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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.