Boatnerd Discussion Forum

Guest wrote:This is what I can't understand. When the power plant in Oak Creek dumped 10,000 tons of coal ash in the lake when there sea wall failed the EPA said it was no problem, not toxic, but with the badger it is?

All this Badger "back and forth" conversation is just promoting more negative attitude's for the Badger. Take a ride on any lake's ship and see what is put back into the water (at time's) after leaving port. The "only toxic" concern's here are the Lake Express people (and the Illinois politician's). The Badger certainly should be left to run as a tribute "as a real tribute to a long passing era". It certainly isn't doing anymore to the enviroment then the museum steam train's for tourist's thru-out the country. Face it, put the Badger next to the Lake Express, and you tell me "which is the real boat!".

Ted Knack wrote:I was watching a train Video where they converted a steam locomotive to burn Used cooking oil. It said they didnt have any trouble Keeping up steam and it burned cleaner.And no Ashes.I wonder if that would work on the Badger.They could keep the boilers and Steam Engines,no ashes to dump.Just figure how many gallons they would burn on a trip to see if there is enough supply to d that. Alot of Fast food resturants who dump thier cooking Oil would there be enough supply and the cost of handling it.

A few years ago we were using this (called biodiesel) to power our vehicles. It requires an amount of refinement and filtering, and depending on where we got the oil the exhaust would smell like a fast-food restaurant, giving it the nickname "fryodiesel". It was very inexpensive (half that of regular diesel) until it caught on, then prices got to be more than regular diesel. A couple stations in our area even carried it for a while.

However, we soon found out it wasn't kind to our fuel systems and all savings in fuel costs were lost to expensive system repairs. After about a year we discontinued the use.

It also wasn't as efficient as regular diesel; our cargo van dropped from about 16MPG to about 13MPG, which would be significant when you're talking about powering the Badger.

Ted Knack wrote:I was watching a train Video where they converted a steam locomotive to burn Used cooking oil. It said they didnt have any trouble Keeping up steam and it burned cleaner.And no Ashes.I wonder if that would work on the Badger.They could keep the boilers and Steam Engines,no ashes to dump.Just figure how many gallons they would burn on a trip to see if there is enough supply to d that. Alot of Fast food resturants who dump thier cooking Oil would there be enough supply and the cost of handling it.

Ted - there is actually a competitive market for used cooking oil now, at least in the larger cities. I know that here in Vegas, most of the oil dump tanks behind the restaurants are designed and locked to prevent the theft of the oil.

This is what I can't understand. When the power plant in Oak Creek dumped 10,000 tons of coal ash in the lake when there sea wall failed the EPA said it was no problem, not toxic, but with the badger it is?

Badger's future has now caught the interest of NPR. Her's the link to the article and video. http://www.npr.org/2013/03/04/172954678 ... e-numbered

Randy S wrote:MilwBob - I am far from being an engineer, but if you need "X" number of BTUs, on "Y" tube surface area, to produce "Z" tons of steam, the actual size of the firebox shouldn't matter as long as sufficient BTUs were generated? If the current firebox is partitoned off and not being fully used, what modifications to the boiler would be needed to install NatGas nozzles/burners?

I'm just saying what I was told. Did not get into the 'how's and why's and what if's' of it.

I was watching a train Video where they converted a steam locomotive to burn Used cooking oil. It said they didnt have any trouble Keeping up steam and it burned cleaner.And no Ashes.I wonder if that would work on the Badger.They could keep the boilers and Steam Engines,no ashes to dump.Just figure how many gallons they would burn on a trip to see if there is enough supply to d that. Alot of Fast food resturants who dump thier cooking Oil would there be enough supply and the cost of handling it.

MilwBob - I am far from being an engineer, but if you need "X" number of BTUs, on "Y" tube surface area, to produce "Z" tons of steam, the actual size of the firebox shouldn't matter as long as sufficient BTUs were generated? If the current firebox is partitoned off and not being fully used, what modifications to the boiler would be needed to install NatGas nozzles/burners?

