Boatnerd Discussion Forum

Is it likely that the installation of diesels on the Badger will result in serious cost savings? See the posting on the news page regarding the re-powering of the Michipicoten. It seems like the return on investment for a new, highly-automated, emissions compliant power plant will be fairly quick and highly significant. I regret the passing of the coal powered steam plant but if the boat is to be kept in service, this may be a good thing from an economic point of view. Another effect is likely to be a reduction in crew size in the engine room. That can be good or bad depending on how one looks at it. Should reduce direct operating costs in addition to the fuel cost reduction. Environmental benefit is a given even though its overall effect on water and air quality is minimal in the big picture.

Have heard that if they put diesels in, they may be put in aft of the current engine room, the steam engines & boilers being retained for ballast purposes.

A few years ago while on the Badger a man came over and struck up a conversation with me. Turned out to be one of the owners and we talked about the Badger a possible conversion. He stated that they had been working on a grant or a possible low interest loan from the government to replace the engine but they ran into some politicians that didn't want to give the company money and it was stopped. I also believe he talked about putting the re-powering into some sort of bill that was also stopped by someone in the government. His theory was that Lake Express had their hands in on it. Don't know if that is true or not but we need to keep this vessel sailing.

The biggest deal here is the disposal of the coal ash. After 2012 they will no longer be able to dump it into the lake, which means it would have to be contained somehow on board the boat, then removed & disposed of. The construction of a containment bin on board will be costly & take up a lot of room; likewise, disposing of the ash will also be costly. The boiler's on the Badger are not readily adaptable to an oil conversion; due to the design of her fireboxes she would be a fuel pig, much as the Joe Thompson & the other former troop ship conversions were back in the 80s. A conversion to diesel would be the most cost-effective fix to the ash problem.

Norskellunge wrote:While I think it's good that our country is trying to protect the Earth, overreactions in the past have cost us some amazing pieces of history.

Reminds me of the battleship USS Oregon. She was launched in 1893 and served in the Spanish American War. She was a museum ship for several decades until WWII when they decided her scrap value was too great and sold her for scrapping in 1942.

She was sacrificed for the war effort and cut down to a barge, with the pieces sitting for several years before being melted down well after the war ended.

Then in the 50s, they sold what was left for scrapping in Japan...

I'm optimistic and hopeful that this is a wise decision for the Badger's long term survival even though it's unfortunate and sad. Hopefully in future years we won't be looking back on it with the reget that we hold towards something like the loss of the USS Oregon.

Let me give it a shot.

1. Conversion to oil burners just trades one obsolete technology for another, and does nothing to address other issues that Badger has by virtue of her age. For example, I have heard that her existing turbogenerators are running at nearly maximum capacity to support the ship in her current configuration. a conversion to diesel generators can address this. I also believe Badger has a steam drum pressure restriction that limits her maximum power. I do not know if this limits her in a practical sense, but it does speak to aging issues that an old steam plant would be coping with.
2. Diesel engines will allow for a reduction in engine room crew size. Not a happy prospect, but crew size reduction does help the business remain competitive.
3. Diesel engines permit bridge control of the propellers during docking maneuvers.
4. Diesel engines permit a reduction in winter work.
5. Diesel (or conversion oil burners, for that matter) would potentially expand her operating range, in that she would not be restricted to visiting ports that can accommodate her unique method of fueling.
6. Finally, as much as we all love her the way she is, I also enjoy the convenience of the service she provides. When it comes down to that, I use the Badger because of where she goes, and not because of what she burns. If this is what is needed to keep the service afloat and the money can be identified, then I say Let's Go.

There isn't anyone out there, save the Lake Express operators and a few enviros, who feel that the Badger should be forced to abandon its historical significance in favor of modern propulsion. Contrary to misinformation being spread, the coal ash being discharged is essentially inert. Lake Michigan has never been cleaner, and if you want to catch more salmon and trout than anywhere else on the Great Lakes, go to Ludington Michigan or Manitowoc Wisconsin.

My thoughts:

I can't find many details regarding the whole situation, and my love for the lake boats is sure to make me biased, but this feels like a knee-jerk reaction that will be regretted not many years from now.

Perhaps there is evidence to prove my assumption wrong, but I feel one coal-fired vessel can hardly have a truly devastating impact on the Great Lakes and environment. While I think it's good that our country is trying to protect the Earth, overreactions in the past have cost us some amazing pieces of history, such as countless old and beautiful buildings replaced by windowless, uninspiring cubes. Many of these relics were lost during a time of disregard for the future and a focus on an apparent crisis which proved to be temporary. What do we gain from these efficient and soulless structures now? What value are they that can be measured against what was lost?

I sincerely hope we do not make the same mistakes again.

I'm sort of confused and surprised by the article of the repowering of the Badger in todays (15Jul10) news. I can understand (not really) the ban on the discharging of ash overboard, however, since the ship's power plant is recognised as an ASME historical mechanical engineering landmark I can't understand why they are talking of repowering as opposed to converting the boilers to HFO. I realise that the great lakes steamers were narrowly pardoned from the latest pollution standards but this is an historic rarity like the few surviving coal fired steam railroad locomotives or even fewer traction engines. Isn't there another grant that would be offered under historical preservation that could be used to convert the burners rather than what is being persued?
What is everybody's thoughts of this?

Paul Anderson