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. :)
Leo
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.
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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'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.
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...
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.