Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Coal a Hot Issue, Even Doused in Cold Water

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Coal a Hot Issue, Even Doused in Cold Water
jimh posted 03-23-2013 09:07 AM ET (US)   Profile for jimh   Send Email to jimh  
The 410-foot-long former railroad car ferry turned passenger excursion and automobile ferry, the BADGER, is still burning coal for her power, just as she did in 1953 when built, making her the last large coal burning steamship in the United States. The practice of dumping coal ash into Lake MIchigan in a water slurry has been the focus of great concern for several years. The BADGER had been granted an exception from the outlawed practice, but that expired in 2012.

The operators of the BADGER threatened to stop running the ferry if they couldn't continue to dump their coal ash into the lake. Grass root organizations on both sides of the issue began to solicit support.

Opponents of the special exemption for the BADGER created a website, http://stopdumpingcoal.org/ to encourage participation to stop the pollution.

Supporters of the BADGER created a social media website, https://twitter.com/SOS_Badger to encourage the public to join their side of the debate.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan in Grand Rapids just issued a consent decree on this matter: the BADGER can continue its special exemption and dump pollution into Lake Michigan for the 2013 and 2014 sailing season.

One source says the BADGER dumps 509-tons of illegal waste each season. In comparison, the rest of the commercial ships on the Great Lakes, the entire fleet combined, only discharge 89-tons of coal, limestone or iron waste per season.

The proponents of a special exemption for the BADGER cite its economic benefit to the communities at each end of its crossing route.

For more information, see:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-22/news/ ct-met-coal-ash-ferry-deal-20130323_1_bob-manglitz-coal-ash-badger-ferry

http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/muskegon/index.ssf/2013/03/ timeline_debate_over_ludington.html

Binkster posted 03-23-2013 09:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for Binkster  Send Email to Binkster     
Coal occurs naturally in nature. I think this anti pollution deal is way over done.

rich

jimh posted 03-23-2013 12:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Rich--I tend to disagree. My outboard engine is rated Three-Stars, Ultra-Low emission, and emits a few grams of regulated exhaust gas per kW-hour of operation. The BADGER is not only emitting thousands and thousands of tons of exhaust gas, but tossing a lot of toxic ash mixed with water as a slurry into the lake.

But, on the other hand, I see that we have grand-fathered old smokey two-cycle outboard engines and let them operate on Lake Michigan. Maybe one coal-burning ferry for two more years can be tolerated.

I think the real issue is money: the company operating the old coal burning ship sells it to its supporters as a quaint and historic relic of the past, but the real resistance to decreasing the pollution is the cost. They could convert the BADGER to burn oil and eliminate the coal ash, if they'd spend the money. They'd still have the historic ship, and the passengers would probably enjoy it more due to the lack of fly ash coming out of the stack.

ConB posted 03-23-2013 03:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for ConB  Send Email to ConB     
It's the heavy metals and toxins that get into the food chain though fish.

You do not want to eat a steady diet of Great Lakes fish as it already is.

They have been back and forth on this deal for more years than I can remember.

The Badger can haul the ash of the boat in dumpsters and take it to the land fill if they will not re-power her.

Con

ConB posted 03-23-2013 03:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for ConB  Send Email to ConB     
I intended to include this chart in my above post.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/FishAdvisory03_67354_7.pdf

Con

jharrell posted 03-23-2013 04:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
Coal occurs naturally in nature. I think this anti pollution deal is way over done.

Lots of things occur naturally in nature, Venus for example has a surface temperature of 788 degrees F caused by a runaway greenhouse effect, it used to have water oceans once, long since boiled away. It serves as a warning what nature can do given a simple unbalanced carbon cycle, it is literally hell.

quote:
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent.

- Carl Sagan

Dave Sutton posted 03-23-2013 08:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
I've had the pleasure of riding across the lake both ways on the bridge of BADGER, having a trick at her wheel, having balanced a nickle on one of her engines running at full speed, and love the old lady. I am a personal friend and IMSA Lodge Brother of her Captain, and ride her to Luddington, spend a night aboard, and then ride her back to Wisconsin "just for fun" whenever I can. She is a beautiful ship and is part of our maritime family here. I have studied her and have a working knowlage of her operation. Bear in mind that I also run a scuba diving operation in the lake, and clean water is the lifeblood of my business here.

BADGER is being considered for conversion to LNG, which would be tanked in her existing coal bunker areas. The cost of operation using LNG would actually be lower than using coal, she would only need fuel once weekly (at present she is coaled once for each round trip), and if converted would be the cleanest ship in the Great Lakes.

All of us here hope to see this beautiful and lovingly maintained ship on the lake for many more years. The expectation is that by running her for two more years as-is, the company can set aside the funds for her conversion. The alternative is not to retire her, it's bunker her ash and haul it off at the end of the trip. The calculus is that the cost of that for two years would equal the cost of her conversion, so the decision as I understand it is to let her dump her ash for two years to let her revenue be saved for conversion, rather than to spend it hauling ash in perpetuity. A season of running under the cleaner LNG will more than make up for the two years of dumping.

I would note that the ash is essentially a glass-like solid (I am looking at a piece now in fact), and such ash has been dumped into the lakes by coal firesd ships since the mid 1800's. From a high of over 3000 coal fired ships in the early 1900's to just one now, it's a literal drop in the bucket compared to years past.


Dave


.

Binkster posted 03-23-2013 09:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for Binkster  Send Email to Binkster     
I can only imagine how much more pollution we had 70, 80 years ago. Coal burning ships and trains and factories were the norm along with heating systems in private homes. When I was a little kid every town had a coal yard. My parents home was modern, we had an oil burner, but I remember during WWII, oil was not available, so we heated our home by burning coal in the fireplace. Fortunately I was too small to hump the coal up from the basement. During the sixties when I was on active duty reserves in the GC I saw an old coal burning buoy tender from the 1920's that was still in service. My rate was a boiler tender. If I was on that buoy tender I'd be shoveling coal.
I read somewhere that their was more pollution back in the 1800's before automobiles. The roads were full of horse manure which was a big polluter.

I still think anti pollution is overdone today.

rich

prj posted 03-23-2013 09:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for prj  Send Email to prj     
When you are older, its easy to think that a little coal pollution generated from 350,000,000 Americans and 7,000,000,000 humans isn't a big deal. I remember when I was young, with 150,000,000 Americans, and we kids could run around with BB guns and operate small motor boats in lakes without trouble or question.

Things are different now.

prj posted 03-23-2013 09:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for prj  Send Email to prj     
Lee Berquist of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that the owners of the SS Badger will pay a $25,000 civil penalty in 2012 for violating water quality standards as part of the Consent Decree.

In 2011, the company that operates the SS Badger received a $75,000 grant from the State to study the feasibility of using CNG or LNG.

Not surprisingly, the Lake Express high speed ferry that operates from Milwaukee to Muskegon is none too pleased with the state and federal subsidies that their competition receives.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/ consent-decree-allows-ss-badger-to-sail-2-more-years-02990qd-199574401. html

thegage posted 03-23-2013 09:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for thegage  Send Email to thegage     
quote:
I can only imagine how much more pollution we had 70, 80 years ago. Coal burning ships and trains and factories were the norm along with heating systems in private homes. When I was a little kid every town had a coal yard. My parents home was modern, we had an oil burner, but I remember during WWII, oil was not available, so we heated our home by burning coal in the fireplace. Fortunately I was too small to hump the coal up from the basement. During the sixties when I was on active duty reserves in the GC I saw an old coal burning buoy tender from the 1920's that was still in service. My rate was a boiler tender. If I was on that buoy tender I'd be shoveling coal.
I read somewhere that their was more pollution back in the 1800's before automobiles. The roads were full of horse manure which was a big polluter.
I still think anti pollution is overdone today.

Without defining "pollution" your post makes no sense. I suspect your main point is in regard to carbon pollution. If so, 70 years ago there were fewer than half as many people on the planet as there are today. Perhaps it's my own failing, but I do not understand how that many fewer people were able to create more pollution than our current fossil-fuel burning society. Using one's own narrow experience as a basis for conclusions about the planet as a whole is usually a recipe for failure. I suspect your grandchildren (or if you don't have any, your neighbor's grandchildren) will have a much different viewpoint than yours.

John K.

David Pendleton posted 03-23-2013 11:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Pendleton  Send Email to David Pendleton     
quote:
Lots of things occur naturally in nature, Venus for example has a surface temperature of 788 degrees F caused by a runaway greenhouse effect, it used to have water oceans once, long since boiled away. It serves as a warning what nature can do given a simple unbalanced carbon cycle, it is literally hell.

So what you're saying is we're turning the planet into Venus?

Thanks for the chuckle.

jimh posted 03-24-2013 12:06 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I don't know the chemistry of the ash that is being dumped, but if it just settles to the bottom of the lake in a stable form, I don't suppose it is going to mean the end of life on the planet. I am sure in some backwater in Asia right now there is a enormous furnace burning coal to make electricity to run the plant that is assembling a new SmartPhone that will sell for $199 and we'll all want to have three or four of them in our families. Then the SmartPhone will be shipped over her on a Mega-container ship, and that ship will burn more fuel in one trip than the BADGER will burn all year.
PeteB88 posted 03-24-2013 12:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for PeteB88  Send Email to PeteB88     
I think we'll take a ride across and back this summer - I like it much more that Lake Express out of Muskegon - aesthetically to be clear.
jharrell posted 03-24-2013 10:59 AM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
So what you're saying is we're turning the planet into Venus?

I thought I was pretty clear in stating that it serves as a warning of whats possible. We have enough carbon in the ground and oceans to turn Earth into a Venus, can we burn enough hydrocarbons to do it? I sincerely hope not.

The point was just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good or that it won't kill us all and leave no trace that we ever existed.

I am not laughing.

Hilinercc posted 03-24-2013 12:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for Hilinercc  Send Email to Hilinercc     
John K. it is indeed your own failing in not understanding how fewer people could pollute more than today. Since the dawn of the industrial age, coal-fired, steam powereed mills, countless fleets of steam locomotives in the hundreds and as many ships, traversed the world, and just about any sort of mechanized machine was powered by cold fired steam. Just about every industry utilized some form of this technology because there was simply nothing else. and guess what? we still didn't destry the planet! I get iratated when people who weren't even around during this period claim the earth is doomed because of our "current" pollution levels, its a crock! More politically driven than anything else and it is placated by folks who are ignorant of history.

I had mentioned in another post about the Clean water/air act of the early 70's, where rivers spontaneously combusted in Cleveland because of pollution, smog in California so bad you couldn't even go outside. Many of these problems were resolved through sensible solutions. We no longer pollute as we did 40 years ago, let alone 100.

The Badger? she is the last of her kind, a single ship that dumps coal ash into the lake, how many ships were doing this as standard practice when this was the shipping industry standard? Are the Great lakes now a brew of coal slurry soup as most contemporary environmental "experts" would want you to believe? Because thats the kind of extreme they always broadcast to maximize the attention they want. I'm not buying it.

That goes for JIML and his "smokey old 2 cycle engine" remark operating on the lakes, which he would be doing himself if he did'nt have his beloved ETEC.

David Pendleton posted 03-24-2013 12:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Pendleton  Send Email to David Pendleton     
quote:
I thought I was pretty clear in stating that it serves as a warning of whats possible

You do realize that occurred over billions of years, don't you?


Moose posted 03-24-2013 12:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moose  Send Email to Moose     
Patrick,

It is noteworthy how the views of the competing services on government financial involvement have evolved over the years.

Years ago those same folks from Lake Express were very much in favor of a government-backed loan guarantee on a $17,500,000.00 loan to help them get the business started, while the operators in Ludington yelled foul.

Binkster posted 03-24-2013 01:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for Binkster  Send Email to Binkster     
Thank you hilinercc. You saved me a rebuttal to John K.'s post. As far as jimh's comment about the smokey 2 strokes, I guess he is not old enough to remember the outboards, (all 2 strokes) of the not to far distant pass. Modern 2 strokes not even counting E-Tecs are clean burning compared to them.
I run a 14' glass runabout with a restored 1961 Evinrude Starflite 75hp V4 at the AOMCI (Antique) Outboard meets. This engine was designed to burn a qt. of 30wt. motor oil for 6 gallons of gas. Outboards of this era would really leave a trail of smoke and even an oil slick behind them. They will also run on modern outboard oil, and I run mine on outboard oil 40:1. At the time this motor was considered state on the art and clean burning. Outboards from the earlier period of the 30's and 40's were worse.
I believe modern outboard oil was developed in 1963.

rich

wezie posted 03-24-2013 02:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for wezie  Send Email to wezie     
I think there has been "more" polution in the past, when sewage and horse droppings were thrown in the streets. Boots were all the rage.
In 1898 a global commission met in New Your City and decided that by 1950 New York City would be 9 ft deep in manure. Horses were essential, no solution could be found and the meeting adjourned in 3 days vs the 10 days scheduled. Some might say that New York City would have been better that way, but it did not happen.

Eleanor Roosevelt is quoted as saying, "...the good old days when the whole world smelled of horses." I do not believe she was referring to horse sweat alone.

