/ - Paul North.
Notice in one of the videos on the Badger site that the main deck still appears to have the track set up from it's days as a railcar ferry.
schlimm I'm not sure why anyone would interpret my statement about coal ash as referring only to the Badger. Obviously it refers to coal-fired boilers from utilities: (from the GLC) "In 2005, coal-fired power plants were by far the largest source of anthropogenic mercury emissions to the atmosphere in the Great Lakes states and Ontario, accounting for an estimated 57 percent of total anthropogenic emissions (Figure 4a). They are also the single largest sources in Ontario and most of the Great Lakes states except Minnesota and New York (GLRC 2010). Among the Great Lakes states, Pennsylvania has the highest annual emissions of mercury followed by Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana. However, the mapping of major and minor sources indicates that there is a high density of anthropogenic mercury emission sources across the region (Figure 4b).Total mercury emissions to the atmosphere from inventoried anthropogenic sources in the Great Lakes states declined by approximately 50 percent between 1990 and 2005 (NEI 1990, NATA 2005). This decline reflects the leadership the region has demonstrated in controlling mercury emissions through state, regional, binational, and voluntary actions (Cain et al. 2011). Approximately 43 percent of anthropogenic emissions from sources in the Great Lakes basin are reactive gaseous mercury (RGM) or particulate mercury (PHg), the forms that are most likely to be deposited within the region (Denkenberger et al. 2011). This emissions profile suggests that regional and local scale mercury emissions are undoubtedly important to mercury deposition and effects in the Great Lakes basin (Denkenberger et al. 2011)." http://www.watershedcouncil.org/learn/mercury-in-the-great-lakes/files/glmercuryconnections_finalreport.pdf As to the question about source of atmospheric mercury: http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury / However, the large reduction in industrial emissions in the great Lakes from 1970-2000 and the corresponding reduction in methylated mercury levels in fish strongly implies that the man-made source is key. And obviously, it is the only one within our control.
I was going to mention that just in Wisconsin alone (not to mention Illinois) there are a number of Coal Fired Plants right on the shore of the lake with very little seperating their large coal and waste piles from runoff into the late. I know their powerplant at Sheboygan with a large coal pile just a few feet from a river / bay that is part of the Lake Michigan system. Wisconsin at least has a lot of work to do. Illinois does as well but usually Illiniois finds a way to redirect pollution to another dumping ground instead of cleaning it up because the method of redirection is a lot cheaper.
One of the power plants in Wisconsin on Lake Michigan had a large coal ash loss into the lake. I can't remember if it was an active ash dump, or a buried dump that eroded into the lake. Anyway, they had quite an involved clean-up.
MidlandMike One of the power plants in Wisconsin on Lake Michigan had a large coal ash loss into the lake. I can't remember if it was an active ash dump, or a buried dump that eroded into the lake. Anyway, they had quite an involved clean-up.
And probably behind the Wisconsin clean-up was the Canadians as they are part of the treaty that manages most of the Great Lakes.
BaltACD Notice in one of the videos on the Badger site that the main deck still appears to have the track set up from it's days as a railcar ferry.
I believe the rail connection at Kewanee has been removed. When I go through Kewannee, the ROW looks like a trail. So there is no need for rail use on the ferry
CMStPnP MidlandMike One of the power plants in Wisconsin on Lake Michigan had a large coal ash loss into the lake. I can't remember if it was an active ash dump, or a buried dump that eroded into the lake. Anyway, they had quite an involved clean-up. And probably behind the Wisconsin clean-up was the Canadians as they are part of the treaty that manages most of the Great Lakes.
The US EPA (or the state agencies that carry out the environmental laws at the state level) jump all over the power companies when the have an ash spill into a waterway. The Canadians are proposing a low level nuclear waste dump at a power plant adjacent to Lake Huron, so they have their own problems.
Electroliner 1935 I believe the rail connection at Kewanee has been removed. When I go through Kewannee, the ROW looks like a trail. So there is no need for rail use on the ferry
The Badger sails between Ludington, MI and Manitowoc, WI. The rail connection at Ludington (C&O) has been cut back a few blocks. I'm not sure about Manitowoc. Kewaunee (GB&W) has not been served by ferry for at least 20 years. Frankfort, MI also lost their rails (AA) about 20 years ago.
EDIT: Looking at Google Earth, a 2011 image of Manitowoc shows the old ferry rail yard tracks end about 1000' from the apron
It wouldn't take much to reconnect the ferry dock to live rails in Manitowoc, if anyone was so inclined, which I am sure they are not. That was the era of urgent but nonetheless loose car railroading which is not where the action is these days (one steady C&O carferry customer for example was American Motors/Rambler in Kenosha WI - auto parts from Michigan would be brought over on the ferry to Milwaukee and sent down the CNW old line (Kenosha Sub now on the UP) to meet American Motors' "just in time" delivery demands that could not be met if the parts were subject to the whims and problems of getting through Chicago. Much of that urgent industrial traffic base is gone or radically changed.
