Boatnerd Discussion Forum

A gentle reminder that the EPA is phasing out oil as a fuel source by 2020. No sense going down that road. Another consideration: The EPA was sued by environmentalists and was forced to apply the Clean Water Act regulations to ships, even though the intent of the law was to prevent industrial discharges into the water. Who is to say that the enviros won't do the same thing with the Clean Air Act? Then what will the Badger do? Put the smoke in the landfill too?

Guest wrote:If they can do it for the railroads why not the Badger?

Big difference - When the railroads converted to diesel, it was almost due to necessity. Coal burners needed Huge amounts of water to operate, that had to be strategically stored along with fuel. Diesel gave the RRs a far greater operating range and better dependability.

The other thing that bothers me about the Badger's re-engining is that the US has an immense amount of coal reserves, and is a net exporter of coal. The Badger burning coal is using an abundant fuel which the US has plenty of. The US is presently importing roughly 60% of its petroleum. It would make more sense to increase the number of coal-burning ships, and then either store the ashes in land fills, or recycle them into other materials, which is routinely done by power plants. I think that it would take over 100 ships like the Badger to equal the coal consumption of a single modern coal fired power plant.

First let me say that I am all in favor of seeing the Badger continue, but the Govt isn't in the business of giving grants to for profit companies unless it is the auto industry. There is no reason that the ashes can't be kept and disposed of in a land fill. It is more trouble, but not that big a deal. Instead of converting to diesel, converting to oil would be cheaper and easier, even if it meant replacing the fire boxes or boilers. Conversion to oil will reduce the heating surface, but this should not be a problem since the Badger never carries a designed full load anyway.

It's nice to see well informed, logically thinking posters on this site. Unfortunately, we are outnumbered by a vocal minority, just like most other areas of our country, and especially those who seem to have excess influence on our government. We have a chance to change things in November, if we care to step up and be heard.

You are right about the EPA going unchecked and out of control. Their establishment in the 1970 was beneficial. Anyone remember the smog of Los Angeles, nasty. But like everything good the government begins it soon turns into a mess run by appointed extremists. The coal ash that is being dumped is about as harmful as dirt. The City of Milwaukee dumps billions of "Mixed" waste water into Lake Michigan each year and it not a problem according to the EPA. I read this year alone the amount of untreated waste water dumped into Lake Michigan was 40x larger then the amount of oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico and that was an evironmental crisis. And they are worried about Coal Ash dumped by one ship 8 months out of the year? Give us a break.

The thing is I'm not a tree hugger, I'm just a guy that would like to be able to take his family to the beach and actually swim in it once in a while and watch a ship go by, but I can't half the summer because of some bacteria Milwaukee officials dumped in the Lake.

It would be nice if the EPA would actually govern the biggest polluter in this country, you guested it the federal government. Ironic isn't it? Now we have 15% corn gas coming to cause even higher emissions and destroying our engines. Great caring folks there at the EPA.

If they can do it for the railroads why not the Badger?

The sad part is most people don't realize how out of control the EPA is today. They say what goes and answer to no one. Lets be realistic, one ship dumping ash, 5 months a year in the middle of the lake? I could see if it were the whole great lakes fleet, but one ship?
The EPA has done some positive things but they are also one of the main reasons we cant compete with foreign markets in manufacturing. It bothers me to see them have to convert the ship to diesel but its sickening to think they may not run when the government subsidized Lake Express keeps running. Enjoy the sweet smell of coal smoke while you can!

Neil b

I agree one the Badger. But what I disagree with is the article and the turn down of the grant.
They need that money to do it and should get it.
The Lake Express was against it and said it would be unfair to the competition.
Well i look at it this way. When the Badger started Mr Conrad had to use his own money because the government said no then , and said there was no need for cross lake ferry service. So he does it anyway on his own dime. Now that makes it a private company, and we should remeber that, because to me it is important.
Now go forward "X" number of years and we have the Lake Express looking for government money. Well now all of a sudden they get helped out. Now that was public tax money being used.
I sticks me very funny that at the end of the year they can report on their year by saying just that it was either better or worse than last year, and maybe say we carried whatever number of passengers and vehicles. They say they will not state numbers because of the competition. My tax dollars are helping them out but they are not held accountable. This to me is an outrage , and they should have to report these things in public because they took the money. Otherwise they should have gotten all their own private funding.
Now the Badger gets turned down, and I ask you . Is it or is it not a very important part of Ludington? I think it is very important to that community and it's economy.
The only reason Lake Express is against this is because of competiton. Well when a lot of people go on vacation they like to take a nice leisre ride on the Badger instead of the thing of " How fast can I get there"
There is a place for both of these Ships and their services that they provide.
Look at how many the Badger employs? Give the thing some stimulas money. How many people will be put to work on the conversion etc. etc.
This not rocket science folks.
But i suppose it is for Washington, but then again why would we expect them to vote on a grant when they most likely don't even know what they are voting on, because they don't even know what a carferry service is.
Sorry for being long but I needed to vent on this one. We need that service
Tom Geiger
Oxford, Wi

the badger has 18 inches of more clearance that the spartan hardly enough business for one boat let alone two i dont think its the owners who want to convert her to diesel its the feds

I doubt that there is sufficient volume to operate both the Badger and the Spartan.

People have mentioned the possibility of repowering the Spartan. However, in addition to repowering costs, she would need additional updates. She hasn't sailed in many years, and has not received the updates that the Badger has received.

It's really sad to hear that the Badger may be repowered. She is a iconic piece of history for future generations. I understand that the costs must be high to run her as a coal fired steamer but there must be alternatives. Personally, I would like to see the Spartan run again. Why not convert the Spartan to diesel and run her at night and the Badger during the day. Or they could run the Badger on special occasions. Like holidays or the shoreline cruises. It just erks me to see a beauty like the Badger modernized. I've sailed on her a few times and I feel like I'm in the days when she was first built. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?