There has been a lot written about the Badger. At any time, it is easy to take a side and be wrong. With all the knee jerking going on today, we rarely get any real information, such as Richs'' description of the marble like residue. Ash leaves one impression, marbles leaves another impression of what is being dumped. If they were truly dropping glass marbles, would all of the knees be jerkinlg? Possibly so today. Then thre is the information of other subsidies, and which one is the richeous one.

I forget the reason the first exemption did not fund the conversion, and would ask if all this is a delay. Lake Express surely is concerned, as they will have no competition without Badger. Many jobs are involved with Badger, but I believe the montra is that "they can be retrained". It is that big "they" word that bothers me.

This 400 ft ship provides a totally different service than the high speed taxis of lake express.
I wonder how many of us even knew that steam ships dumped coal ash/marbles before the story of the Badger.

If it is possible at this point, we need to work to see that we do not continue to price ourselves out of the world economy and into penury as we have been doing for about 20 years. The Badger is valuable only as a discussion because it is insignificant in reality.

Good Luck to the Human Beings.


Jerry Townsend posted 03-24-2013 04:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jerry Townsend  Send Email to Jerry Townsend     
C'mon - horses are all good - well, maybe not quite all. And, just think of all of the good food resulting from the benefits from using the manure. But, some cities would be much better off if horses were still used today - such as D.C.

But aside from that - there is still one hell of a lot of coal being burned - as there are hundreds of tons of coal leaving Wyoming every day heading east. I suspect the majority of it is for coal-fired power plants. ---- Jerry/Idaho

jimh posted 03-24-2013 08:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Coal is a great fuel and the USA has plenty of it. Our local utility here is SE Michigan uses it by the trainload every day.

The house in which I grew up was built in 1938, and it had a coal chute and a coal bin. The furnace was converted to oil by the time I can remember it, in the 1950's.

From the sound of the fury, it seems there are politicians on all sides of this issue, including which company gets the most advantageous subsidy for its ferry service.

Imagine the North Atlantic in World War II, with convoys of 60-ships, all burning coal. I bet you could see the black smoke 50-miles away.

Dave Sutton posted 03-25-2013 06:45 AM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
WW-II Liberty and Victory Ships, as well as the T2 Tankers, the standard convoy ships, were oil fired. Oil was easier to transport (via the wartime constructed "Big Inch" and "Little Big Inch" pipelines from Texas to points north than coal was, in order to provide fuel for the massive numbers of ships fuelling in the Northeast USA headed to England.

Interesting reading for those so inclined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Inch

In any event, coal powered ships were plentiful for many years, and with just one remaining in service in the USAS today (Badger) it's a real shame for so much effort to be put forth to "curing" so little.


Dave

.

jimh posted 03-25-2013 08:23 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Re "smokey old two-strokes", they are grandfathered, so why not the BADGER?

It seems rather odd that the federal government says it is illegal for Mercury to sell a VERADO GEN-2 outboard because it emits too much exhaust emission, but it is okay to operate a c.1953 coal-burning ship, even after all the previously negotiated extensions and special exemptions have expired. If I were Mercury, I would want to know more about the logic of this regulation. Mercury's business is severely constrained by 2013 regulations limiting sales of its non-compliant Two-Star VERADO, but the BADGER gets to operate like it is 1953. How about some consistency?

What seems more bothersome than the coal ash itself are the politicos on either side of the issue. When you need one, two, or three congressional representatives to be adding riders to legislation to keep your ship operating, you have an unusual business. Then there are politicos grandstanding to the environmentalist with their outrage about the BADGER--too much political drama here.

In modern governments, transportation systems are frequently subsidized. Every time I drive my car on an Interstate Highway I am benefiting from a very nice transportation subsidy. When I ride the BART, I benefit from a subsidy. When I ride a VIA rail train, I benefit from a subsidy. So if the federal government gives the BADGER a little subsidy (in the form of two years operation to continue their existing practice of handling the ash), it is just another form of subsidy.

What is really curious about this one, however, is that it's a subsidy that increases pollution. Usually you see federal policy offering to subsidize an activity that decreases pollution.

I think the operator of the BADGER was offered some financial aid to convert away from coal. That would be an appropriate subsidy, a way to help reduce pollution and benefit the transportation activity. The clinker in the BADGER policy is that it amounts to a transportation subsidy that tends to increase pollution.

I suppose you could make a comparison to the fuel that would be consumed and the air pollution that would occur if every automobile that was carried across Lake MIchigan on the BADGER instead drove around the lake on the highway. I wonder how that calculation works out? Maybe it offsets the water pollution from the coal ash.

Hilinercc posted 03-25-2013 09:17 AM ET (US)     Profile for Hilinercc  Send Email to Hilinercc     
The frustrating thing about this whole issue is we're talking about a SINGLE ship, she is an operating example of maritime history.

I would say her current discharge of "coal slurry" is negligable in the big scheme of things, in other words, this vessel will never single-handidly destroy the Great Lake on which she sails. Niether will the preserved, operating Steam Locomotives in this country that operate excusion trips destroy the air we breathe. (BTW, Steam Town USA of the National Parks Service is Government subsidized)

I have always believed, as I'm sure some of you have too as well, that if politicians and "environmental activists" see a target that they can exploit to further their agenda, and in their ignorance, end up ruining it for everybody. Even when they know themselves that it may not contribute to a that significant amount of pollution, its a perfect "Boogie Man" to run up the flag pole.

The current consensus among some seem to be, "what was state of the art yesterday has now been superceded, so the former must be now deemed evil and destroyed"

tjxtreme posted 03-25-2013 09:34 AM ET (US)     Profile for tjxtreme    
This ash is quite basic, and this chemical characteristic would be the main environmental concern. It is otherwise fairly inert oxides.

1. It seems that the Badger advocacy group is principally concerned with preserving the boat, not necessarily the dumping of ash.

2. It seems as the environmental group is principally concerned with the dumping of ash, not necessarily the operation of the boat or even its coal engine.

Stubbornness aside, this looks like an easy compromise here. I'm sure either of these groups, or perhaps a joint effort, could find some way to dispose of the ash properly, or sell it for commercial/industrial use (e.g. cement).

It is also interesting to note that while the dumping of ash may increase pH, acidification due to increasing CO2 levels may be somewhat tempered by this. This is a funny twist, and perhaps a bit of a stretch. This has been discussed with respect to airplane contrails that may counterbalance warming trends to some degree ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/contrail-effect.html ). Scroll down for some pretty fascinating satellite imagery.


prj posted 03-25-2013 09:35 AM ET (US)     Profile for prj  Send Email to prj     
quote:
It seems rather odd that the federal government says it is illegal for Mercury to sell a VERADO GEN-2 outboard because it emits too much exhaust emission

This is a remarkably inaccurate statement, Jim, even taking into account your obvious anti-Mercury bias. I assume you were using it as a hyperbolic statement. If not, you completely misunderstand the EPA regulations that govern outboard motor sales.

prj posted 03-25-2013 09:41 AM ET (US)     Profile for prj  Send Email to prj     
I don't feel too strongly one way or the other regarding the Badger and dumping of coal ash. However, I can see why a single point source of pollution like the Badger would become a target for those whose passions lie in Great Lakes water quality issues. Even considering that this lone ship won't "single-handedly destroy the Great Lakes." I'd suggest thats an incredibly high threshold for pollution acceptance, whether or not something can destroy the largest freshwater reserve in the world.

tjxtreme posted 03-25-2013 09:46 AM ET (US)     Profile for tjxtreme    
The notion that a certain source of environmental degradation is permissible because is is a single ship or a single source is not a valid assertion.

Is the net state of the environment not the sum of many single and usually small impacts? We are all in this together.

Hilinercc posted 03-25-2013 10:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for Hilinercc  Send Email to Hilinercc     
"We're all in this together", TJ, that is exactly the kind of obtuse explanation I was talking about.

And NO, it is NOT the sum of single and usually small impacts. That is pure PC claptrap.

Emission standards regulate for the masses, be they automobile emissions, powerplant emissions or any internal cumbustion process commonly used.

Sayin that "a certain source of environmental degradation is permissible because is is a single ship or a single source is not a valid assertion" demonstrates you lack of knowledge of my point. Its also a very braod statement with absolutely no valid reasons to back it up. Its a feel good "kumbuya" to assuage the un-informed masses.

We have been allowing a certain source environmental degridation "as permissable" since the we haven't completely outlawed the internal combustion engine or powerplants. Because doing so would make modern life impossible. This is why I view this whole militant evironmentalism movement as a crock. Historical data is ignored if it doesn't fit the agenda and decisions are made out of selected ignorance.

So you are wrong, a single ship is a valid assertion when you look at the big picture. You completely ignore that fact that hudreds like her sailed these waters 100 years ago, lacking any pollution regs whatsoever and they STILL did not destroy the lake.

tjxtreme posted 03-25-2013 11:00 AM ET (US)     Profile for tjxtreme    
quote:
"We're all in this together", TJ, that is exactly the kind of obtuse explanation I was talking about.

Ok, duly noted. Every man for himself. I am glad I don't live in your community.

quote:
And NO, it is NOT the sum of single and usually small impacts. That is pure PC claptrap.

You are just plain incorrect here, sorry. The net state of the environment (or any system for that matter) is the sum of all the inputs.

quote:
Its a feel good "kumbuya" to assuage the un-informed masses.

I am not sure what you mean by 'kumbuya.' If you read my previous post, you will see I brought new information to the discussion that benefits both sides of the argument.

quote:
militant evironmentalism[sic]

To suggest that not wanting a ship to dump ash into a lake is somehow "militant environmentalism" is laughable.

quote:
So you are wrong, a single ship is a valid assertion when you look at the big picture

I am looking at the big picture. The big picture is the net result of its components.

quote:
You completely ignore that fact that hudreds like her sailed these waters 100 years ago, lacking any pollution regs whatsoever and they STILL did not destroy the lake.

I fail to see how this somehow makes it okay. We used to do all kinds of terrible things to the environment, that doesn't make it okay. Was this during the era when rivers caught fire on a regular basis? Sounds like a great time to be part of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Were there scientific data being collected then to support your assertion? Just because it exists now, doesn't mean it couldn't have been better now if we hadn't done what we did to it.

jimh posted 03-25-2013 11:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I believe I understand the EPA regulations. A Two-Star engine can no longer be sold unless propped up by sales of less polluting engines. If there is a dispute about that, let's discuss it in a separate thread. I simply mentioned the unfortunate and significant competitive disadvantage in which Mercury must suffer due to environmental regulations compared to the special advantage given to the BADGER by exemption. My analogy is quite apt. Environmental regulations constrain Mercury in its business operation; exemption from environmental regulations aids the BADGER in its operation. This analogy is on quite strong ground, and I will be glad to defend it. But in a separate thread, if anyone thinks it is necessary. I would hate to see a discussion of my comprehension of EPA regulations for outboard engines become our topic here.

The analogy to a coal fired steam locomotive excursion run is not very good. A better analogy would be to suggest that the Union Pacific found it profitable to resume operation of the BIG BOY articulated locomotives, and began to operate them on regular, revenue producing, for-profit, daily runs hauling freight or passengers, and running behind your house, making smoke, noise, ash, and whatever else goes along with operating an extremely powerful steam locomotive using coal as a fuel. And that they were given an exemption based on the notion it would avoid an economic impact on certain communities.

If the BADGER operated as a once a month excursion boat, I doubt we would have any debate. It operates on a daily schedule and runs for profit.

jimh posted 03-25-2013 11:45 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
In measuring harm to the Great Lakes done by man, I agree the coal ash slurry of the BADGER is probably toward the bottom of the list.

tjextreme writes:

quote:

It seems that the Badger advocacy group is principally concerned with preserving the boat, not necessarily the dumping of ash.

...It seems as the environmental group is principally concerned with the dumping of ash, not necessarily the operation of the boat or even its coal engine.


I think this is an excellent summary of the problem and the dispute. The BADGER company and its supporting public seem to want to trade on nostalgia and historic value as benefits that might offset their environmental trespass--and don't forget about those jobs.

Those opposing the BADGER see only the water and what is being put into it, and are blind to the history, the nostalgia, and the jobs.

Like many, I have a foot in both camps. I like clean water. I like historical ships. I like a good economy.

jimh posted 03-25-2013 11:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The notion that adding something basic (as in the Base-Acid pH scale) to the water might be helpful is an interesting argument, and perhaps a bit of rationalization. But I would want to compare it to the situation at Bay Harbor, Michigan, where a very large tract of land, now used for the most expensive up-scale resort housing imaginable, is presently leaching water with high pH into Lake Michigan. The responsible parties are facing a clean-up and remediation project that might cost them $300-million. Maybe they need some historic homes on their land to get an exemption.
K Albus posted 03-25-2013 12:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for K Albus  Send Email to K Albus     
I find it amusing that some people will support the Badger merely because they believe that "environmentalists" oppose the continued operation of the Badger. The Badger is an outdated ship which cannot compete fairly in today's economic climate. The Badger has only survived through government subsidies and special exemptions from regulations which apply to every other player in the industry. It seems the Badger has only survived through a bit of economic socialism. Nevertheless, because the environmentalists oppose the Badger, some believe that the Badger must be saved at all costs.

My vote - modernize it or shut it down. They've had years to update the ship, but have failed to do so because they keep receiving special exemptions from the regulations. Everybody else follows the rules, the Badger should too. There's nothing nostalgic about dumping tons of pollution into the water.

jharrell posted 03-25-2013 12:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
You do realize that occurred over billions of years, don't you?