Randy S wrote:Its been stated that converting from coal to gas fired would involve major boiler work. My question is what would have to be done other than replacing the stokers with gas nozzles? Admittedly - there is *other* work that would have to be done such as installation of fuel tanks etc, but I just dont see where the actual boiler work would be that complicated or intensive.

I was told by one of the Badger's engineers that when the C&O built the Badger back in the 50s they specified a firehold that was far larger than what they needed. When the boiler manufacturer suggested something more practical, the C&O told them "either build it to our spec or we'll take our business elsewhere". Since coal was cheap for the C&O they could afford to let fuel go up the stack. Per the engineer they now have the firehold partitioned off to keep coal consumption to a tolerable level, but converting it to oil would cause it to be such a fuel pig they decided it wasn't worth it.

A clarification must be made. The Badger is trying to deal with bottom ash or clinker. Fly ash is fine particulate that flies up the flue which is used to make high strength concrete.

As per all the questions of disposal of the Badger's fly ash, start with calling local coal firing facilities and they will give info on how they remove, transport, store, equipment required etc. The Badger's parent company must be pro-active. Over the years we would ship out 7 trucks or more @ 70 yds of flyash per day {we didn't own the trucks} to cement plants or various waste facilities. As far as the Badger company not contacting me, if they did, I would take the job and their ash problem would have history.

Its been stated that converting from coal to gas fired would involve major boiler work. My question is what would have to be done other than replacing the stokers with gas nozzles? Admittedly - there is *other* work that would have to be done such as installation of fuel tanks etc, but I just dont see where the actual boiler work would be that complicated or intensive.

Russ wrote: Then there would be the cost of maintaining a payloader, or some similar operation to load the ash (likely onto trucks), the cost of maintaining and operating a fleet of trucks, and the cost of ultimate disposal. The reason the company failed to get back to you is that your proposal addressed less than half of the problem that must be solved.

You would think they would just dump into roll-off boxes and have a company haul them away and dump them rather than buy and maintain trucks of their own. Would have to be cheaper. A driver, insurance, licensing, maintenance is costly.

To Nighthunter -
The problem is not limited to designing a mechanism to remove the fly ash from the badger. After the ash is discharged, they can't keep the ash on the dock. In which landfill or waste disposal area will they be allowed to place the ash?, How far away is the facility?; How will they transport the ash to the selected facility?; and how much will each of these decisions cost?

I doubt that EPA has performed any studies on the environmental behavior of steamboat flyash. Therefore, a detailed Environmental Impact Study may be required before a decision can be made. If the flyash is considered benign, it can be disposed of in a sanitary landfill -- if one can be found that will accept the waste. If the flyash is considered toxic under the technically retarded system used by EPA to classify waste material, it will become much harder to find a facility to accept the flyash. Then there would be the cost of maintaining a payloader, or some similar operation to load the ash (likely onto trucks), the cost of maintaining and operating a fleet of trucks, and the cost of ultimate disposal. The reason the company failed to get back to you is that your proposal addressed less than half of the problem that must be solved.

Pete in Holland MI wrote:As was explained to me, the only CNG fueling facility on Lake Michigan is in Chicago. Setting up a new location costs 10's of millions of dollars. This is one of the conversion hurdles.

Repowering the ship is also a huge task. Not only engines need to be swapped out, but generators need to be converted from steam, dozens of pumps, ship heat systems, winches, horns, propellors (pitch and/or diameter will most likely change).

It is a Very big big task and cost to change from steam to diesel.

Actually, Pete, LMC aren't discussing re-powering the Badger, as in swapping out the engines for new. What they are talking about is fueling the current ship with LNG, keeping her historically significant steam engines. So no new systems would be required as far as her powerplant is concerned. I would imagine significant boiler modifications however.

