Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Comments:


  1. It was never published, perhaps because I live a few thousand miles away from the plant.

    Or it’s not narrative-compliant.

      1. Rod: I had to work very hard for several years with many submissions until my Op-Ed was published on 16 March 2016. However, the SLO Tribune featured our 2nd annual DCPP support rally with a nice photograph on the front page on 18 March 2016. http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article66770477.html

        Today’s SLO Tribune Op-Ed advocates for the Diablo Canyon Desalination Project.http://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article67169732.html
        Another article about the Diablo Canyon Desalination proposal appears here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article67117372.html

        1. @Dr. Gene Nelson

          Your success story is welcome news. There is great value in gathering solid information, trying again and again to present it in a way that makes sense, finding a receptive audience, and following through with personal contacts to the editor.

          As they say in my former profession – Bravo Zulu (BZ for short)

  2. I attended a Commonwealth Club talk on nuclear power (Old Nukes / New Nukes) yesterday in San Francisco, where they discussed both San Onofre and Diablo Canyon. There was a lot of inaccurate information stated, and a very limited public comment period did not allow me to respond to any of it.

    They stated that San Onofre closed for economic reasons (vs. political pressure). I never believed this, since buying yet another set of SGs and running the plant for another few decades is far cheaper than building equivalent renewable generation. Running the plant at 75% capacity would have been another option.

    Some of the speakers went on to say that they think there is a significant chance that Diablo Canyon will be closed as well. One said that new solar projects were quoting prices similar to the *operating* cost of Diablo. If that’s true (at all), it’s due to very large direct subsidies and outright mandates (i.e., CA’s new 50% renewable standard), which result in large subsidies in the form of Renewable Energy Credits. As we’ve seen elsewhere, this subsidized intermittent generation can attack the economics of baseload plants. Thus, it is possible that Diablo would be replaced by new renewables, even though those new renewables are far more expensive, overall, than continuing to operate Diablo Canyon.

    The final insult is that all of this new renewable generation (built at huge cost) will essentially replace nuclear, in CA, *instead* of replacing natural gas. The closure of San Onofre and Diablo would more than offset all the solar and wind generation built in CA for date.

    One reason why the speakers thought Diablo may close is that it may face significant costs from STATE (not federal) requirements. These include potential earthquake upgrades and, more significantly, a whole new cooling system (possibly including towers), that the state’s Coastal Commission may require because the damage to the local ocean from the water intake is “unacceptable”. They estimated the cost of the cooling system to be anywhere from $1 billion to $14 billion(!!!).

    I’m offended by the higher costs estimates (one more example of how ridiculous everything has gotten in the nuclear industry), but many other things, involving the actions of the state, offend me a whole lot more. It is obvious that entrenched interest within the CA govt. are waging a *political* attack on nuclear power, with the objective to close all the plants.

    I’ve never heard of or seen any analysis of the *overall* impact of closing Diablo, i.e., the effects of additional air pollution and CO2 emissions (from the fossil generation that will be used in its place) vs. any benefits to the local ocean sea life. Or, if the plant does manage to stay open, is the environmental benefit worth the cost? Also, there are large natural gas plants all along the coast of CA, many of which have simple, once-through cooling (no towers, etc..), but I haven’t heard of any initiatives or requirements for them to install such a cooling system.

    It’s clear that they are happy to cause a large environmental impact (from fossil generation) to avoid a small, trumped up environmental impact. Even under carbon tax schemes, there is a limit to how much you have to spend to avoid CO2 pollution. Above that, it is not considered not worth the effort. This, for global warming, which many are saying is the most significant environmental problem of our time. But yet, on the other hand, in the case of Diablo, there is no limit on the amount of money they should have to spend to avoid harming a few little fishies (i.e., minor, local harm to the undersea ecosystem). If it results in closing the plant, and replacing it with fossil fuels, so be it.

    It is clear that people within the CA govt. have it out for nuclear power, to a far greater extent than (even) fossil fuels. Unless it can be addressed economically, the requirement for reducing water intake impacts should be simply waived, period. It is not worth the cost (especially given that overall *environmental* impact would increase, due to fossil fuel use).