More like 600 million to boil the oceans away, but the greenhouse effect went into unstoppable runway much sooner. Remember Venus didn't have a bunch of Venusians throwing CO2 up into the air with machines while simultaneously clear cutting the trees that return carbon to the ground either.

We don't need to get to 800 F to wipe out all life on Earth, all we need to do is raise the average temperature about 6 degrees and we are all dead.

Hilinercc posted 03-25-2013 01:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for Hilinercc  Send Email to Hilinercc     
Once again TJ, you have demonstrated your lack of historical knowledge regarding pollution control in this forum. Plus the fact you also find it necessary to chastise me because you don't like my point of view, much less understand it.

As I understand you, since the Badger is dumping ash in the lake, in spite of the fact she is the only one left and will not have a significant environmental impact, you believe she should stop because well, "she just shouldn't" Is 2 more years really gonna matter?

Every man for himself? How contemporarily typical!, You'll have to excuse me, but I was not indoctrinated in the art of "environmental guilt" at a very young age. Nor does that make me a "pro-polluting monster" that you were also probably taught to believe if anyone questioned your point of view. (BTW, My generation started Earth Day in '69)

I fully support clean air and water, but the point is this single ship is not going to have an impact regardless. 2 more years is not really going to matter.

Sorry back to you, but, your "net state of environment is the sum off all inputs" theory sounds good, but it is full of holes, It a general statement that paints with too broad of a brush. The contribution of the Badger's discharge is miniscule compared to sheer number vast energy emissions today. To castigate this ship to continue for 2 more years until she can be converted to LNG or oil is whats laughable.

I won't even dignify your Militant Environmentalist response with an answer, because I'm not sure you have a full grasp what the term really means. But there is a part of me that thinks theres more going on here behind this issue, than just dumping ash in the lake.

Apparently, you were too young to remember when rivers were catching fire in the early 70's , the same era that air pollution was alot worse than it is today. Scientific data? of course there was! The problem is folks such as yourself assume the environment is being threatened at catastrophic levels because you're told it is, and you don't bother to look at any historical data as to what has been done or how far we've come. Therefore, you assume nothing has been done and its up to YOU, to save the day.

David Pendleton posted 03-25-2013 01:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Pendleton  Send Email to David Pendleton     
quote:
We don't need to get to 800 F to wipe out all life on Earth, all we need to do is raise the average temperature about 6 degrees and we are all dead.

Perhaps. I'm not losing a whole lot of sleep about it.

tjxtreme posted 03-25-2013 01:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for tjxtreme    
I have a very good understanding of history, especially with regard to environmental history. I have significant professional experience on this very topic. And when I mean "history" I am referring to 1900 and earlier where data on what the environment was really like are sparse, not the 1970s as you suggest.

I am disagreeing with you, point-by-point. To call this chastising is a little extreme. I understand your viewpoint, you don't understand mine. You referred to me as "obtuse," "militant," "claptrap," as part of the "uninformed masses," "a crock," and "selected ignorance." I think you are the one chastising, not me.

quote:
As I understand you

Sorry but you don't understand me, clearly, because I never said that the Badger should be outlawed.

I even argued (albeit tongue-in-cheek) a justification as to why it should be allowed to continue, for environmental reasons! Please, for a second time, re-read my previous post you must have missed.

"indoctrinated"? you have got to be kidding me.

quote:
your "net state of environment is the sum off all inputs" theory

It is not a theory, it is mere fact.

Again, I didn't castigate the ship. I even think it should stay on coal power, because to me it is a neat piece of history. It is the dumping of ash I am mainly talking about.

quote:
I won't even dignify your Militant Environmentalist response with an answer, because I'm not sure you have a full grasp what the term really means

It is quite clear to me what it means. Having a discussion of the potential consequences of dumping of ash into a lake is not a good example.

quote:
and you don't bother to look at any historical data

I am a scientist. I use data to inform my decisions.

You have made many assumptions about me which are not true, often using offensive language, I am simply defending that.

Hilinercc posted 03-25-2013 05:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for Hilinercc  Send Email to Hilinercc     
TJ, I never accused you of outlawing the Badger,and I am certainly surprised to hear that you are a Scientist, and an expert on evironmental issues because from your previous posts, you sure didn't sound like it. (Acedemia?)

You didn't acknowledge when I mentioned the pollution laws enacted of the 70's and what was resolved as a result. You of all people would surely be aware of that. All I got was some remarks about how "wonderful" it must have been in the Great Lakes eco system.

It is only now that you reveal to me that your well versed in environmental issues prior to 20th century. Why did you not use this information in our debate earlier?

I never accused you as being a Environmental Militant, but pointed out that this issue is a juicy one for such people. If you took that as a personal affront, then I apologize for that. If you percieved my statement about people against dumping ash as "Militant", well, you misundersood me there too. But I see this issue as setting a legal precedent, if they can stop the Badger, whose next and to what extreme? (i.e. operating period equipment, steam locos, old engines, etc)

As far as the latest environmental agenda put forward today, I stand by my statements, its more politics than science and we can agree to disagree on that. yes, I used the word "obtuse" because some alot of your responses were blanket statements with no concrete evidence to back them up. I didn't hear a scientist debating me, what I heard was somebody very different.

As an Engineer, I too, use data to back up my statements, I've just been around long enough not believe everything I hear. Lets just agree to disagree.

tjxtreme posted 03-26-2013 09:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for tjxtreme    
Please, for the third time, I ask you to read my first post in this thread. It is one of the only posts in this thread that adds scientific information to the discussion. The fact that you missed it, and then did not read it after I directed you to it two separate times, and then began to criticize my scientific knowledge because of a single (and indisputable) statement, suggests that you are the one who is "obtuse" (your word choice, not mine).

Please also refrain from attributing quotes to me that aren't mine. I never said "wonderful" or "she just shouldn't" in discussing the prior state of the Great Lakes ecosystem and dumping of ash, respectively. Yet, somehow you quoted me as saying these things?

I don't just disagree with you, I find you rude and apparently incapable of logical discussion (as I have itemized in my above posts). Disagreement is fine and a necessary part of rational discussion.

This will be my last post to you.

jimh posted 03-26-2013 10:12 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Protection of the environment is the task of the Environmental Protection Agency in the USA, so we have to defer to the them for guidance. If the EPA says that a certain act is illegal, then it does not really matter that previously that act might have been legal, or that previously that act was performed frequently and was a matter of routine. In 2013 the permitted acts are those permitted by the EPA, and it apparently is no longer a permitted act to throw into Lake Michigan certain substances, including coal ash, unless you are a vessel named BADGER and operate in accordance with the consent decree provisions.

The historical record that the BADGER and perhaps other vessels--even if that means thousands of other vessels--routinely discharged into the Great Lakes something that is presently no longer permitted to be discharged, cannot be used to make an argument that this engenders an exception to the present regulations, unless you make that argument very skillfully, using certain lawyers to represent your case, and if your argument is supported by congressional representatives who make it clear they want this to be considered, and perhaps other unknown circumstances also exist that tend to favor that view. This seems to be our present situation. The BADGER is granted a special exemption, for at least two more years.

This is a good example of how legislation and regulation works. It seems like very simple provisions are made--you can't do some certain act--and then a great deal of expense and effort is put forth to create some circumstances which benefit a specific individual or group by exempting them from the provision that everyone else has to conform to. This is our governance in action.

Binkster posted 03-26-2013 05:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for Binkster  Send Email to Binkster     
I think we have more to worry about with genetically engineered food (veggies, fish and meat).
jimh . that is just a comment, not trying to change the topic.

rich

jimh posted 03-27-2013 08:05 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Regarding the planet Venus, according to a rather nicely done documentary I watched last night, it does not have a magnetic field. Venus's lack of a magnetic field was said to be causal in losing its water. I tend to believe that theory more than the theory that allowing a coal slurry to be dumped into the water could lead to the same outcome on Earth.
gnr posted 03-27-2013 08:37 AM ET (US)     Profile for gnr    
If only the Venusians had compact fluorescent light bulbs....
Hilinercc posted 03-27-2013 08:56 AM ET (US)     Profile for Hilinercc  Send Email to Hilinercc     
Its ok, TJ, big, mean old Hilinercc won't pick on you anymore.

As Elenore Roosevelt used to say " I don't get angry at my Inferiors"

Tootles!

Binkster posted 03-27-2013 12:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for Binkster  Send Email to Binkster     
gnr, I don't think the Venusians have invented electricity yet. I read somewhere that they are at least 200 years behind Earth.

rich

jharrell posted 03-27-2013 01:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
Regarding the planet Venus, according to a rather nicely done documentary I watched last night, it does not have a magnetic field. Venus's lack of a magnetic field was said to be causal in losing its water.

Actually the leading theory is that the lack of plate tectonics caused by the crust unable to subduct do to lack of water oceans, this prevents heat loss from the mantle causing it to be nearly the same temperature as the core which prevents a magnetic field.

Whatever you believe it would be foolish to ignore the giant warning nature put right next to us showing us how good we have it and how easily it can be destroyed.


jimh posted 03-27-2013 01:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
This thread is beginning to have a lot of dark energy.

As for BADGER, it's been settled: toss those coal ashes into the lake. Enjoy the nostalgia of crossing Lake Michigan in a coal-fired steam-driven ship, for at least two more years. Be happy: go boating.

Dave Sutton posted 03-27-2013 08:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
"One source says the BADGER dumps 509-tons of illegal waste each season"

It may dump waste, but it's not *illegal* waste.

It's *EPA permitted* waste. ;-)


Booking an overnight out-and-back overnight trip for April if you want to join us. We will have wheelhouse privileges and will likely get down into the engine room again.

Dave


.

pcrussell50 posted 03-29-2013 03:19 AM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Jharrell sez:
quote:
Lots of things occur naturally in nature, Venus for example has a surface temperature of 788 degrees F caused by a runaway greenhouse effect, it used to have water oceans once, long since boiled away. It serves as a warning what nature can do given a simple unbalanced carbon cycle, it is literally hell.

The atmosphere is 38 thousandths of one percent carbon dioxide, or 38 per 100,000. That figure is for ALL carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, both man made and naturally occurring. There is THIRTY THREE TIMES more water vapor in the atmosphere than there is carbon dioxide, and water vapor is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is. I have yet to hear a scientific explanation as to why carbon dioxide gets so much attention and water vapor, which is both much more "greenhousey" AND much much much more prevalent (33 times more) in the atmosphere, is ignored.

-Peter

NewportMe posted 03-29-2013 06:34 AM ET (US)     Profile for NewportMe  Send Email to NewportMe     
Because water is natural, silly :). I once read, and I don't remember where, that one volcanic eruption in the Philippines was estimated to have released more carbon dioxide than has ever been created by man.
gnr posted 03-29-2013 10:59 AM ET (US)     Profile for gnr    
I’m genuinely concerned about Tony. Is he ok?
jharrell posted 03-29-2013 09:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
I have yet to hear a scientific explanation as to why carbon dioxide gets so much attention and water vapor, which is both much more "greenhousey" AND much much much more prevalent (33 times more) in the atmosphere, is ignored.

I typed "carbon dioxide greenhouse" into google and the first article had a extremely detailed scientific explanation: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The second result is the obvious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Talking about raw quanties of water vapor vs co2 is simplistic. The reality is
water vapor contributes 36-72% of the green house effect while co2 contributes 9-26% yet as you said it's only 1/33rd the amount. Methane is 72 times more potent than co2 as a greenhouse gas but has much lower quantities so its third in line. Obviously quantity ratios are a bad way to discount a gases effect on the atmosphere.

The basic summary is that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas while co2 is second, but the two are are connected in a positive feedback loop. A small increase in co2 leads to a small increase in temperature which causes more water evaporation which amplifies the effect. Water vapor increases exponentially with temperature not linearly. Water vapor returns to the surface quickly with temperature changes from night to day averaging only days in the air while co2 takes on average a decade to return to the ocean or ground once it is released through the carbon cycle. The top layers of the ocean also have large quanties of co2 that it recent entrained, when it evaporates it also releases the co2. The two are intertwined on many levels.

Co2 and water also absorb two slightly different spectrums of infrared. Think of two picket fences one behind the other, each slightly offset so the pickets of both completely block sight through the fence while only one of them you could see through.

Please study the great quanties of scientific information on this complex subject.

quote:
I once read, and I don't remember where, that one volcanic eruption in the Philippines was estimated to have released more carbon dioxide than has ever been created by man.

Of course this is completely and ridiculously false. Humans release as much co2 in HALF A DAY as Mt. Pinatubo released. We release a 100 times more co2 per year than volcanoes do. Every 3 days we release the same amount of co2 as all volcanoes on earth do in a year!

Even if what you said was true realize that for what ever reason our planet was in near perfect carbon cycle balance with volcanoes erupting and plants and ocean reabsorbing the co2. Our actions in the last 200 years are outside of that balance. Vostok ice cores have confirmed the highest co2 concentrations in the last 500,000 years where 280ppm before 1750 they are now at 390ppm.

