RailRoadFan.com

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2012 ... S-S-Badger

See link above for the possible end of the ship as an institution at Ludington. Disturbing

Storm cancelled the sailing today and for Halloween. Th and F, November 1st and 2nd might be the last chance to take a voyage.

That put the Lake Michigan Carferry Service squarely in the EPA's crosshairs, with the agency essentially saying: "Fix the problem by 2013, or be put out of business."

That kind of crap should be unacceptable. Some politicians declare they are for every job, yet support the ravenous "Environmental Protection Agency", who time and time and time again uses their power to shut down whatever they want whenever they want. If you want to count coal ash, go to Europe.





500 tons? Give me a break. Those lakes are so darned heavy they depress the earth's crust. Go look at five loaded coal cars, then try to tell me how putting those in the Great Lakes would do any major harm. Hey, those wind turbines are going to replace coal-fired plants like Campbell and Cobb?

MQT3001 wrote:

That put the Lake Michigan Carferry Service squarely in the EPA's crosshairs, with the agency essentially saying: "Fix the problem by 2013, or be put out of business."

That kind of crap should be unacceptable. Some politicians declare they are for every job, yet support the ravenous "Environmental Protection Agency", who time and time and time again uses their power to shut down whatever they want whenever they want. If you want to count coal ash, go to Europe.





500 tons? Give me a break. Those lakes are so darned heavy they depress the earth's crust. Go look at five loaded coal cars, then try to tell me how putting those in the Great Lakes would do any major harm. Hey, those wind turbines are going to replace coal-fired plants like Campbell and Cobb?

You do realize the lakes are there because of holes left by glaciers right?

CAT345C wrote:You do realize the lakes are there because of holes left by glaciers right?

He knows everything, Mike.

Y@ wrote:

CAT345C wrote:You do realize the lakes are there because of holes left by glaciers right?

He knows everything, Mike.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Y@ wrote:

CAT345C wrote:You do realize the lakes are there because of holes left by glaciers right?

He knows everything, Mike.

"What I meant to say..."

Could someone point out where I said the lakes were created by something other than glaciers? Or maybe where I mentioned the creation of them at all?

You can't, because I never did.


I spoke of the weight of the water depressing the earth's crust. Not to be confused with glacial depression, which had the same effect (to a greater extent however), plus the carving out of the lakes.

MQT3001 wrote:Could someone point out where I said the lakes were created by something other than glaciers? Or maybe where I mentioned the creation of them at all?

You can't, because I never did.


I spoke of the weight of the water depressing the earth's crust. Not to be confused with glacial depression, which had the same effect (to a greater extent however), plus the carving out of the lakes.

No, I can't do any of that, because I flat out do not care.

MQT3001 wrote:500 tons? Give me a break.

500 tons a year, over how many years though.

Just out of curiosity, would it be plausible to keep the ash on board, and just unload it on shore instead of dumping it into the lake?

Practice Safe CSX

This is something I don't understand either, what is the reason the ash has to be dumped in the lake? From what I have been told the stuff is high in heavy metals and heavy metals are hell on the environment even in small amounts, especially in regards to the food chain.

Why not just convert it to an oil, gas, or propane burner? Let's face it, efficiency is not real high on the list since it is still burning coal. Wouldn't it be better to modify it so it can still exist and operate instead of turning it into a stationary museum or whatever the outcome would be?

kelvindex1 wrote:Why not just convert it to an oil, gas, or propane burner? Let's face it, efficiency is not real high on the list since it is still burning coal. Wouldn't it be better to modify it so it can still exist and operate instead of turning it into a stationary museum or whatever the outcome would be?

They want to, but they aren't ready to convert yet, as they still need to work out the logisitcs. That's why they need ad extension, and are going through this junk with the EPA.

kelvindex1 wrote:Why not just convert it to an oil, gas, or propane burner? Let's face it, efficiency is not real high on the list since it is still burning coal. Wouldn't it be better to modify it so it can still exist and operate instead of turning it into a stationary museum or whatever the outcome would be?

Because that makes too much sense. However, oil or gas would still lead to polluting our air and causing global warming, so the EPA would likely be against that as well. Then again, all those vehicles on the roads driving around the southern tip of Lake Michigan would also dump pollution into the air. It's a no-win situation and we're all going to die!!

J T wrote: Because that makes too much sense. However, oil or gas would still lead to polluting our air and causing global warming, so the EPA would likely be against that as well. Then again, all those vehicles on the roads driving around the southern tip of Lake Michigan would also dump pollution into the air. It's a no-win situation and we're all going to die!!

About darn time somebody explains it in english!

At first, I was outraged. But with all the dieselized 1000 footers on the lakes, it shouldn't be too difficult to dieselize a 400 footer. Looks like they just don't want to spend the money. A lot of old steam powered lakers have been dieselized, and are still sailing.

I think coal is cheap per btu (relative to alternatives) and the engines work just fine and very reliably on coal the way they are. While possible any type of conversion, on board ash storage, associated logistics changes, and cost of other fuels would increase the cost of operating the boat by both certain and unknown margins. The Lake Michigan Car ferry is a for profit venture that makes money. Increased and unknown costs put that profitability in jeopardy and therefore also put the future operation of the Badger at risk. There is another for profit car ferry across the lake that probably would like to see less competition. I would imagine the other ferry's management has the ear of a few politicians and also people of influence at the epa. I think this summarizes quite well what is actually going on. So yes there are alternatives. That probably isn't really what this is all about. The questions Really are: At what cost? If not now then when, if ever?

As usual, things usually aren't what they appear.

Replacing those engines is a multi-million dollar task. It would make sense if the boat was paid to move year-round, but it's a lot harder to pay for out of future ticket revenues when you only run 3-4 months/year as a tourist ferry.

I'm not taking sides here. I know it would be expensive. But the Badger is a private, for profit company. And most of the lakers have been dieselized, and are making a profit. True, their season is longer, but not year around. The Badger has extended their season this year, basically hauling freight [wind turbine parts]. Perhaps the Badger could extend their season every year, and find other sources of freight and revenue, before and after the tourist season. Perhaps a little effort in that direction would be better than the alternative of taking it out of service and scrapping it. Hauling semi trailers or containers across the lake might be worth exploring, since it originally hauled railcars.
This is just an observation, but they seem to be relying on their historic status to make a profit operating just three or four months a year. Maybe they need to change with the times.

The Badger operates on a similar schedule to the ferry out of Muskegon. They have 1 round-trip in the spring and fall, and 2 in the summer.

Perhaps someone at the EPA should run the math and see the Badger's environmental footprint is nearly or completely made up by saving autos the trip around the lake. Oh yeah, and those wind turbines: those replace coal eventually, so the Badger's environmental score becomes even better. If they hadn't shipping those parts by sea, imagine them going by truck through/around Chicago