I can't believe anyone is talking about the Badger's ash disposal problem! All that is needed is to install an on-board ash conveyor and storage system which can be unloaded from the ship every night at the Ludington's dock. Removing 10 ton of ash from a ship is an easy design compared to 1000 ton from a generating station / day. I wrote a letter to the Badger's owners on this topic 2 years past, I don't understand why this is still being kicked around. Also, the Governor could make the Badger an 'Operational State Historical Ship' and tell the EPA to leave our state. I know, some people will say no, no, but this is our state and the Badger is the last of the last, all others are only in history books. Remember, America was founded on 'there is no such a thing as can't.

Pete, I don't even think that CNG is in the picture because of the on-board storage limitations. LNG is much more compact and would be much more practical - Once the shoreside infrastructure is in place. I would also imagine that the fuel tanks would have to be carried topside or in the open - NatGas is lighter than air and quicky disperses when leaks occur. You would not really want to store the stuff below deck if at all possible.

As was explained to me, the only CNG fueling facility on Lake Michigan is in Chicago. Setting up a new location costs 10's of millions of dollars. This is one of the conversion hurdles.

Repowering the ship is also a huge task. Not only engines need to be swapped out, but generators need to be converted from steam, dozens of pumps, ship heat systems, winches, horns, propellors (pitch and/or diameter will most likely change).

It is a Very big big task and cost to change from steam to diesel.

Guest wrote:

MilwBob wrote:
In addition, the Coat Guard still has to write the regulations for such a fuel system. I guess they use LNG in Europe for some ships but this would be the first for the states.

If the Coast Guard has not even written up the regulations for such fuel system, then I personally don't see this as being a solution anywhere within the next 5 years (or longer given the way government bureaucracy works). Before being allowed to operate a US-flagged passenger carrying ship with LNG, I assume that an extensive testing program would be required. The use of this fuel could also have a negative impact on the insurance rates carried upon the Badger.

As mentioned a few posts back, LMC isn't the only fleet looking at LNG-powered, U.S.-flagged passenger operations. Washington State Ferries is about to convert a number of its large passenger / auto ferries to LNG propulsion. In addition, TOTE is building two new LNG powered, U.S.-flagged containerships for the mainland - Puerto Rico run and is converting its two Tacoma - Anchorage RO/LOs to LNG. GLMRI is aggressively pursuing detailed studies of the potential of converting the remaining steam-powered, U.S.-flagged lakers to LNG propulsion. With all of that happening at once, the USCG has already rolled up their sleeves to delve into LNG propulsion regulation.

Secondly, what is the distrubution network for this type of fuel? It seems to me that obtaining this fuel would be an expensive task given the fact that the Badger would be the only such fueled vessel on the lakes following conversion. I just don't see LNG as being a practical solution for this problem at this time.

Part of the appeal of LNG is its low market coast, the fact that it's priced continentally and not globally, and its predicted abundance into the future, which is expected to keep growth in price slow. Initial logistical challenges in distribution undoubtedly exist but they're being discussed and addressed too. A plethora of discussion and information about all of this can be accessed at the following pages:

http://www.glmri.org/news/presentations12.php
http://www.glmri.org/research/
http://www.glmri.org/research/lngMisc.php
http://www.glmri.org/research/lngConference.php
http://www.glmri.org/research/lngMtg6-2012.php

The Lake Express engines aren't even Tier 1. You could not operate the Viking with its current propulsion system because of a clause in the EPAs regulations which essentially says that if you spend more than half the value of a vessel on improvements the propulsion system must meet the current emissions mandates, which now are Tier III. The Viking would need a Lot of cosmetic and system work to get even close to what is found on the Badger. 4 Tier III diesel engines for the Viking would likely cost at least $2 million alone, and then they would burn an awful lot of expensive fuel. If the Lake Express didn't have the Lubar family using it as a write off that company would have gone broke years ago, given the amount of fuel they burn in a day.