David Pendleton posted 03-30-2013 01:43 AM ET (US)     Profile for David Pendleton  Send Email to David Pendleton     
Sorry jharrell, I'm still not losing any sleep over it.
jharrell posted 03-30-2013 12:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
David, thanks again for letting me know of your "hear no evil, see no evil" point of view. I will be sure not to try to sway you with any facts going forward and instead address others that may listen.

I wish I could sleep so well after learning the facts. Maybe I am worrying too much about a problem that may have no direct effect for a few centuries if ever. My perspective seemed to change some after having kids in the last few years. I want them and thier children and so on, to have as nice a place to live as I do.

pcrussell50 posted 03-30-2013 02:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
The first link was a very detailed description of the greenhouse effect--which was not my question, and I already understand. So I only skimmed it. I failed to see why water vapor, AFAICT, the big kahuna of greenhouse gases is largely ignored. Can you save me a little time and paste me the part in your first link that explains why the role of water vapor should be ignored or downplayed as it is? I understand the feedback loop. Why doesn't water vapor contribute to it's own feedback loop?

quote:
Please study the great quanties of scientific information on this complex subject.

Great quantities indeed. Ok, can you narrow my options a little? Do you approve of the IPCC? I started looking at their stuff. A long time ago. I still follow them a little even after their data faking and obscuring scandal. But I have questions. Basic questions. Like why doesn't the IPCC even list water vapor in their own list of greenhouse gases? Are we to assume water vapor is such an insignificant player it's not even worth listing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases

Are you familiar with the IPCC's concept of GWP? Why didn't the IPCC publish a GWP value for water vapor their Third Assessment report of 2001? Have they subsequently? Where? When? Here's another... Why was CO2 chosen by the IPCC to be the holder of unity value, (IOW, the baseline unit, to which all others are compared?)

-Peter

jharrell posted 03-31-2013 06:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
The first link was a very detailed description of the greenhouse effect--which was not my question, and I already understand. So I only skimmed it. I failed to see why water vapor, AFAICT, the big kahuna of greenhouse gases is largely ignored. Can you save me a little time and paste me the part in your first link that explains why the role of water vapor should be ignored or downplayed as it is? I understand the feedback loop. Why doesn't water vapor contribute to it's own feedback loop?

I can't say that I am not a little annoyed that you need me to find a paragraph right in the beginning of that article. It is very frustrating as though no one bothers to actually understand the issue because reading is too hard. Anyway here it is, and it is basically what I summarized:

quote:
Why focus on that rare gas rather than water vapor, which was far more abundant? Because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere fluctuated daily, whereas the level of CO2 was set over a geological timescale by emissions from volcanoes. If the emissions changed, the alteration in the CO2 greenhouse effect would only slightly change the global temperature—but that would almost instantly change the average amount of water vapor in the air, which would bring further change through its own greenhouse effect. Thus the level of CO2 acted as a regulator of water vapor, and ultimately determined the planet’s long-term equilibrium temperature. (Again, for fuller discussion follow the link at right.)

quote:
Do you approve of the IPCC?

Generally yes. Of all the information they have put out it is by an far mostly very accurate. There have been mistakes, they where admitted and they are extremely minor compared to such things as volcanoes emitting more greenhouse gases than man and other nonsense. The key is understanding the science yourself so that you do not rely on a single organization for information and you have a good BS detector for it when it comes from any source. Everyone has an agenda.

quote:
Like why doesn't the IPCC even list water vapor in their own list of greenhouse gases? Are we to assume water vapor is such an insignificant player it's not even worth listing?

That is a list of long lived greenhouse gases (LLGHG), it says this in the first sentence. As I said water vapor stays up in the air for only a few days while CO2 takes decades to centuries to cycle. CO2 regulates water vapor, it is the key to controlling it. If humans somehow generated a huge amount of water vapor directly to effect it's balance, it would re-balance in a couple days from from day night temp changes. If we change our CO2 output today it won't have any effect for decades or centuries.

quote:
Are you familiar with the IPCC's concept of GWP? Why didn't the IPCC publish a GWP value for water vapor their Third Assessment report of 2001? Have they subsequently? Where? When? Here's another... Why was CO2 chosen by the IPCC to be the holder of unity value, (IOW, the baseline unit, to which all others are compared?)

GWP is a way to measure anthropogenic emissons and it potential for climate change, we don't emit enough water vapor to make any difference therefore it is not a part of what is measured in GWP, not rocket science.

pcrussell50 posted 04-01-2013 01:14 AM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Apologies for missing it. As I said, I skimmed the article.

I have have some more questions:

The Railroad engineer/Economist at the head of the IPCC says the climatological "tipping point", due to CO2 is 350ppm. Since CO2 is currently comfortably above that, I assume we are now living in the new quasi-static climate state that came about after we crossed the tipping point. Are these tipping points reversible? Rajenda Pachuri the engineer/economist would like to get us back to below 350. Yet if the "tipping point" he refers to, behaves like a tipping point how can we "jump" from our current, post-tipping climatological state back to the previous one? If I hadn't read the IPCC's theory about tipping points, I would not have thought the atmosphere had discrete states. I still have trouble visualizing it.

-Peter

jharrell posted 04-01-2013 09:28 AM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
The Railroad engineer/Economist at the head of the IPCC says the climatological "tipping point", due to CO2 is 350ppm.

He endorsed the 350ppm target specifically not as IPCC chairman in a interview. He did not come up with it, if that's what you are implying.

The target was derived by a group headed by James Hansen who runs the Nasa Goddard institute for space studies.

You can read the paper and presentation here:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TippingPointsNear_20080623.pdf

quote:
Yet if the "tipping point" he refers to, behaves like a tipping point how can we "jump" from our current, post-tipping climatological state back to the previous one?

I think you are misunderstanding what the "tipping point" they define means, it is laid out in their presentation:

quote:

Tipping Point Definitions

1. Tipping Level
- Climate forcing (greenhouse gas amount)
reaches a point such that no additional
forcing is required for large climate
change and impacts

2. Point of No Return
- Climate system reaches a point with
unstoppable irreversible climate impacts
(irreversible on a practical time scale)
Example: disintegration of large ice sheet


They are not referring to a a Venus like runway effect, simply a complete change in our climate on a centuries timescale. 350ppm is #1 not #2.

quote:

If I hadn't read the IPCC's theory about tipping points, I would not have thought the atmosphere had discrete states. I still have trouble visualizing it.

Again not an IPCC theory, and they are well aware of that the atmosphere has not discrete states. Unfortunately if your going to make policy or law you need a discrete value to enforce, the scientist are trying to come up with a safe level to preserve our way of life that everyone can agree on:

quote:
We suggest an initial objective of reducing atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm, with the target to be adjusted as scientific understanding and empirical evidence of climate effects accumulate. Limited opportunities for reduction of non-CO2 human-caused forcings are important to pursue but do not alter the initial 350 ppm CO2 target. This target must be pursued on a timescale of decades, as paleoclimate and ongoing changes, and the ocean response time, suggest that it would be foolhardy to allow CO2 to stay in the dangerous zone for centuries.
17 bodega posted 04-03-2013 05:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for 17 bodega  Send Email to 17 bodega     
What scares me is the amount of coal the Chinese are mining--mind blowing stuff. Otherwise a joke about a clean coal burning ouboard would be appropriate here. Late night at the hospital for me, where we have back up generators in case of a power outage. Those run on Diesel by the way.

We're doomed. That's what Stephen Hawking says. There is no dominant consensus that worldwide power consumtion is out of control. We look at economy in terms of increasing production of goods, services and and ever increasing need for energy.

I think we need the kind of power converters Luke Skywalker wanted to get at the Toshi Station in the first Star Wars movie!

Steve

knothead posted 04-03-2013 11:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for knothead  Send Email to knothead     
Lets just power the world with unicorn farts.

If you have an open mind on this issue and want real facts and unfiltered discussion on weather, climate, solar irradiance, etc. read the web site Watts Up With That. Interesting stuff.

regards---knothead

jharrell posted 04-03-2013 04:34 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
If you have an open mind on this issue and want real facts and unfiltered discussion on weather, climate, solar irradiance, etc. read the web site Watts Up With That. Interesting stuff.

If in unfiltered you mean right wing climate denial funded by Exxon-Mobile and the Koch bros. be my guest:

http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

knothead posted 04-04-2013 10:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for knothead  Send Email to knothead     

Yeah, that's what I mean by being open minded.

What, pray tell, what fuel do you run your boat on? Do you have a rowboat?

regards---knothead

pcrussell50 posted 04-04-2013 01:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
j sez:
quote:
If in unfiltered you mean right wing climate denial funded by Exxon-Mobile and the Koch bros. be my guest

J, you were on such a roll keeping (mostly) to the science until this. Now you invoke the "follow the money trail" defense of your position? But since you did, care to speculate as to the size of the carbon trading and compliance money trail caused by the PRO-anthropogenic global warming movement? If the money trail is to be used in deciding the veracity of one side versus the other, the stench alone from the war chests of the pro-AGW interests is enough to cause this climate change we are talking about.

-Peter

jharrell posted 04-04-2013 01:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
So I can assume you regularly read multiple climate blogs such as ones that don't agree with Watts such as http://wottsupwiththat.com/ and http://www.desmogblog.com/ since you are so much more open minded?

If so perhaps you can point me to multiple references that back up Watts claims? Sorry if I mistrust someone paid by the Heartland Institute. I guess I am somewhat closed minded to organizations funded by big oil interests and put up billboards with the Unibomber saying "I still believe in global warming, do you?". I guess I am funny that way.

So I am not allowed to worry about CO2 emission over the next century because my boat burns any gasoline at all? Do I have to stop eating completely if I worry about my weight too, or can I just go on a diet?

jharrell posted 04-04-2013 01:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
Now you invoke the "follow the money trail" defense of your position?

Did I or did I not say "Everyone has an agenda." earlier in this thread. I was not defending my position, I was questioning the "unfiltered" description of said blog. I think I made it clear that no source is "unfiltered" and you must understand the science to make a clear decision.

I generally like our conversations here on this board even though I know we disagree on environmental issues and the role of government. However now you seem to be focused on discrediting me for pointing out who funds Watts and my skepticism of it rather than talking about the science for which you made no counterpoints to after I answered your questions. Does that mean you agree with my answers?

pcrussell50 posted 04-04-2013 02:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
I never said I disagree with your science. It's just that up to this point, you defended your position with science. Then you took a turn when you discredited someone else's beliefs by invoking the "money trail". All I did was point out that the "money trail" is no substitute for the science. And if anything, the money trail impugns the AGW crowd _more_ than it does the other side. You'll recover from my jab just fine. I think we're still on OK footing as far as our discussions are concerned.

-Peter

pcrussell50 posted 04-04-2013 02:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
quote:
billboards with the Unibomber saying "I still believe in global warming, do you?"

Notwithstanding the fact that it's true, that kind of thing is just savvy political gamesmanship. And worlds less deceptive and destructive than the gamesmanship from our rulers whining over the sequestration "cuts".

Our rulers: "Sorry but we have to close the parks and refuse your cancer treatments because our budget is only GROWING by 70% of what we expected."*

*1.4 percent instead of 2.0 percent.

Talk about a dirtbag stunt. Are we supposed to feel confident in the same folks when they establish punitive carbon policy (that they are exempt from) for us?


-Peter

knothead posted 04-04-2013 03:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for knothead  Send Email to knothead     
On a good day I barely get past the funny paper.

A few of the climate blogs I scan

Climate Science-Rodger Pielke Sr
Moshtemp-Steve Mosher
Real Climate
Friends of Science
and for the funnies--Planet Gore

regards---knothead

jharrell posted 04-04-2013 05:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
It's just that up to this point, you defended your position with science.

I never stopped.

quote:
Then you took a turn when you discredited someone else's beliefs by invoking the "money trail".

I am truly sorry to shatter anyone's belief that wattsupwiththat.com is a impartial unfiltered source with the revelation that it is funded by special interest. I simply thought it was inaccurately being portrayed as an impartial source and gave some reference as to why.

If someone wants to bring up any specific claims made by Watts on his blog to debate on scientific merit, again be my guest, and I will actually "defend my position".

I would be happy to be proven wrong over anthropogenic CO2 emissions leading to climate change, I could then sleep easier.

quote:
All I did was point out that the "money trail" is no substitute for the science.

I does however reveal agenda, the science has to be disputed on a claim by claim basis, no scientific claims where made. I disputed the sites agenda. I did not attack your position because you brought up the IPCC chairman is a railroad engineer/economist did I? Why are you attacking mine because I brought up the source of a bloggers funding? They are both relevant in context, I don't think you took a turn by pointing out the chairmens credentials.

quote:
Notwithstanding the fact that it's true, that kind of thing is just savvy political gamesmanship. And worlds less deceptive and destructive than the gamesmanship from our rulers whining over the sequestration "cuts".

Please this is the last thing that needs to get brought up, it is ignoratio elenchi and will completely derail the conversation, stay focused.


Dave Sutton posted 04-04-2013 06:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
Gentlemen:

Having been Captain of my College Debate Team, your effort is appreciated.

Point of Order:

How is this exchange related to the SS Badger? Badger is not having questions raised regarding her gaseous emissions, she is having problems with her water quality impact via the mechanism of dumping coal ash.


Badger, BTW, is being studied for conversion to LNG.