    1. Eh, Jim? Just what is the continued environmental impact of continuing to run a heat source that has run continuously for 30 years? I can sort of see an argument 30 years ago, but what fishes today are going to be hurt by continued operation? Sure, shut the plant down and the ecosystem will shift to fill the new heat void. But that would be new life. I’m not a marine ecologist, but I’m sure someone has studied the extended impact of this plant, and which species still live in its cooling discharge, and which have moved out. Thirty years ago the bottom-bound abalone that couldn’t take the warmer water could not move, and died. Those individuals are gone. What is to be gained by turning off the tap? Sure, some new ones might come back.

      If we don’t warmly acidify the whole ocean and kill off the entire species first.

      I disagree with your estimate that closing Diablo Canyon will result in CO2 increase from an equivalent generation of natural gas. The way I see it, there is a *lot* of coal generation in the west. California has reduced their allotment down to about 3 GW worth, but its an artificial distinction. Its still all one big grid. Close DC before its time and whatever replaces its generation, whether gas alone or some (eventual) combination of gas and solar and wind, that replacement could just as well have replaced coal someplace else.

      Doesn’t matter what the actual replacement is, premature closure of a zero-emission nuclear plant has the same environmental damage as replacing it with coal. From the climate’s point of view, the celebrated shutdowns of San Onofre and Vermont Yankee are the single most environmentally irresponsible actions the environmentalists who achieved them could possibly take.

    2. “…new solar projects were quoting prices similar to the *operating* cost of Diablo. If that’s true (at all), it’s due to very large direct subsidies and outright mandates…”
      Not sure whether those subsidies & mandates are needed.

      Auctions generate bids to deliver un-subsidized solar electricity for 4-5cent/KWh.
      Solar cost prices are still on the long term price decrease of ~8%/a.
      So the un-subsidized 4-5cent will change into 3-4cent/KWh before 2020….

      Continuing the subsidies for Diablo is probably the more expensive path.

      1. @Bas

        There are no subsidies for Diablo. Quite the contrary. Diablo pays tens of millions in income and property taxes every year in addition to fees like the $5 million annual license fee.

        Besides, how much would the grid operator have to pay for unsubsidized — or even subsidized solar – delivered between hours of 6 pm – 8 am?

        1. That depend on what you consider to be subsidy.

          All nuclear plants enjoy the liability limitation subsidies which the law grants them. That saves them substantial amounts of liability insurance premium, which would otherwise increase the cost price of the electricity they produce.

          1. @Bas

            Well unless the plant experiences a massive release of radioactivity which is quite unlikely (especially for generation III reactors), the state doesn’t really subsidize anything.
            Being Franco German, I’ve paid quite a lot for the EEG Umlage while living in Germany and not much “subsidies” for EDF while living in France.

          2. How much of a “subsidy” do you think liability limitation represents?

            When do you think subsidies for renewables should end? When all other alternatives are out of business and the renewable industry can raise prices at will?

          3. @Bas Gesnigt

            Can you quantify the value of that “subsidy?”

            In my opinion, it is no more than the government enabling companies to collectively self insure. Here in the US, there is coverage for $300 million per plant in direct insurance plus a pool that would provide about $13 billion per accident. Only if that amount is exceeded would the government step in to provide additional funds. Of note. the government had to step in right away to cover airline liabilities after 911.

            Here in the US the industry only demanded that the government step in with Price-Anderson after the government issued an LNT based report computing widespread cancer deaths in the event of a reactor accident. Once the industry got in the habit, it has been hard to break. However, there has never been a claim that exceeded the amount of individual insurance each plant purchases, so it has never cost the taxpayers a dime.

          4. Guys, don’t pay attention to Bas. This tired troll is just repeating an old canard that was debunked long ago.

            Perhaps he is an anti-vaxer too. (Given the anti-scientific garbage that he has posted her and elsewhere, I would not be at all surprised.) After all vaccine producers receive a liability limit that is similar to what Price-Anderson provides for US nuclear reactor owners — only the vaccine manufacturers don’t have pay the costs to pool their insurance to cover the entire industry, like the US nuclear industry is required to do by law.

          5. Price Anderson, and any associated subsidy, is discussed here.


            Based on the numbers shown in the last section, even the higher estimate of the subsidy amounts to ~0.03 cents/kW-hr (i.e., utterly negligible). A cursory look at the facts backs this result up. Fukushima, the only significant release of pollution in non-Soviet nuclear’s entire history will end up costing on the order of $100 billion. Dividing that by the number of kW-hrs that nuclear has generated over the last few decades yields an “accident cost” on the order of 0.1 cents/kW-hr.