A ride on the Badger is a very worthwhile experience for the railfan however. There is much C&O related material preserved on board, and the stations at each end have historic photos on display. There are things of railfan interest to explore or photograph at both ends of the ride, including an old coaling facility in Ludington. The Lake Express is faster and in its own way an enjoyable ride but utterly lacking in class or style -- it's the difference between a Super 8 and fine, old, if someone timeworn, hotel.
Dave Nelson
If you want to get off the Badger fast at your destination, travel with a dog. Vehicles with dogs are loaded last and taken off first.
Here's a good video demonstrating the old and new ash removal systems aboard the Badger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cKiEMj_x4c&feature=youtu.be
Now that everything is up and running well, maybe the fear mongers and people like Dick Durbin, either after patting themselves on the back for a job well done or after being consoled that they were unable to scuttle the Badger, can start to tackle some of the real problems around the Great Lakes watershed now that this has been done.
There are worse violators out there around the Great Lakes that continue to dump large amounts of pollutants with the EPA's blessing. Go after them and maybe we can actually effect some positive change to the water quality of the world's largest concentration of fresh water.
Leo_Ames Here's a good video demonstrating the old and new ash removal systems aboard the Badger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cKiEMj_x4c&feature=youtu.be Now that everything is up and running well, maybe the fear mongers and people like Dick Durbin, either after patting themselves on the back for a job well done or after being consoled that they were unable to scuttle the Badger, can start to tackle some of the real problems around the Great Lakes watershed now that this has been done. There are worse violators out there around the Great Lakes that continue to dump large amounts of pollutants with the EPA's blessing. Go after them and maybe we can actually effect some positive change to the water quality of the world's largest concentration of fresh water.
The Badger people seem to have moved on, and are proud to show off their first ever ash recovery system. Yet you seem to be wanting to continue to harp on the political sausage grinding (which occured on both sides) and which in the end had no baring on the Dept. of Justice consent order that ended the whole thing. I am just happy that the Badger claned things up, and continues to steam away as a coal-burner.
At the time of the creation of the EPA, rivers caught on fire leading into Lake Erie, America's dead sea. I think by now they already did "effect some positive change to the water quality of the world's largest concentration of fresh water."
After some earlier postings, I can't resist taking a few parting shots now that a successful resolution has been reached. But your point has been noted...
That said, I didn't say that they haven't done any good, since it's obvious that we have made great strides in this area over the past forty years. Many positive changes have came about thanks to the EPA. I simply said that the effort invested into this particular issue isn't going to contribute to improving the health of the Great Lakes.
Unfortunately, the pollution from the Badger is just the small tip of the iceberg for the remaining issues of any sort of significance that pose a threat to the health of the Great Lakes. While obviously I'm cynical about the motives that were at play here, let's hope the same groups go after some of these other much larger problems with the same vigor, while seeking productive resolutions this time for all the stakeholders.
Getting back to the Badger, someone commented on Boatnerd.com's message board that they had heard that the ash removal system creates a lot of noise and can be heard throughout the ship when it's operating.
http://newsearch.boatnerd.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=86553
If true, there sounds like there might be a few bugs to resolve. Not unexpected, I suppose, when technology new to the marine environment is being tried for the first time.
Since "Badger" is the only coal-burner on the Lakes, the technology in question is pretty much a one-off development that won't be useful on other boats.
Now that this issue has been settled, the next question is: How long will it be before the boilers and engines are in need of a major overhaul?
Leo_AmesGetting back to the Badger, someone commented on Boatnerd.com's message board that they had heard that the ash removal system creates a lot of noise and can be heard throughout the ship when it's operating.
Given how it appears to work, I can't imagine it not making a lot of noise when it operates. That's a lot of metal on metal.
However, unless they are constantly raking the grates, I would think operation is intermittent. In fact, if it's that noisy, I can see them running it only periodically, as needed to move the ash. If the capacity is greater than how fast the ash can be raked, that shouldn't be a problem.
I also wouldn't think that it would need to be operated constantly while under steam.
CSSHEGEWISCHNow that this issue has been settled, the next question is: How long will it be before the boilers and engines are in need of a major overhaul?
They keep the engines in tip top shape, and the boilers were just recently overhauled.
Leo_AmesThey keep the engines in tip top shape, and the boilers were just recently overhauled.
Then someone can probably explain to me why, in every recent video I've seen, there is really awful soft-coal smoke coming from the stack under just about any operating condition.
It ought to be trivial to have nothing but haze, if that, visible most of the time. It looks as if there is inadequate induced draft, and something quenching the combustion plume very early, perhaps excessive economization?