Dave


.

jharrell posted 04-04-2013 07:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
Dave, perhaps you are right, I may have lost focus myself. My original point about "just because it's natural means it's good" derailed the original conversation even though it was related to coal and pollution.

It would be wise to move the climate debate to another thread.

jimh posted 04-04-2013 07:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
On a personal note, I wanted to mention that many years ago I was planning to ride on the BADGER--I think it was the BADGER that was operating then. We had made a reservation to bring our car and boat trailer on the ferry for an Eastbound crossing. The day of the crossing the weather was lousy. It was raining, very overcast, and there was fog on the lake. We cancelled the trip.

We were planning on the trip not as a time saver or a mileage saver in our return to SE Michigan from Wisconsin, but as an excursion. We wanted to enjoy the crossing of Lake Michigan by boat, and the BADGER was going to give us that. But we did not want to cross in fog, overcast sky, and rain. We wanted a sunny day and plenty of visibility. I think many passengers on the BADGER travel for those same reasons. They take the ferry for the adventure and experience of crossing the lake, not for the convenience and time savings of avoiding the drive around.

We now have a bigger boat and a bigger truck. I have not checked lately to see if the BADGER can accommodate our rig, but, if it could, I bet the cost would be significant. I am more inclined now to take a trip on the BADGER just as an excursion trip, leaving my car and boat behind.

We have enjoyed many, many rides on the ferry CHI-CHEEMAUN, running from Tobermory to South Baymouth in Lake Huron. I highly recommend taking a ferry ride when available. It is a delight mode of travel.

Dave Sutton posted 04-04-2013 08:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
Badger does a major business hauling specialized large trolly-trailers that carry the pylons for building large wind turbines. This business is so specialized that they run extra trips in the fall after passenger service ends just to carry this cargo. Your boat is a tiny object compared to what they are able to carry. They carry truck freight, cars, trailer, and industrial cargo hauled aboard by forklift. It's a large ship.

Badger's upper deck was raised three feet years ago when she was converted to carry 18 wheelers as opposed to boxcars (you can still see the railroad tracks in her vehicle deck). They shored up her topsides using timber cribbing on the vehicle deck to the overhead, cut her off as waist-level, cut all of her (pipes, steam lines, electrical lines, etc) as well, jacked the ENTIRE thing up 3 feet, and then welded in a 3 foot high plug. Added three feet to every pipe and wire, and she could carry large 18 wheelers height-wise. You can clearly see this when on the vehicle deck.

This is a working ship, bringing millions of dollars of local and distributed revenue into the economy. She is not only a beautiful and beautifully maintained ship, she works for her living and earns her keep. If you live in Michigan and want to get to Wisconsin, she is an economical and comfortable alternative to a many-hour circumnavigation of the lake by car.


Dave

.

jimh posted 04-05-2013 08:26 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
From the SS BADGER website, I found the fares for this season. To sail one-way with two people, a truck, and a boat trailer, I estimate the cost will be:

--one automobile fare: $60;
--two passenger fares: $60 x 2 = $120;
--one trailer fare, trailer 7-foot to 8-foot 6-inch width, $5.95/foot x 30-feet = $178.50;

TOTAL = $358.50

That is rather expensive travel.

For comparison, the MS CHI_CHEEMAUN fares for a one-way trip would be as follows:

--two passenger fares $16.50 x 2 = $33
--one high vehicle fare, $90.95
--one extra length fare $5.25 x 30 = $157.50

TOTAL = $281.45

I am not certain if that fare would apply because it is for a height greater than 8.5-feet, or 102-inches. I think my boat on the trailer is just 100-inches at maximum height, or just under 8.5-feet. If I were to get the lesser fare, the cost would be

--two passenger fares $16.50 x 2 = $33
--one vehicle fare, $44.95
--one extra length fare $2.70 x 30 = $81

TOTAL = $158.95

The actual fare might be less, because the vehicle is allowed 20-feet, and you only have to pay for the trailer to the extent it addes to the allowed 20-feet. That might save a few dollars in fare.

The distance sailed is as follows:

SS BADGER, Ludington to Manitowoc = 60-miles
MV CHI-CHEEMAUN, Tobermory to South Baymouth = 27 miles

EJO posted 04-07-2013 09:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for EJO  Send Email to EJO     
How can you compare the Badger a Lake Michigan crossing to a MV crossing a much shorter distance over a different lake.

The Badger is an adventure a beautiful boat that fulfills a need for many different type of vehicles. I been accross Lake Michigan in my own boats, the Lake Express (many times) and the Badger(twice). It is a great way to get from and to your point across the "pond". Especially when pulling a trailer. I rather pay a little extra and sleeping in a quaint cabin than driving thru Chicago with a trailer.
Lake Express is not a competition as it is more to get you across fast the Badger is an "historic" experience that all boater should experience. Put it on your bucket list and remember a lot more pollution is dumped out by MV on the world oceans and even from ballast waters of the ships entering the Great Lakes.

Must make a reservation on the Badger to get back to Door County to do some more Whalering over there.

She is a great ship that must keep running.

PeteB88 posted 04-07-2013 11:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for PeteB88  Send Email to PeteB88     
I'm sure the economics to run the Badger and other ferry boats are crazy but it would be so cool to figure out a way for low cost passenger transportation across the lake. Talking to people who grew up in Muskegon or Grand Haven (where we live) who are now in their late 60s and 70s, they tell us when they were teens and early adult years they could get on the Milwaukee Clipper and go to Milwaukee for the day and back for about 15 bucks. They'd go to shop, hang out and whatever else. The Clipper is under restoration in Muskegon close to here. Interesting Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_Clipper

Hopefully there's a solution.

Dave Sutton posted 04-08-2013 08:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
The drive between Manitowac and Luddington is 415 miles, and in an alternative universe where Chicago traffic did not exist it would take about 7-8 hours towing a boat. With a boat... it can be 8-9 hours

$358.50 works out to 86 cents a mile, which is about what it actually cost me to drag a boat with a truck, including the tolls which would be required, never mind my time, so it's not too far off a break-even. That's not considering the actual time saved, and the quality of the time spent one way versus the other. That quality of time has value as well, witnessing the number of people who ride her. Sitting in a deck chair snoozing sure beats rush hour.

Dave

.

jimh posted 04-08-2013 10:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The highway miles saved by taking the ferry really depend on the route being travelled and its starting point. If you are already in Ludington, then the ferry really does save a lot of highway travel. If you have to drive to Ludington from my location, SE Michigan, you don't save as many highway miles.

I completely agree with the value of not driving through Chicago with a boat trailer attached, at any time of the day or night. Every time I have driven through Chicago it has been a difficult drive and there have been unanticipated delays.

The SS BADGER does seem to be able to accommodate plenty of large trucks. Her heritage as a railroad car ferry has probably influenced the design of the deck height.

I have made many trips on the CHI-CHEEMAUN, and I have enjoyed every one of them. For a while the demand for travel to Manitoulin was so high that two ferries ran on that route, and we also sailed on the NINDAWAYMA. I have not taken a trip on the BADGER. But I would say that I am quite familiar with travel by large ship on the Great Lakes as a passenger. It is a pleasant way to travel. There is no argument from me on that topic.

I don't think the means of generating the propulsion power are a consideration. That the travel is particularly more enjoyable due to steam power and coal burning rather than diesel power and oil burning is not necessarily a universally appreciated quality.

PeteB88 posted 04-08-2013 11:34 AM ET (US)     Profile for PeteB88  Send Email to PeteB88     
Subsidize the Badger! - Bailout the Badger! Tax Money to Run Lake Michigan Ferry Service! Bridge to Wisconisin! - why not? I'd be over there all the time - and Oshkosh every year! Increase Interstate Commerce! There's the justification - need to enhance commerce between Michigan and Wisconsin and the Plains states! What the hell, I'd vote for it - a heck of a lot easier to keep track of tax dollars spent than health care mess.

You know those big lakes are barriers to interstate commerce, seriously. We know our Ohio, Indiana and even our Ontario neighbors pretty well but Wisconsin is like a foreign country these days. Michigan people get all uppity about Michigan being better than Wisconsin and Minnesota but I'm telling you they are totally cracked up the side on those claims - WI and MN are awesome places and strong economically. My friend who taught in the business school at Michigan State (Eli Broad School of Biz) used to talk about this seriously - if we had borders that we could cross easily economic impact would be super positive.

So I want my tax dollars to be spent on Lake Michigan ferry service or a big ass bridge. [From here the discussion became less and less about the water and air pollution of coal-fired ferry travel and more about politics.--jimh]

Dave Sutton posted 04-08-2013 01:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
Badger does not receive any subsidies.

She is run on a private commercial basis.


Dave

.

jimh posted 04-08-2013 01:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
It is no shame if the BADGER did get a subsidy. Heck, the government loves to subsidize business and pick winners and losers. This gives me a chance to tell my favorite joke:

Q: How do you recognize a successful farmer?

A: He has two mailboxes

(Two mail boxes so he can receive all the government subsidy checks.)

OK, back to boating and the BADGER.

L H G posted 04-08-2013 02:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
I don't see why a Gov subsidy is necessary (an exemption is really a subsidy). Why can't they simply dump the ash in an on board dumpster for disposal on land? How cheap can this BADGER operator be? What would be the annual cost of land disposal?

That coal burning beast, and other ships on the Lakes, must put out more AIR pollution than all of the "0-Star" 2-stroke outboards still operating all over the country. It seems what's good enough for "outboarding" should be good enough for shipping.

jimh posted 04-08-2013 03:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Larry--I think the coal-era outboard engines have a much better deal from the EPA. They are grandfathered in perpetuity with an exemption. The BADGER just got a two-year reprieve.
pcrussell50 posted 04-08-2013 04:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
quote:
Larry--I think the coal-era outboard engines have a much better deal from the EPA. They are grandfathered in perpetuity with an exemption.

The perpetual exemption is of little consolation to the people who are nevertheless, not allowed to use their carbureted two-strokes on certain waters. Even federal waters, where you would think their own (EPA) standards would apply. Government so big, it doesn't even abide by it's own regulations.

-Peter

jimh posted 04-09-2013 12:37 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The SS BADGER debate is still a burning ember. Illinois Democrat Senator Durbin is fanning the flames with a declaration on Monday that he wants federal intervention to stop the BADGER. See

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ ct-met-durbin-badger-ferry-20130409,0,363381.story

The article says a "chart presented by Durbin's staff estimated that 46,000 tons of waste dumped into Lake Michigan by the Badger during the past 60 years would coat the entire bottom of the lake with 2.5 inches of coal ash."

Let's see. The area of Lake Michigan is 22,394-miles-squared. Let's do some math. That area in square feet is

27,878,400 x 22,394 = 624,308,889,600-square feet.

Now we multiply by 2.5-inch/12-inch of coal ash to get the cubic feet:

624,308,889,600 x 2.5/12 = 1.3 x 10^11 cubic feet.

That is the volume it would take to cover the bottom of Lake Michigan with 2.5-inches of material.

From Durbin's estimate, the BADGER has dumped 46,000-tons of waste. Converting to pounds that is 9.2 x 10^7-lbs. Now we can find the density of the waste as

7.08 x 10^-4 lbs/feet^3

Now we have a big problem. According to Democrat Dick Durban, the material that has been dumped has a much lower density than water. The density of water is 62-lbs/foot^3. This brings us to an amazing situation in which the material on the bottom of Lake Michigan is fantastically less dense than water and could not possibly sink to the bottom.

I really love politicians when they start grandstanding on an issue. Can you imagine that anyone with an iota of intelligence could believe this nonsense? By the way, the chart is on TWITTER. I guess that is a forum where maybe math is not used when people throw around numbers.

Let's even give the honorable Democrat Senator a break and figure he meant that the 46,000-tons was dumped each year. That only increases the density of the material on the sea bed by a factor of 60, or 4.2 x 10^-2 lbs/feet^3. That is still about one-thousands times too light to sink.

In the real world, not in the TWITTER universe of grandstanding politicians, these numbers make no sense.

David Pendleton posted 04-09-2013 01:59 AM ET (US)     Profile for David Pendleton  Send Email to David Pendleton     
But Jim, we're on the fast track to becoming Venus.

How can you be so obtuse?

pete r posted 04-09-2013 05:55 AM ET (US)     Profile for pete r  Send Email to pete r     
This current argument over a well treasured old polluter is going to be one of many in the near future.

It won't be long before we view these relics in glass wall buildings

prj posted 04-09-2013 09:37 AM ET (US)     Profile for prj  Send Email to prj     
I just dumped some ash from my wood burning stove into a glass of fresh water. Imagine my surprise when it immediately sunk straight to the bottom.

Now, I thought to myself, shall I check Jim's math in his theoretical exercise or shall I just trust first hand knowledge witnessed by my very own eyes literally one minute ago?

While I cannot vouch for Sen. Durbin's calculations on the depth of coal ash the Badger's waste could theoretically create on the bottom of Lake Michigan, I can most assuredly assert that Jim's statement that the ash "... could not possibly sink to the bottom." is inaccurate. Ash can and does sink to the bottom. Immediately.

Let me clarify a bit of the detail here, I don't burn coal in my wood burner, I burn oak and elm.