            Fossil plants’ subsidy of being allowed to pollute the environment for free (and thus inflicting large amounts of damage to public health and the environment w/o paying a dime in compensation) is more than 100 times larger.

            The entire reason why nuclear needs insurance at all is that it is required to pay huge amounts of compensation if it EVER pollutes. Meanwhile, fossil plants get to pollute all the time w/o paying any compensation at all. A fundamental double standard.

            According to EPA, US fossil plants cause ~$100 billion in annual economic damages (from their pollution), in addition to causing ~10,000 annual deaths and global warming. Compare that $100 billion per year to the upper-bound $237 million Price Anderson subsidy estimate shown in the article.

            Nuclear opponents repeatedly assert that nuclear plants are heavily subsidized (even more so than all other energy sources) but they never back that assertion up with any examples. Price Anderson is the only thing I ever hear mentioned. Given that any Price Anderson subsidy is small to non-existent, my response remains, “is that all you’ve got”?

          6. All insurance policies have liability limits. Do you own any insurance? If so, check the policy. The liability limits are clearly spelled out. To infer that liability limits are a “subsidy” is a stretch. And the language of P-A includes the provision that Congress can always go back after the owners if the liability exceeds the limit. That is also true of personal insurance. You can always file in court to recover any losses you think you are owed that exceed the at-fault party’s liability limits. And don’t think for a minute that Congress wouldn’t do that, especially if the “nuclear” bogeyman is raised. They’ll go after the companies faster than crap through a goose.

          7. @Rod & Jim,
            As Fukushima shows, $20B liability is not enough. Especially in US.

            Insurance premiums are based on risks+consequences.
            In ~15,000 reactor years, accidents caused damages exceeding the limits, between $200B and $2T. lets assume $400B total = $37mln/reactor year.
            That implies ~$ 3cent/KWh insurance premium subsidy.

            It may be less as NRC may have better supervision => safer. Though SONGS, etc. makes that doubtful.
            It may be more as: DC NPP is near faults (French Fessenheim NPP will be closed prematurely for that reason) and also vulnerable for high Tsunami’s.
            Furthermore, US liability deliver high amounts (e.g. the simple accident of Deepwater Horizon, cost BP ~$50B).

          8. @Guilheim,
            Did you find out why French government decided to decrease the share of nuclear, with 2.5%/a (faster than the Germans) ?

            Your questions:
            1- Please check my response to Rod & Jim above.
            2- When renewable prices are so low that only renewable is installed.
            Renewable is a broad range of worldwide competing industries (geothermal, wind, solar, batteries, P2G, integrators, etc.).

            All insurers in Netherlands exclude nuclear accidents….
            So the risks are shifted to the citizens. Especially since Dutch nuclear liability limitation law protect nuclear significant more against liability than US law.

          9. Well, if the Dutch government does that, they are treating nuclear accidents in the same category as things like dam failures, dike failures, pipeline accidents, and the like. All of those risks are borne by the public as well, and they have many more fatalities to their credit than nuclear accidents. As the Banqiao dam shows us, the liability for dam failure far exceeds the likely nuclear accident liability, with about 171,000 immediate fatalities and 11 million made homeless by its failure. But you may be too young to remember that, or just never heard of it because stories about those kind of accidents don’t comply with the approved narrative of the popular media (i.e., nuclear is the most dangerous thing in the known universe, while hydropower is totally without risk to the public).

          10. @Wayne,
            NPP’s are owned and operated by private companies with profit targets.
            They compete against other electricity generators in a free market.
            So the ~3cnt/KWh accident liability subsidy falsifies competition.

            Dikes, etc. are owned by (semi-)government and payed by tax-payers.
            They do not compete against alternatives.

          11. So then maybe the taxpayers should cover the liability for those accidents? How popular would that be? People like you have beaten the nuclear industry bloody with your alleged “subsidies” for P-A insurance, yet whisper nary a word of protest about liability for dam accidents, a liability borne solely by the citizenry. And I’m sure those 171,000 dead from the Banqiao failure will appreciate your nuanced arguments about how the liability for nuclear accidents is so much greater.

            Really, are you old enough to know about the Banqiao accident? Something tells me not.