I'd like to be able to 'blame it on the coal' but this is a ship, with plenty of room and power to run an effective stack draft system and properly-preheated overfire air. So what is the legitimate excuse for the visible level of PM?
I'm not sure.
Not too uncommon when they're getting underway. But if it's happening everywhere like even in the middle of the lake, I don't know.
But that they've overhauled the boilers such as retubing and rebuilding fireboxes in recent years (And I recall something like two million dollars going into her four boilers back in 1999/2000 or there abouts), not to mention the combustion controls they've installed two winters ago, is verifiable and well publicized. And they haven't been shy at reinvesting with the engines themselves, either, like several hundred thousand dollars just before this saga started to replace all the cylinder liners for the first time since she was built.
The Coast Guard and EPA have given them their approval, and I would imagine that if the soot was too bad, they'd be getting a lot more scrutiny soon. Fines for such things have been happening long before there was ever a EPA.
There's always evidence of it being coal smoke though, so are we sure it's not just closer scrutiny after the events of the past 2 or 3 years? Nothing odd about it looking like it does below after she's underway.
Nor is there anything odd about such times, when the evidence of coal smoke is most abundant, being when tourists most like to take pictures. There's an appeal to it, just like steam fantrips when the fireman may deliberately produce generous amounts of black smoke and needlessly keep the cylinder cocks open just for show. So such situations are more likely to be shared than when the exhaust is clean looking.
Unlike a steam locomotive, she's pretty much always working hard when underway. So if there's not a problem here like optimizing the combustion control system that just went in a year ago or an inexperienced member of the engine room crew, I'd say that people are just looking closer at her stack these days.
Which is my worry now that the ash troubles are behind her. I'm not convinced that her stack emissions are safe for even the medium-term future. Plus, there's other things that can be scrutinized.
For instance, she and the many other Great Lakes steamers at the time were facing an issue with her boiler water back in the 1970's, that promised to shut down C&O's already marginal ferries, by mandating that the water temperature match the temperature of the lake. What goes into Lake Michigan these days lacks the coal ash now, and has long been devoid of any waste oil thanks to a separator system (Unsure about chemical additives to prevent scale, but I suspect it's removed these days), but is still about 25 degrees higher than the lake.
While I agree with something like the holding tank mandate for waste that went in back then (And I'd agree with the coal ash mandate, had it been handled differently), that hairbrain mandate about her boiler water seemed to die a very deserving death back then, but could yet reappear.
It promised to idle her back in the mid 70's (It's mentioned in a popular story about Great Lakes carferries in Trains back then, by George W. Hilton), and could yet again affect her and the remaining American oil fired steamers.
I thought steam boats used condensers to recycle the steam/boiler water. How much boiler water has to be discharged?
I'm no engineer, but interesting question. Wish I had an answer.
And as far as I'm aware for vessels that weren't meant to ever leave the Great Lakes, they usually weren't condensing and draw all their feedwater directly from the lake, with it treated prior to use. On an ocean going ship, they reuse what they can by running it through a condenser, so the evaporator only has to make up the difference.
That doesn't mean that it's correct, though.
Edit: Yep, at least some steamships on the Great Lakes have been noncondensing, and don't have closed feedwater systems. The Badger and Spartan, judging by an article in Trains from the mid 1970's, are two such examples.
Remember, too, that Great Lakes steamers have a virtually unlimited supply of fresh water. I'm not so sure that salties want salt water in the boiler system, which is why they would want to use condensers.
Then, again, I'm not a marine boiler expert...
I took the tour of the City of Milwaukee a couple of years ago, and I am thinking that is where I got the idea that lakers were condensing. While the open waters of the lakes are amazingly clear, the harbors are another story, with both river silt and waste products. They say you don't want to put any water in your boilers that you wouldn't drink, but maybe that just applies to railroad boilers.
I think Leo is our resident marine expert.
They have to have a tank, in order to apply water treatments to it to remove oxygen, help minimize the build-up of scale with chemical additives, etc. While I'm unsure of the capacity (I wish I knew more about what goes on in the engine room), it wouldn't surprise me if it was more than enough to allow the Badger, for instance, to dock and depart without having to draw water directly from the harbor to supply her boilers.
They do the same thing with what you drink, shower, and wash with. They don't draw that on demand from rivers and harbors, but far out in the middle of the lake into a holding tank before treating it (Although I bet the Badger draws their drinking water from municipal sources).
That's why a ship like the American Republic, once a regular on the Lorain to Cleveland ore shuttle up the Cuyahoga River, would routinely depart that run for a trip before returning.
They'd basically detour, just to replenish their water supply. You wouldn't want to drink the water close to shore in that part of Lake Erie (And even today, I wouldn't want to even just shower with water taken from the Cuyahoga), so they'd go load ore up in Duluth for instance and fill up in the middle of Superior (And get their mail and replenish their provisions by mailboat near the locks at Sault Saint Marie).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.