Obtuse mathematical exercises proving nothing of value in regards to this issue and snarky comments regarding Venus aside, the Badger is going to stop dumping coal ash into the lake at the most, two years from now. I believe that the lake will be cleaner for that and the Badger will use the State's money and profits from it enterprise to either upgrade its powerplant into compliance or store the ash aboard for land based disposal.

Dave Sutton posted 04-09-2013 10:51 AM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
Having a container of Badger-Ash on my desk *at the moment* (given as a momento of my trip to the boiler room), I can say this:

It is a material very much like glass, and sinks quite profoundly when droped into water.

Having also spent many hours exploring the bottom of Lake Michigan, I cannot help but notice that there I've never seen any sign of it on the bottom.... ;-)


Dave

.

Dave Sutton posted 04-09-2013 10:57 AM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
"the Badger is going to stop dumping coal ash into the lake at the most, two years from now"


And you *know* this how?

Uhhh... maybe you should say "I wish" or "in my dreams" or "maybe", but... you don't know as a fact anything regarding when she will be given another exemption (most likely) converted to LNG (also a likely case in the long term), be converted to oil-fired boilers (less likely), or retired (very unlikely).

As for the lake being "cleaner", it's already drinking water quality in the area where Badger sails. Perhaps we should distill it just to make sure.


Dave

.

jimh posted 04-09-2013 11:01 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
prj misunderstand me--not surprising--and misrepresents what I have said.

The density of ash was computed from the data supplied by the honorable Democrat from Illinois. It is not I who has misrepresented anything about the ash or its density. It is the grandstanding politicos who invent statistical data and have turned ash into something whose density is only one-thousandths of water. By the way, using their data, ash is lighter than air, so it must be rising into the troposphere, not sinking into the lake bottom.

It is clear that whatever is being washed overboard is sinking; this is not in question. What I have questioned is the absurd data being invented to describe the volume of the material being discharged. I don't think anyone with a rational mind can believe that there is a layer of ash 2.5-inches thick on the bottom of Lake Michigan. The people that suggest there is are grandstanding to advance their agenda, and they hope no one bothers to test their claims with the simplest bit of mathematics.

prj posted 04-09-2013 11:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for prj  Send Email to prj     
Fair enough Dave, I don't "know" that it will stop dumping the coal ash. But this round of EPA exemptions, progressing as far as the proposed consent decree, suggests that the conflict has received sufficient attention that something will be done. What that is, I guess no one is certain.

As mentioned above somewhere, I don't feel too strongly one way or t'other about this topic. But many people do, and it seems to be coming to a head.

Aside, is that Frontier coming up here to Milwaukee for the sidescanning?

jimh posted 04-09-2013 11:26 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
ASIDE: It says something about journalism when a major newspaper would be so foolish as to accept the absurd statement of a special interest group and not subject it to the least little bit of scrutiny.
jimh posted 04-09-2013 11:46 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
It appears that the BADGER makes two trips per day. She seems to sail only May through September, or five months. Let's figure 160-days, two trips per day. That is 320-trips per year. For sixty years, that is 19,200 trips.

We know that the volume of material needed to cover the bottom of Lake Michigan to a depth of 2.5-inches is 1.3 x 10^11-ft^3. In order for this material to sink, it must have a density of more than 62-lbs/ft^3. This means that the total weight of something on the bottom of Lake Michigan to a depth of 2.5-inches must be at least 8.6 x 10^12-lbs.

Now we can figure out how much material the BADGER must carry on each trip so it can discharge this weight and let it sink to the bottom.

8.06 x 10^12-lbs / 1.92 x 10^4 trips = 4.2 x 10^8-lbs each trip

Now we have a really serious problem. The SS BADGER only displaces 6,650 tons.

Source: http://www.ssbadger.com/about/facts.html

That is a weight of 1.33 x 10^7 -lbs. This means that in order for the SS BADGER to have deposited a layer of material that was 2.5-inches thick on the bottom of Lake Michigan by operating for the past 60 years, she would have had to leave the dock on each trip carrying a weight of material to throw overboard that was

4.2 x 10^8 / 1.33 x 10^7 = 31.5-times-her displacement

This is just not possible. The BADGER would immediately sink to the bottom herself before the first trip.

These claims from the honorable Democrat Durban are completely absurd.

jimh posted 04-09-2013 12:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
By the way, it is my observation that in order to ignite coal, you need a bit of a fire starter, and to keep it burning you need to blow a lot of hot air on it. This discussion seems to have eerily similar properties.
Jerry Townsend posted 04-09-2013 12:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jerry Townsend  Send Email to Jerry Townsend     
Jim - you are just having too much fun with this. Incidently, and though not checking each number - your rational and numbers run through my head - you are right on.

Frankly, in my mind - many of our "individuals" in D.C. have lied to us at least once - and hence are totally incredible and cannot be believed in anything they say. Sad, but as Walter Cronkite (sp?) might say - "That is the way it is". ---- Jerry/Idaho

jharrell posted 04-09-2013 12:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
But Jim, we're on the fast track to becoming Venus.

Did you wake up? Perhaps he is using the same math used to figure Venus took billions of years to change or volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans.

quote:
In order for this material to sink, it must have a density of more than 62-lbs/ft^3.

Coal ash changes density based on water content since it is soluble. Dry coal ash is about 40-lbs/ft^3. Think closed cell vs open cell foam and flotation, ash is very open.

Here is my math based on 40-lbs/ft^3:

Lake Michigan: 22,394 sq miles = 624,308,889,600 sq feet .

130,064,352,000 cubic feet at 2.5" thick.

46,000 tons = 92,000,000 pounds of coal ash.

40-lbs/ft^3 = 23,000,000 cubic feet of coal ash.

110,000,000 sq feet at 2.5" thick ~ 4 square miles.

23,000,000 cu feet / 624,308,889,600 sq feet ~ 935 nanometers thick or about the thickness of a germ.

I'd say the Senators math is a little off, perhaps he should let the scientist do that sort of thing.


jimh posted 04-09-2013 12:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Jerry--I am sure there are many more absurdities in the suggested data from the honorable Democrat from Illinois's statements. For example, imagine that you had a ship that could carry this material in its hold. You need an engine to raise this material from the engine room to be carried overboard. Let us say the discharge will be at least ten feet higher than where the material is located when it is created by the combustion. It might be interesting to compute the horsepower needed to lift this weight of material a height of ten feet in the time allowed.

Each sailing appears to take about four hours, and we can assume the dumping occurs mid-lake, or half that time, or 2-hours. The total time for dumping is then

2-hours/1-trip x 1.92 x 10^4 trips = 3.84 x 10^4 hours

During that time we have to lift 8.6 x 10^12-lbs a distance of ten feet. This means the work done is 8.6 x 10^13 foot-lbs. This work is done is at a rate of

8.6 x 10^13 foot-lbs / 3.84 x 10^4 hours = 2.1 x 10^9 ft-lbs/hour

One horsepower is a rate of work of 1.98 x 10^6 ft-lbs/hour, so we can see that an auxiliary engine of 1,060-HP would be needed just to lift the ash created by the main engine ten feet so it could be thrown overboard.

[Revised this calcuation to correct and error in the initial version--jimh]

pcrussell50 posted 04-09-2013 02:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
quote:
I'd say the Senators math is a little off, perhaps he should let the scientist whose claims align with his beliefsdo that sort of thing.

Agreed and FTFY with some bolding. Otherwise, the unheeding politician runs the risk of another "Guam-tipping" incident.

-Peter

jharrell posted 04-09-2013 03:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
whose claims align with his beliefs

Since 98% of all climate scientist believe in anthropogenic climate change, they should be easy to find. Although I am not sure how that would effect the math discussed.

Dave Sutton posted 04-09-2013 03:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
"Since 98% of all climate scientist believe in anthropogenic climate change, they should be easy to find. Although I am not sure how that would effect the math discussed."


Point of order:

The controversy surrounds the water quality impact of Badger.

This has zero to do with climate change, anthropogenic or otherwise.

Were I scoring this debate, this faux pas would be a severe deduction.

Dave

(chaining up the Frontier to haul her to Milwaukee, where the water is clean, Badgers impact notwithstanding).

jharrell posted 04-09-2013 04:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
his has zero to do with climate change, anthropogenic or otherwise.

I didn't bring up the scientist belief's, pcrussell50s did. My statement specifically referred how it doesn't apply to the discussion. I respectfully contest the deduction ;).

gnr posted 04-09-2013 04:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for gnr    
Not one 'piece of ash' joke in this entire thread?

Man you guys are dull.

pcrussell50 posted 04-09-2013 06:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
And just who jumped to the conclusion that I was talking about climate change when I referred to our rulers and their faith... err, belief in climate change? ;)

And BTW, throughout history, "98% of scientists" believed in a lot of stuff that turned out to be wrong. Some of it not all that long ago... certainly well into the era of calculus, classical physics, and the scientific method. I pay a lot less heed to "consensus" than I do the physical processes at work.

-Peter

jimh posted 04-10-2013 08:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Peter makes an interesting observation about scientific opinion. Here is a good example:

In c.1900 the Norwegian scientist Kristian Birkeland correctly deduced the mechanism of the Aurora Borealis, but his view was ridiculed by mainstream scientific opinion, which was primarily controlled by the British scientific community. It was only in the 1960's that the rest of the scientists changed their veiw and concluded Birkeland's explanation was correct. For more than 60-years of modern science probably 98-percent of scientists were wrong about the cause of Aurora Borealis.

jharrell posted 04-10-2013 11:28 AM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
I pay a lot less heed to "consensus" than I do the physical processes at work.

Like paying attention to how water vapor and CO2 work? You might want to pay a little more attention.

quote:
Peter makes an interesting observation about scientific opinion. Here is a good example

Do you really want to compare the track record of scientific consensus to popular consensus?

How about this interesting observation up until about 400 years ago the popular consensus was that the sun went around the earth. For millennia people where wrong, and they almost burned Galileo at the stake for proving otherwise and was put on house arrest for the rest of his life. He wasn't cleared of wrongdoing by the Catholic church until 1992! I can dig up a few more examples if you wish, I think we all know which group has a better track record here.

jimh, do you have a better approach than science? You seem to hold it's opinion in low regard.

pcrussell50 posted 04-10-2013 03:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Not sure what you are saying? Was Galileo part of the consensus? The "98% of scientists in agreement? Or was he possibly one of the two percent fo scientists who outside of the consensus?

-Peter

jharrell posted 04-10-2013 04:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
The consensus of Copernicus, Brahe, Galileo and Kepler. They who initiated the scientific revolution giving us science as we know it today. They where in essence the 100% scientific consensus as nobody else was even using the scientific method at the time. Other scientists didn't arrest Galileo for heresy.

There is a reason Galileo is often referred to as "The Father of Science".

So what approach do you prefer pcrussell50 if not the scientific one?

jharrell posted 04-10-2013 05:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
If we wish to get back to the main subject of the SS BADGER and it's coal ash dumping. My understanding is there is a 100% scientific consensus that Coal Ash is a solid waste and should not be allowed to be dumped into drinking water sources such as Lake Michigan as regulated by the EPA.

In my view the EPA has been extremely generous in exempting the SS BADGER through 2014 giving the operators ample time to comply. There are multiple viable approaches the operators can take to stop the practice while still staying in business ass all other ferry operators do. The easiest one would seem to be to simply haul the ash out rather than dumping it. I am sure this will occur some expense, as it is always easier and therefore cheaper to simply dump waste off the side of a ship rather than haul it out, too bad.

Dave Sutton posted 04-10-2013 06:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
Point to note:

It's always easiest to figure out a solution when you have no knowlage of the system you are discussing. It's not a matter of simply raking the ash into a pile, and shovelling it into a garbage can for disposal.

Badger's ash, which is a nearly inert glass-like solid, is removed from her fireboxes by a conveyor system, and is injected into a water-stream provided by a steam-turbine powered pump. The resultant water mixed with the ash material is then discharged below the waterline as a liquid thru a sea-chest. it's not stored aboard and then pitched overboard at some discrete point. There are no "coal ash bunkers" aboard her.

Most people when they think "ash" think of a material similar to wood ash. Coal ash, derived from coal burned in pressure-fed fireboxes, is a pretty benign substance. It has the consistancy of glass beads, with obvious porousity. Badger burns coal that has been ground to a size smaller than a marble, and her ash-bits are about the size of a BB. It resembles large grain volcanic sand, and is inert enough that it makes a decent substitute for gravel in a garden if you need drainage.

Really, to make this less abstract, you should go take a ride, get a tour of the engine room, and gain some familiarity with this beautiful ship.


Dave


.

Dave Sutton posted 04-10-2013 06:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
Interesting reading, since it seems that Coal Ash samples from a number of US powerplants have a "pollutants" content similar to backyard residential soil, and is below the threshold where concern would be had for the health of children living with it as their backyard "dirt" 24/7/365.

So it seems that the Badger is dumping a material suitable for residential yard soil into the lake (yawn).


Dave


++++++++++++++++++


The US Geological Survey (USGS)1 recently published a report that provides data for concentrations of metals and inorganics in coal ash from five power plants across the United States. The objective of this study was to conduct a human health risk-based evaluation of the USGS coal ash data, using risk-based screening levels developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)2 that are protective of a child’s direct exposure to residential soils (including ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation routes of exposure). These screening levels are considered by the Agency to be protective for daily exposure by humans
(including sensitive groups) over a lifetime. Constituent concentrations in coal ash were also compared to background concentrations in soils in the US.