          12. It’s French law now (in 2025, nuclear share <50%).

            I’m guessing this is one “law” that will never be enforced. If the Socialists hold onto power in France, they’ll never go this way because it has zero union support, and the lifeblood of socialist political power, other than raising taxes on “the rich”, is union support. If they lose power, the new government will probably have sense enough to consign this “law” to the trash heap.

            They also started a great renewable program, following Germany.

            Geez, hopefully it won’t be as “successful” as the German program. Last I checked, France doesn’t have the lignite deposits that Germany has.

            Or worse, as winds don’t blow to the ocean 97% of the time at Diablo Canyon.

            Uh, oh, you gave a “trigger warning”. I can sense a gratuitous smear of Oyster Creek brewing.

          13. @ Bas,

            “In ~15,000 reactor years, accidents caused damages exceeding the limits, between $200B and $2T. lets assume $400B total = $37mln/reactor year.
            That implies ~$ 3 cent/KWh insurance premium subsidy.”

            Uh, no, Bas, your answer is 10 times too large. According to your assumptions, the insurance premium subsidy would be about 0.3 cents per kwh.

            $400 billion divided by 15,000 reactor years is $26,666,666. Assuming it’s a 1000 MW reactor with a 90 percent capacity factor producing 7,884,000,000 kilowatt-hours per year, that works out to 0.34 cents per kwh.

            If it’s a 1.4 GW APR-1400, it would be about 0.24 cents per kwh. For a 1.65 GW EPR it would be 0.2 cents per kwh.

            And that’s granting your rather inflated cost assumptions. So far costs for the Fukushima accident have added up to about $100 billion, give or take. The government is tapering off the evacuee subsidies and the decontamination work. I doubt the final tab will make it up to $200 billion. If we take that as the average cost of a nuclear accident, then the insurance premium would be well under 0.2 cents per kwh.

            And even that assumes that all the “costs” incurred at Fukushima were necessary, which is highly debatable. UNSCEAR reckons that there will be no discernible public health consequences at all from the Fukushima fallout, no uptick in cancer rates, nothing. Much scientific opinion believes that the upheaval that generated most of the costs—the prolonged relocations, the closure of the fishery, the sequestration of lightly contaminated water—was unnecessary.

            I don’t think 0.34 cents per kwh is an outrageous insurance premium for the government to indemnify, especially since most of the “costs” it is insuring against may well be illusory and imposed by government over-reaction itself, not by any identifiable harm. And it’s a lot less than many of the subsidies being offered to renewable energy.

          14. @ Will,
            Thank you for correcting my calculation!
            So it should be 0.3cnt/KWh subsidy during the lifespan of the NPP.

        2. Did you find out why French government decided to decrease the share of nuclear, with 2.5%/a (faster than the Germans) ?

          Bas – I’ll believe it when I see it.

          The “decision” by the French government that you refer to was merely a campaign promise made by François Hollande. His approval ratings in France are at “rock bottom” — it’s hard to imagine him doing any worse.

          Do you really think that he’ll still be in the Élysée Palace after next year? Do you really think anybody will care about his campaign promises after then? Even Hollande has backed off from these promises.

          All insurers in Netherlands exclude nuclear accidents …

          They do that in the US too, because Price-Anderson requires nuclear plant licensees to purchase no-fault liability insurance to cover such accidents. If insurers were to try to sell insurance coverage for nuclear accidents, it would be a scam, because the insurance company would never have to pay up. Everything is already covered by the companies insuring the nuclear industry.

          1. @Brian,
            It’s French law now (in 2025, nuclear share <50%).
            They also started a great renewable program, following Germany.
            France is not a banana republic. But let's see.
            If it was in the election program of the winner, may be French voters no longer support nuclear so much.

            P-A law & insurance covers only part of the liability costs of a big accident in USA. E.g. one with similar consequences as Fukushima. Or worse, as winds don't blow to the ocean 97% of the time at Diablo Canyon.

            It seems ridiculous that pro-nuclear accuses renewable of falsifying competition because of subsidies, while nuclear gets more subsidies.

          2. If it was in the election program of the winner, …

            Hollande was running against Sarkozy, who had made himself very unpopular (although not nearly as unpopular as the incompetent Hollande has made himself).

            You don’t follow French politics, do you? Perhaps you should refrain from commenting on energy policy in France.

            P-A law & insurance covers only part of the liability costs of a big accident in USA …

            Price-Anderson provides two tiers of liability coverage that the nuclear industry is forced to purchase. In the entire time that it has been in effect, the second, larger tier of coverage hasn’t been touched even once — including after the Three Mile Island nuclear accident.

