Boatnerd Discussion Forum

Looks to me like the EPA had issues with the procedures that were used in the collection and analysis of the samples - not with the results of the analysis of the samples.

It's a mistake to distribute the "studies have proven that SS Badger ash is harmless" talking point. Mainly, because it puts words in the mouth of the EPA that do not match what they are saying. The much discussed test results do no prove what allies say they do.

EPA says:
"We have identified issues with the collection and analysis of the five samples of coal ash taken by LMC from the S.S. Badger. We
have determined that these issues , while significant, do not preclude using the data in developing a draft permitting decision."
http://www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/bad ... letter.pdf

"Significant issues" doesn't sound like "tests prove ...."

How bad is the ash? No saying, but it certainly sounds like there is some open debate.

They have been able to prove time and time again through EPA funded labs that the ash does not harm the lake in any way. This is a political issue, pure and simple.

Studies have shown that dumping the coal ash damages the lake in absolutely no way, and the Badger still has a chance if the EPA gives her the actual permit. Their decision has not yet been made.

Ogie wrote:I'm the furthest thing from an environmentalist, but part of me is pleased no more coal ash into the lake. Lake Michigan is among our greatest treasures.

The science is clear on the subject, the coal ash was inert and not causing any harm. Just a single mercury fever thermometer contains dozens of times more mercury than all the coal ash dumped during the course of a single season yet that was considered the primary contaminant.

It's going to be a travesty if the government shuts down the Badger.

Well, the decision was inevitable. Hopefully the money can be raised to do a full conversion of the vessel as quickly as possible. I'm the furthest thing from an environmentalist, but part of me is pleased no more coal ash into the lake. Lake Michigan is among our greatest treasures.

guestt1 wrote:Today the US House passed a Coast Guard reauthorization bill taking away language requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to allow the badger, which dumps coal and ash into Lake Michigan, to keep discharging.

It now goes to President Obama for his signature.

So what does that mean, will the Badger continue to run of not?

Today the US House passed a Coast Guard reauthorization bill taking away language requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to allow the badger, which dumps coal and ash into Lake Michigan, to keep discharging.

It now goes to President Obama for his signature.

Speculate and theorize all you want about what is the best way to collect ash. As I stated before in my previous post, per the Senior Chief Engineer of the Badger, LMC already has a game-plan for ash collection if they have to go that route. There will be 2 dumpster like containers in the bow of the car deck where the turn around is and they will lose 8 cars from their capacity. I don't know how it will be delivered to the containers but my guess is conveyors.
They would rather have an extension of their permit so they can complete the gas conversion. That would be Liquified natural gas (LNG) not the compressed natural gas (CNG) as was initially talked about. This is already in use in other countries with success. The conversion is fairly straight forward and has mostly been worked out. The biggest problem with this is the logistics of where the fuel would come from. The closest place with LNG is Chicago.
Ideally they would like to see the permanent exemption and keep on the way she is but if that isn't possible they would prefer to have the time to do the gas conversion but not spend their money on the ash reclamation and then have to do the gas conversion later. They will do the ash reclamation if they have to. Again this info came from the Senior Chief of the Badger.

The ash would have to be de-watered, as it comes out of engineering in a slurry form. I don't think it would be dried on-board before going into a tempory storage container. dried would seem to take up less room, and be easier to handle. Dried fly-ash can be handled pneumatically, where as wet fly-ash would have to be augered or conveyered.

Does the Bager have room on deck for a sealed roll-off box to left on deck to collect ash, and it can be removed and replaced with very little trouble instead of all the below decks equipment people are talking about? Wouldn't it be nice if it were just that simple.

10% ash content coal would add up to 40,000 to 50,000 lbs of ash a week during the season. Multiply that by a half year of operation would be close to the 500 tons a year of ash. If the ash is in a slurry, that amount would maybe be a truckload a day.
How much space is not used under the car-deck? Seems like a ash-slurry recovery process could fit into a fairly small space. The slurry would have to be de-watered before an auger moves it up to a hopper.
Water-tight doors and bulkheads might make inter-compartment transfers of materials difficult. A dump truck could be left on-board during operations to eliminate storing the wet ash for a whole trip.
Ash-recovery seems like a better solution to keep costs stable for the remainding lifespan of the ship.
The CNG conversion would require major ironwork to place the storage tanks under the car-deck, and also the ducts that I would assume to be needed for venting the CNG gas storage compartments if there was ever a leak.
Seems like a lot of money to invest(gas conversion) on a vessel that has a limited season and so suspectable to nature's own issues.
I hope to see the Badger sailing Lake Michigan for many more years to come!

That truckload lasts a full 24 hours whether they do one round trip or two. The SS Badger is restricted by law to burn coal that produces at maximum 10 percent of its mass as ash.

On a typical crossing, would the badger burn a truckload of coal? That would be about 45000 lbs, if that was 25% ash after burning, you would end up with about 12000 lbs of ash. A round trip would be 24000 lbs, a half truckload. These are only my estimates.
Where are they getting the 500 tons number?

Ken.

this site has some uses for coal burning byproducts..
http://www.undeerc.org/carrc/html/whatiscoalash.html

Is "fly ash" relevant to the Badger situation? I thought they were dumping "bottom ash" slurry overboard, and all their fly ash was going up the stack (I've stood on the stern and marveled at the trailing plume of something, which was a big part of the Badger experience for me). Depending on who you believe power generating stations currently recycle around half of the fly ash they are mandated to capture, and that will probably increase in the future, through more mandates. At one point, there was a lot of hope that all the drywall we needed could be made from recycled rather than mined gypsum (a by product of the limestone slurry flue-gas desulfurization process), but there appear to have been problems with contaminates getting into the walls of peoples houses, which might be worse than putting them on the bottom of the lake. This is all so very complicated....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_ash

Timerover51 wrote:A friend of mine works at the coal-burning power plant in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, and they are selling all of the furnace ash that they produce.

Timerover51, does that mean there is potentially an existing market for the ash the Badger produces? Any idea what it might be and how the Badger could play into it?

Paul A wrote:I don't think there's any use for clinker ash that the Badger disposes overboard.

Then it stands to reason that as long as there is the Badger as a coal-burner, and the various power plants producing a similar byproduct, that someone could probably come up with a profitable use for it. Anyone? It's a bit out of my idiom as a woodworker and musician...

when they had 600 coal burners running (including ferries owned by the state of michigan) they all dumped their ashes into the lakes as tree huggers hadnt been invented yet

Coalburner and Timerover51, thankyou for your input. I stand enlightened!