The results indicate that with few exceptions constituent concentrations in coal ash are below screening levels for residential soils, and are similar in concentration to background US soils. Thus, coal ash does not qualify as a hazardous substance based on its composition, and it also should not be classified as hazardous on a human health risk basis. Because exposure to constituents in coal ash used in beneficial applications, such as concrete, road base, or structural fill would be much lower than assumed for a residential scenario, These uses should also not pose a direct contact risk to human health.

L H G posted 04-10-2013 07:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
PRJ correctly wrote "the Badger is going to stop dumping coal ash into the lake at the most, two years from now".

According to the consent Decree with the EPA, that is what they have agreed to do. In 2015 they can no longer dump into the Lake. That is what the settlement compromise agreement says. By this June, they have to tell the EPA what their solution to ending the pollution will be.

Evidently, the problem is an unacceptable level of mercury in the discharge. Is not getting rid of mercury pollution in the water is a good thing?

jharrell posted 04-10-2013 07:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
it's always easiest to figure out a solution when you have no knowlage of the system you are discussing. It's not a matter of simply raking the ash into a pile, and shovelling it into a garbage can for disposal.

and

quote:
it's not stored aboard and then pitched overboard at some discrete point. There are no "coal ash bunkers" aboard her.

Except they did a trial run in 2008 storing all the ash in a 12 hour period on a round trip from Ludington to Manitowoc and had all the ash removed and weighed. This is from a report Lake Michigan Carferry Service submitted to the EPA:

http://www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/badger/pdfs/Attachment-G-1.pdf

Of course this reports conclusion is that the dumping is ok based on turbidity alone which is simply deflection of light to aquatic life, not based on the content of coal ash. They do however admit the SS BADGER can easily hold all ash produced without modification.

But what your saying is it's too hard for anyone to figure out a way to store the coal ash, even though they already did it, yet they raised the entire ship deck 3 feet to accommodate trucks?

Give me a break!

quote:
interesting reading, since it seems that Coal Ash samples from a number of US powerplants have a "pollutants" content similar to backyard residential soil, and is below the threshold where concern would be had for the health of children living with it as their backyard "dirt" 24/7/365.

The study you point is based on the EPA deciding whether or not Coal Ash should be upgraded from a subtitle D "solid waste" to a subtitle C "hazardous waste" which would prevent it from being used as a building material as it currently is. There is still debate here, but neither are allowed to be dumped into drinking water:

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/

Would you drink the dirt in your back yard?

Dave Sutton posted 04-10-2013 07:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
"PRJ correctly wrote 'the Badger is going to stop dumping coal ash into the lake at the most, two years from now'. "


Not exactly "correctly": His statement is written like this is a fait accompli, when noting of the kind is true.

What the Badger will likely do in two years is to seek another decree. Nothing is carved in stone regarding anything whatsoever. By that time the EPA might find that the ash is no longer a "hazard" (there is some fairly good evidence that this regulatory change might be the case).

Be careful for what you ask for from the EPA: It's only a small reguilatory step to prohibit the use of lead fishing sinkers and lead cannon-balls for fishing downriggers. After all, who could *possibly* be against putting LEAD into our DRINKING WATER. Think of the CHILDREN... ;-)


Really.


Dave

.

jharrell posted 04-10-2013 07:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
By that time the EPA might find that the ash is no longer a "hazard"

It is currently not considered a hazard, simply a solid waste as defined here: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/index.htm

Hazardous wastes are defined here: http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastetypes/index.htm

Your garbage is a solid non-hazardous waste according to the EPA, why don't you go put some in a glass with some water and drink up.

Dave Sutton posted 04-10-2013 08:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
^^ Ouch! Sad to see you falling back on Argumentum Ad Hominum, a certain signal of defeat in debate.

Waiting expectantly for emergence of a demonstration of Godwins Law at any moment.


<yawn>... again...


Now: Lead Fishing Sinkers... LEAD in our DRINKING WATER... the Horror!


Dave

.

jharrell posted 04-10-2013 08:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
Whats a matter, no more excuses for the SS BADGER storing it's ash like "it has no bunkers"?

Not having a response when your proven wrong is a sure sign of defeat in a debate.

saumon posted 04-10-2013 08:34 PM ET (US)     Profile for saumon  Send Email to saumon     
quote:
Is not getting rid of mercury pollution in the water is a good thing?

Good one! I think you forgot to put a capital M in mercury...

Dave Sutton posted 04-10-2013 08:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
For the one voyage trial it was hand-shovelled into stowage for one trip. She does not have stowage for routine handling of her ash. She was not designed to do so, and does not have onboard bunkers for stowage.

I've climbed thru every nook and cranny of her bunkers, fire-rooms, engine room, and other engineering spaces, and have watched her being bunkered with coal. You should feel free to do the same, if you want an introduction to her Captain, who is a personal friend and ISMA Brother.

Badger is privately owned by an individual, who although in business to not lose money, also has a very strong dedication to preserving both her history and her current usefulness as a transportation mode. The current plan, as I have stated several times, is to convert her boilers within a few years to LNG, which would make her the cleanest ship in the lakes. There are infrastructural challenges to be solved, but from current engineering, it appears that if her current coal bunker space were used for LNG stowage, she could be fuelled once a week (v/s once a voyage), and would have a near infinite lifespan ahead of her. Funds are available to do this, it's now a matter of dealing with the other 1000 yards of paper needed to do so.

Once this is solved, the EPA can get down to the business of that pesky lead in the water... which BTW impacts water quality far more than the mercury from Badger. If you think I am kidding... I am not. Worrying about Badger is that ridiculous.... she is less of an impact with her heavy metal discharge than are recreational fishermen. At least Badger has a plan. The fishermen... not so much. What will you do when they come for your sinkers? The *horror* of lead in our drinking water I say... Oh for the children! We must stop this terrible heavy-metal input into the pure clean water of the lakes or perish...


Think I'm kidding? About 4500 TONS of lead fishing sinkers are lost annually... never mind the lead oxides that are input into the water by simply SOAKING them when fishing. That white stuff on your sinker? Lead Oxide, a poision. You fish? You poison our *drinking water*... you... you... poisioner!


http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/living-green/living-green-citizen/household-hazardous-waste/nontoxic-tackle-lets-get-the-lead-out.html

<yawn again>...


Dave

.

jimh posted 04-10-2013 09:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I think Dave has a good point. If you encourage zealots when it suits your purpose you have to be aware that the zealots may just be encouraged to take the next step.

While not a hunter myself, I believe that all the duck hunters around here have to use non-lead shot because of the fear of polluting the water with all those lead pellets. Maybe we do need to get after those pesky fishermen with lead sinkers.\

By the way, where did this honorable Democrat from Illinois stand on the question of the Asian Carp invading Lake Michigan? I didn't see any bogus-science charts from his aides in the newspapers on that little problem with Lake Michigan. That is a rhetorical question; no need to get into that in this thread.

jharrell posted 04-10-2013 09:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
Point of order:

The controversy surrounds the water quality impact of Badger.

This has zero to do with lead, sinkers, bird shot or otherwise.

Were I scoring this debate, this faux pas would be a severe deduction.

Binkster posted 04-10-2013 09:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for Binkster  Send Email to Binkster     
Lake Michigan has an average depth of 279 ft. That's a long way to fish for the bottom feeders. Make em' fish with floats.

rich

Dave Sutton posted 04-10-2013 10:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
^^^ Once again, I see no content being offered, and merely see more ad hominum. Pick up your game, man, or retire from the field! Its getting boring.

Now, to your "point" if I might surmise it:

Water quality comparisons to other toxic heavy metal point-sources that are similarly regulated (or not regulated, as the case may be) is a fair way to show context insofar as regulations and their motivations are concerned.

It is an inarguable fact that Badger places less Mercury into the lakes by several orders of magnitude than the quantity of lead placed into the lakes by anglers. Both are heavy metal pollutants, and both can hypothetically degrade water quality. If you are terribly concerned about one, it stands to reason that you ought to be at least aware of the other. They have equal standing as point-sources of heavy metals input into the water, and if "fair is fair" ought to be dealt with by the EPA with equal severity.

Equal, in this case probably ought to be "monitor". Neither Badgers mercury or the fishermans lead are likely desirable inputs into the lake, but similarly neither likely has any *practical* impact on water quality. Regulating one without the other is an easy way to make political points with a large number of people while only upsetting a few. Imagine if the EPA took on fishermen? They already did so against hunters using lead shot, arguably an easier target for regulation than hunting, but what goes 'round comes 'round. Consistantly cry wolf and maybe one day the regulators will likely see that you're a bit shaggy around the ears yourself... regulation is all and good as long as you are not the one being regulated.


Dave


.


PeteB88 posted 04-10-2013 10:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for PeteB88  Send Email to PeteB88     
I want Obama to allocate $1 Trillion bucks to subsidize a Great Lakes ferry and cruise ship system. Yep, seriously. I read all these agendas and minutes about economic development for Michigan and we need Interstate Commerce right now between Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ontario and we need casino boats and I have a plan for luau boats with surfing and jet skis (Rohlfing gets it) and all kinds of lifestyle, livability, leisure - seriously - that is how we attract and retain knowledge based workers, young professionals who want to be Boulder or Portland or Santa Cruz. My company can dial this in for sure and I ain't kidding.

So with 97,000 MI/2 of fresh water and hardly any boats on it on prime summer days we gotta do something - we've got some of the most beautiful beaches on the planet and all Unsalted.

And we got ice breakers so 12 months southern part of the lakes.

Grand Haven to Chicago $50 bucks, Muskegon to Milwaukee 50 bucks, 20 bucks for passengers - kids 10 bucks - go shred Milwaukee.

I'll think up the campaign slogan and send it to Levin or someone before he croaks.

Michigan used to be a fun place to live now we're all too serious. That's why I love hangin in FL and Oregon and N California a few places in Washington.

Or as FZ said - "what happened to all the fun in the world?" Dear Talking Heads and Snyder - ain't nobody movin anywhere unless it is fun especially under 35s.

"We are here to make another world."
W. Edwards Deming

Binkster posted 04-11-2013 11:59 AM ET (US)     Profile for Binkster  Send Email to Binkster     
Pete, I agree, and not much fun going on here either. Especially since Dave took over jimh's fairly boring thread and made it his own. Now he's worried about the toxic effect of lead fishing sinkers in the Lakes. He should worry more about genetically altered food everyone is forced to eat. It's everywhere, fish, meat, poultry and veggies. Maybe he can do something about that, he's an authority on everything.

rich

Dave Sutton posted 04-11-2013 12:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
^^

Rich,

Look up "sarcasm" and add it to your vocabulary. I'm the least worried person in the world. I worry neither about fishing sinkers, or a few scoops, relative to the big picture, of coal ash added to the lake.

I've been aboard Badger and spent time with her Captain and Engineer, both aboard and over a dinner table. Not an expert, but aparently the only one here who has trodden her decks. I even got to steer her. No autopilot, amazingly enough. She is a beautiful ship.


Dave


.

EJO posted 04-11-2013 01:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for EJO  Send Email to EJO     
OK it seems that we are badgering too much. Let's talk about a real problem (and I don't mean the Federal Government because that can't be solved) the Asian carp that will be ruining Lake Michigan and after Lake Michigan it is only a question of time B-4 Huron, Erie, Ontario and Superior.
The ash dumping won't kill them as an electric fence doesn't either.
gnr posted 04-11-2013 01:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for gnr    
Holy carp that's a nice ash!!!
jharrell posted 04-11-2013 02:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:

^^^ Once again, I see no content being offered, and merely see more ad hominum. Pick up your game, man, or retire from the field! Its getting boring.
Now, to your "point" if I might surmise it:

My point was the same as yours when you made it. While lead from fishing sinkers may be a valid environmental concern, just as CO2 emissions are, and they both have a similar connection to the SS BADGER, the discussion is about the practice of coal ash dumping from the ship.

Why is it ad hominem when I make the point and not when you do? You are misusing the term ad hominem or you are being hypocritical.

Would it be better if I <yawned>, used ^^^ and went on about how boring this thread is?

If you want to talk about fishing sinkers rather than the SS BADGER fine.

The EPA does not regulate lead from fishing sinkers or bird shot and rejected a proposal to do so: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/SO.Frye.Sinker.Response.11.4.10. pdf

The scientific consensus so far seems to be that lead sinkers do not pose a great enough threat to the environment or to people to warrant regulation.