            Price-Anderson is a subsidy for the insurance industry, not the nuclear industry.

          3. @ Brian,
            You don’t follow French politics, do you?
            I follow French politics.
            Though my French is even a little less than my English (my Dutch and German are fine), I read French papers.
            Especially during the few weeks a year when I stay in France.

          4. Ah yes … I forgot about your globe-trotting, fossil-fuel-burning lifestyle.

            Well, try to pay closer attention to what’s going on in your two weeks in France.

          5. @Bas Gresnigt :
            If you read completely that law, it says progress toward the 50% will be followed, and that the percentage may be modified if it’s found that it’s too hard to reach.
            As 50% nuclear can not be reached in France without a very strong increase of CO2 emissions, there’s an obvious avenue for modifying it.

            Maybe EDF will close Fessenheim because there’s a lot of pressure, and due to it’s poor financial situation (similar to the one of every other power producer in Europe, still significantly better than the one of producers in Germany) it needs help from the government (but financially, closing Fessenheim won’t be very good, there will be a lot of spending from that point one, with a lot of electricity revenue gone).

            But there’s no talk currently about closing any other plant, rather to close the last oil units, thanks to enhancement in the use of nuclear reactor which means it will be possible part of the year to run no fossil power at all, see this https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lesechos.fr%2Findustrie-services%2Fenergie-environnement%2F021703800877-lelectricien-fait-de-plus-en-plus-varier-sa-production-nucleaire-1201336.php%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dtwitter&edit-text= and also some of the text here http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/energie-environnement/edf-construira-une-nouvelle-gamme-d-epr-en-france-557369.html “EDF … envisage d’accélérer la fermeture de toutes ses centrales au fioul” “Nous avons l’intention de commander pour nos propres besoins un nombre important d’EPR optimisés pour renouveler notre parc de 58 réacteurs”

          6. @jmdesp,
            Thanks! I read only articles about that law.

            Few weeks ago, I made my yearly car trip to Valmorel in the French Alps and observed a great increase of wind turbines along the road.
            Still, I’m not sure whether they will consider CO2 to be an argument for the “too hard to reach” escape clause. It doesn’t seem to bother them that they will miss the EU 2020 CO2 target.

            They talk also about about a NPP at the SW-coast (flooding risks).

            The isssue is how long EDF’s existing NPP’s can compete against the upcoming renewable (France has far better sun, more windy space and more hydro).
            With load following the CF will go down hence KWh costs will increase as NPP’s have high fixed operating costs. Stronger, NPP’s have more wear with more frequent up-/down-regulation.

            Note that 100% renewable utilities take more market share and make profits. Each year Dutch consumer union organizes an electricity auction for its members (many utilities here). This year was the first time that only 100% renewable offers were accepted…
            A reason for the fast move away from classic power plants by the big utilities, such as RWE and E.on.

          7. @Bas said
            >It doesn’t seem to bother (France) that they
            > will miss the EU 2020 CO2 target.

            Since France’s electricity comes with around 60g CO2 per kWh, and Germany’s is about 500g CO2 per kWh, please tell me why in any sane universe that actually gives a twopenny damn about CO2, they should care?

            It’s an act of lying mendacity or self-delusion to try and pretend that Germany is doing a great job of decarbonization, and France are inferior because they don’t have so much generation from unreliables.

            France’s replacement of nuclear with unreliables, will increase that carbon intensity, not decrease it, as it will have to import more from carbon-filthy Germany.

          8. @turnages,
            CO2 emission of USA per person is roughly twice that of Germany.
            But that is less relevant as for good reasons, such as (un)friendlier climate, the Kyoto agreements don’t bother about absolute levels but about reductions; 20% before 2020.

            France agreed and signed for the 20% CO2 reduction target in 2020, which is in line with the general EU and Kyoto reduction target of 20%.
            But they fail (btw. we in NL also). Worse, they don’t seem to bother.

            Germany inflicted itself a 40% reduction target and does bother that they may reach a reduction of 35%. So Merkel started a special program concentrating on the sectors which emit most (heating = gas, transport). Electricity is only ~12% in Germany.

            US didn’t sign Kyoto and did nothing (so CO2 emission not below 1990 level).
            The country which emits by far most CO2 per person, seems now also on the path to do nothing after Paris.
            So why should any other country bother?