We can get into the scientific minutia of why if you would like, such as lead sinkers not being ground up into a fine powered nor lead being as toxic or as likely to leach into ground water as arsenic or mercury, but comparing 4500 tons of lead sinkers distributed across the 4.5 million square miles of us waters compared to a ship dumping a fine powder of various toxic heavy metals in a 22,000 square mile lake is not a good argument. How many sinkers are lost in the lake every year? If you go a by raw ratio it's about 22 tons per year given your 4500 figure which I could not find any reference to, the best one I found was 3000 tons per year: http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/IMAGES/GTLO/Articles/ Do_Lead_Sinkers_Threaten_The_Environment.pdf

Now back to the SS BADGER. I am glad to hear they will be converting to LNG. This will not only eliminate the ash dumping but also much of the air pollutants since as far as I can tell they don't have any scrubbers and much of the fly ash with many of the same metals goes up into the air rather than the water. Since they raised the entire deck three feet in a years time I see no reason why converting to LNG should take in excess of two years. This does leave a few unanswered questions, why didn't they do this during the first four year exemption they where given, why drag out the inevitable, how much money did they spend fighting this rather than simply complying? Why is it fair for the SS BADGER to get an exemption while other ferry operators have had to invest in more modern propulsion?

pcrussell50 posted 04-11-2013 03:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
quote:
Now back to the SS BADGER. I am glad to hear they will be converting to LNG

I'm not. I would no more want to ride in an LNG powered Badger than I would an LNG powered 1800's steam train with a plastic mold of a coal pile in the coal car, or a fake stern wheeler with a pod drive. Will the Badger even be economically viable once the "romance of coal" contingent leaves AND it has the cost of retrofit to amortize? Once it's converted, it has to compete on equal footing with modern ships, with no ace up it's sleeve any more. Can the old gal do that? I'm going to guess that IF it's retrofitted, it doesn't last five years before the operators pull out.

I hope the greatest good for the greatest number is being served by this action.

-Peter

jharrell posted 04-11-2013 04:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
Well that certainly is an interesting argument, the "romance" angle. I guess they should be allowed to continue dumping coal ash in the lake since the "romance of coal" obviously trumps pollution concerns.

As I suggested they could simply store the ash and continue to use coal to satisfy those with a coal fetish and still be in compliance.

On a side note all coal fired steam locomotives stored their ash and removed it at the end of the day into ash pits similar to a power plants rather than dumping along the side of the tracks.

L H G posted 04-11-2013 04:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
The ship's owner entered in a binding legal agreement with the Government (I guess that means all of us, too) to cease dumping (mercury laden coal ash) into the Lake after the end of 2014. I hope I am not hearing that they fully intend to NOT live by their Agreement, and even though agreeing to this one, plan to seek an other extension. Talk about bad faith negotiating.

If they are forced to live with it, this could be the end for them. Even if they carry the ash on board to a land disposal site, the highly visible black smoke from the stack will incur future air pollution enforcement. The ship seems to be a really big air polluter. It would take thousands of the now illegal-to-manufacture 2-stroke outboards to put out the smoke from this ship in a season.

So the question as to whether the ship is doomed or not depends on the cost of an alternative fuel conversion, anticipated future revenue from a slow crossing ship, and whether some government entity will give them financing, a subsidy for operation, or even an outright gift. Besides, it's operating on an insignicant and out of the way route, between two small upstate towns, with little potential for large passenger volume. BADGER'S biggest problem is that it's route is of no value to the mega population of Chicago. If these 5,000,000 people want to go to northern MI, they simply drive there.

I vacation and trail Whalers to both northern WI and northern MI shores of Lake Michigan. When in WI, I notice there is nobody there from Lower MI (too far to travel). When I am in northerm MI, I notice there is nobody there from WI (too far to travel). So the BADGER is not being used by those would-be vacationers, and never will be, even though those are the only people to which use of the ship makes any sense.

I hope they keep it running and convert to clean fuel, but with the route they have chosen, I can't see how the old girl can ever be much of a financial success. The high speed Lake Express running form Milwaukee to Muskegon already seems to have pushed it up to the less populated route across the Lake, where there is less potential for passenger volume.

pcrussell50 posted 04-11-2013 06:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
quote:
Well that certainly is an interesting argument, the "romance" angle.
I guess they should be allowed to continue dumping coal ash in the lake since the "romance of coal" obviously trumps pollution concerns.[/QUOTE]

Argument? What argument did I make? I expressed a hope that the EPA was doing the right thing in this case as without the romance, what has the Badger got that will keep her going in the face of more modern ships? Your comprehension or attention seems no better than what you have been hanging me with since I missed the point of an article you linked to.

quote:
I guess they should be allowed to continue dumping coal ash in the lake since the "romance of coal" obviously trumps pollution concerns.

You have deemed your own environmental impact due to your boating to be OK, despite it's known contribution to our atmospheric crisis. Yet you surprise me with your position on the Badger matter. For someone so quick to claim "science" for your side, you should know a thing or two about measurement and analysis. We intentionally add deadly poisons to our water supply in order to make it safe. It works because we use science to know how much to add. We monitor quantities of other bad things, (some very bad things) things in our water supply that we don't want, and our science is able to determine what are safe quantities and what are not. Certain climate scientists are able to detect minute amounts of non-toxic, trace gases in our atmosphere like CO2, determine that our atmosphere is in crisis because of it, determine how much of those tiny amounts are due to man and how much aren't, and then devise devastatingly costly, but necessary policy that as far as I can tell, you agree with. So why don't the operators and others with an interest in the Badger (and the legions of other interests that are or will be shut down), deserve the same consideration before their's liberty and livelihoods are taken from them?

-Peter

jimh posted 04-12-2013 01:22 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I am in complete agreement with Larry: I hope the SS BADGER continues in operation, and I hope they find a method to improve its environmental impact to be more compliant.

There is only one reason why the service provided by the SS BADGER is not attractive: there are free highways to travel between the two ports. The free highways are the result of a trillion-dollar investment in highways. Were it not for that trillion-dollar investment and subsidy from the government of the USA, taking a ferry would be, without any doubt, the most attractive and least expensive way to get across Lake Michigan.

Dave Sutton posted 04-12-2013 06:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
"I hope the SS BADGER continues in operation, and I hope they find a method to improve its environmental impact to be more compliant"


I don't think you have anything to fear. The operators are enthusiastic about the future. You do realize that they keep Badgers sistership Spartan at Luddington as a spare parts source, etc? They have a huge investment in the old lady.

As for ridership, every time I have been aboard she has been packed. Much of the vehicle traffic is large commercial trucks, and of that much of it is oversized cargo that cannot be taken at all thru the Chicago area. In fact, at the end of the last season after passenger trips ended, Badger still sailed for another month carrying ONLY commercial cargo. In the 50's and 60's, Badger saved a railcar an average of five days (!) transit time due to avoiding the Chicago railyards. Today Badger saves oversized trucks carrying wind turbine pylons and blades over 1000 miles of driving around Chicago. She carried over 500 such oversized loads last summer.

Badger earns her keep as far more than a tourist attraction, but even so, her decks are packed with people all summer. I don't think you have much to worry about regarding keeping her in service.

Dave

.

jharrell posted 04-12-2013 11:07 AM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
Argument? What argument did I make?

I thought your argument was pretty clear, without the "romance" of coal the badger will no longer be able compete. You said specifically you didn't think it could without this "ace up it's sleeve".

How else could your argument be comprehended? I am glad you had some hope your argument was wrong, but you still made one.

quote:
You have deemed your own environmental impact due to your boating to be OK, despite it's known contribution to our atmospheric crisis.

So now you are going to compare my 90HP 2-stroke with a 7,560 hp coal burning ship?

The point to be made,other than the obvious volume and size difference, is that I am allowed to run my engine without a special exemption from the EPA. Should I be in a similar situation to the SS BADGER and have a 6 YEAR window to repower I think I might easily do so rather than attempt a legal battle with them while simultaneously improving my boat by getting a new quieter more fuel efficient engine. In fact I am putting my money where my mouth is without EPA intervention and have been in the process of getting quotes for a repower as I have been planning to for some time. Part of my decision for wanting to do a repower is the environmental aspect, burning half the fuel means half the CO2 and probably an order of magnitude less HC. I like the "romance" of my 2-stroke "tower of power", the look, the sound, but I cannot justify it's emissions output any longer, so I am proactively changing the situation, unlike the owners of the SS BADGER.

I never suggested the SS BADGER stop running, or even stop burning coal, I just agree it needs to stop dumping ash. My 2-stroke doesn't dump coal ash into the water and the comparison is yet another diversion from the SS BADGER discussion similar to what I have been chided for, yet others here seem to have a free pass to continue.

jharrell posted 04-12-2013 11:09 AM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
Now again back to the SS BADGER wiht some real content:

The entire EPA rundown can be located here: http://www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/badger/

This has much useful information including the amortization of ash storage and LNG conversion options:

Ash Storage:
Capital $2,228,784.00 amortized over 5 years at %5 is $547,107.60 annually or $3,907.91 per day over 140 day season per year.

Ongoing expense(labor,haul out, etc) $1129.63 per day or $158148.20 annually.

http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/npdestek/badger/pdfs/application/ badger-appy.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/npdestek/badger/pdfs/application/ badger-appb.pdf

LNG conversion:

Capital $7,559,469.96 amortized over 10 years at %5 is $962,158.92 annually or $6872.56 per day over 140 day season per year.

http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/npdestek/badger/pdfs/application/ badger-appz.pdf


From this information it looks like the LNG conversion will take over 20 years to be more economically viable than the ash retention option. So either the owners are simply trying be more environmentally responsible than required for which they should be applauded for or there are other cost mitigation factors not accounted for in the LNG conversion, or perhaps they are simply thinking very long term, which again is a very good thing.

jimh posted 04-12-2013 11:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I think I have the solution, and it handles several problems.

As we have learned from the honorable Democrat from Illinois, Lake Michigan has a 2.5-inch layer covering the entire lake bottom with coal ash.

We also know that the aquatic invasive species ASIAN CARP are bottom feeders.

We allow the ASIAN CARP to enter Lake Michigan. They begin to feed on the 2.5-inch layer of coal ash on the bottom. The mercury content of the coal ash causes sterility in the offspring of the ASIAN CARP. The ASIAN CARP die off after one or two generations.

jharrell posted 04-12-2013 11:26 AM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
There is a flaw in your plan jimh. Since coal ash is less dense than water at 40lbs-lbs/ft^3 and therefor cannot sink preventing it from reaching the Asian carp.
Dave Sutton posted 04-12-2013 11:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
^^ if we can teach politicians to eat coal ash off of the bottom, we will be all set.


"I never suggested the SS BADGER stop running, or even stop burning coal, I just agree it needs to stop dumping ash. My 2-stroke doesn't dump coal ash into the water and the comparison is" <snipped>


The total accumulation of effects from the Great Lakes huge population of oily, smoky, nasty, obsolete 2 strokes contributes more total pollution to the lakes than one steamship. I can go to the launch ramp at Manitowac any day of the week and see the oil-sheen on the surface and the blue smoke. I suggest an immediate decree to replace them all within the next two years, which would not be a problem, since after all "we are all in this together" aren't we? If it's good for Badger, it's good for you. After all, pollution is a large problem comprised of many small problems. So: Pay your belief system forward, buy a new low emissions outboard, destroy your old 2 stroke so someone else cannot repurpose it on their boat, and then come back and tell us more about Badger.


Dave


.

Dave Sutton posted 04-12-2013 11:37 AM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Sutton  Send Email to Dave Sutton     
^^ I forgot to add a "thank you" for the amortization information. It misses the difference between cost of coal and cost of LNG, and the haul-in cost of the coal, as well as the handling costs for daily coaling. There are additional economic advantages to LNG that are not in the basic math.

And I'm glad you are repowering.

Dave

.

jharrell posted 04-12-2013 11:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
^^^ Your welcome and thanks for reading thoroughly, although I did take another deduction for your faux pas.
jimh posted 04-14-2013 01:09 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Dave comments:

quote:
...destroy your old 2 stroke so someone else cannot repurpose it on their boat, and then come back and tell us more about Badger.

Ouch. That part about having to destroy the old two-stroke is going to be hard. You might eventually convince a few folks to get a new engine, but intentionally destroying the classic two-stroke--why that would be like forcing a coal burning ship to change to LNG.

bud jones posted 04-14-2013 03:41 AM ET (US)     Profile for bud jones  Send Email to bud jones     
1.3 x 10^11 cubic feet

Mr. Editor, I salute your style and will perhaps help explain the joke to the people who haven't gotten it yet.

1.3 x 10^11 cubic feet of ash if piled into a cube shaped "dumpster" would require a dumpster (1.3 x 10^11)^-3 feet long in each dimension. Imagine a dumpster 109139288306 feet long in every direction. I copy-pasted that number from google calculator of cube root of 1.3 x 10^11.

Go ahead and put he commas in to 109139288306.
It's a mathematical impossibility.

I'd love to see the math on the following:
Volume of coal to generate that ash

How many hundreds of parallel rail lines to deliver that volume of coal

Calculate runtime hours per year

Calculate volume of ash per runtime hour

Assume 7 3 foot apertures (dump spouts)

How many cubic feet per hour per nozzle to fill the dumpster?

How do we derive the velocity of the flow from the above?

Velocity should be solved for m/s.

From the information above we derive kg/s using total mass and runtime hours.

Now we can solve for Ke = mv^2, which is in newtons, which we can take right into horsepower or thrust generated by the dump spout ejecting a known large quantity of mass at a known high velocity over a known period of time - that is actually orders of magnitude more powerful than a saturn V.

This means we can determine, if we can find out he mass of the BADGER, whether or not she would be in low earth orbit or in danger of rear ending a Voyager.

But the best part is we can use the volume of coal to fuel this and the thrust over time data to determine BSFC of the coal fired plant of the BADGER vs. E-TEC vs HONDA BF250


Post New Topic  Post Reply
Hop to:


Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.