            Especially we in NL (or Germany), as a somewhat warmer climate is a lot more pleasant and cheaper here.

    3. I would think seismic issues, being safety-related, would fall within the purview of federal regulation, so the state would be usurping federal authority if thy tried to impose requirements on the plant for those. Not so sure about the cooling issue. I think Indian Point is facing a similar challenge on the basis of “coastal impacts”, although it is pretty far from the coast. I think it just barely falls within the salt line and so the IPEC-trashers go after it on that basis.

      1. I think both California and NY have enacted laws regulating “thermal pollution” in freshwater lakes and rivers as well as the ocean. NY regulations would also impact Ginna, Nine Mile Point, Fitzpatrick as well as Indian Point.

        I have lived in both states and the only major difference is the climate.

        1. Maybe, but in the case of Diablo Canyon that is a pretty good-sized heat sink with a lot of thermal inertia. I just can’t see how a single steam electric station of the capacity of DC would affect it all that much. The times I have been in CA and was foolish enough to try to go in the water it was like an ice bath, at least for someone used to 80 degree temps along the NC and SC coast.

      2. Ironically, environmentalists opposed a seismic study to better characterize the faults around DC as part of license renewal. The opposition claimed that the sound waves disturbed whale migration. Ironic because the study would have also been useful for assessing the seismic risk for the whole region.

      3. @ Wayne SW
        “I think (Indian Point) just barely falls within the salt line…”

        An easy misconception to fall into. Google a map of New York City and follow the Hudson north past Indian Point NPP at Buchanan. Then continue following the Hudson north past Bear Mountain, West Point, Storm King, and the Hudson Highlands / Breakneck Ridge.

        The narrows between Storm King and Breakneck backdrop the famous woodcut of Henry Hudson’s ship entering that passage.

        The River broadens out at Cornwall-on-Hudson into the quite scenic Newburgh Bay but don’t stop there. Sail northward another 13 miles to Poughkeepsie.

        The Hudson River estuary ends here, 31 miles north of Indian Point.

        1. Well, wherever it ends I think its a pretty scummy tactic to raise the issue of the Coastal Zone Management Act to once again try to gum up the process of renewing the IPEC license. The NY appellate court has already ruled in favor of IPEC on that. The State is just trying to drag out the process to increase the costs. I know Cuomo doesn’t care about that because any price is enough to pay for him to hang Indian Point’s head on his wall.

          1. Agreed. But before some random sailor corrects me, its probably worth my noting that “estuary” more accurately describes that portion of a river’s drainage that follows the tides. In the case of the Hudson, this region stretches to Troy, some 150 miles upstream of the river’s outlet in the Tappan Zee.

            The Hudson River Valley is gob-smack amazing: see f’rinstance The Hudson Estuary: A River That Flows Two Ways.

          2. I understand that it is more correctly an estuary than a river in the zone we are discussing. But of all the things in the vicinity of the Hudson estuary, IPEC is probably the most innocuous of them all. Sometimes I wonder if Andy Cuomo is an example of the “sons of famous fathers” syndrome. His father hung the head of Shoreham on his trophy wall, so Andy has to go after IPEC as an even bigger prize.

  3. I recall that California has a law that prohibits expansion of new nuclear generation until “the nuclear waste problem is solved.”

    California is East Germany with better weather and no (physical) guard towers.

  4. @Ed Leaver March 19, 2016 at 9:48 PM
    Here’s a random sailor verifying what you say about the tide at Troy, NY. This Lake Erie sailor exited the Erie Canal above Troy in Sept ’96, southbound. Went through the Hudson River Lock and Dam and tied up along side a river front dock in Troy, NY. Do my 100hr engine oil change and get a night’s sleep. Low and behold… something weird going on… couldn’t keep my dock lines adjusted; not even close. Finally figured it out, it’s this thing they call a tide; way up here. Five foot variance at Troy, twice a day. It would go farther north on the Hudson except the lock and dam stops it. A steep learning curve for a couple days figuring my next night stop southbound. Seems my day’s estimated run speed over ground was either way too fast or way too slow. Never did taste the river so I don’t know if it was pure fresh or brackish that far north. But I wasn’t the only fresh water sailor confused; saw plenty of others in the next few days high and dry at anchor. I guess that makes it an estuary.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts