Wow a JRP actually concerned with getting all the information it can!

Too bad these people weren’t the ones on the JRP for the Northern Gateway.

They probably had to take stress relief from all the bs. brought in by the left wingers. I wish the NDP would get onside with this project to show they support the advancement of our natives, BC tradesmen and contractors, and economic growth in central BC.

Support the natives by flooding them out contractor?

Contractor. If the project would result in you losing your contracting business like some in the Peace River will lose their farming business, you might have a different take on the situation.

Its easy for people to support flooding other peoples, homes and business’s as long as its not their own.

We all know (or should know) that we can provide all the electricity we need by building an LNG electricity producing plant, at a third of the cost, and in half the time frame.

That’s the route we should go, however Site C, is about big contracts not about power, so I doubt if we would do the responsible thing.

Insofar as your comment about BS is concerned, I agree that to some extent is comes from the *left*, however the real masters of BS are the Liberals, and their right wing supporters.

Lets reflect on all the dire consequences we would suffer if we got rid of the HST, and how Ontario would be kicking our butt, and we would be losing thousands of jobs,. Seems that just the opposite happened. Ontario is in the tank, BC has a surplus of jobs, and in dire need of workers, and last but not least, the HST was defeated.

Soooo. We all know who the **real** BS’ers are don’t we.

This project is too important to the future of BC to get clouded by partisan politics or special interests. Yes, some people will be impacted greatly and they will have to be fairly compensated, but if people objectively consider the long term costs and benefits, site C has to go ahead.

Hydro electric very cheap power after it’s built. Natural gas higher operating costs and subject to the future costs of fuel. Now a LNG fueled electrical generating plant would be very expensive power.

the northern gateway review was shown to be a bogus process of misinformation and disinformation.

this review is much the same, with the voices of the people that live in the area directly to be impacted not being heard, that is the little people, the furry people, the slimy people, the feathered people, the indigenous people, the irreplaceable people, the people that cannot speak for themselves… the animals.

the value of the food that can and will be produced in the future in this eco system far outweighs any electrical value that can be generated via a number of other means in any number of other places.

those who say otherwise have skewed values not representative of british columbians as a whole.

Let me see, either build site see and invest in a relatively sustainable future or …… invest in an asset with diminishing returns.

Decisions, decisions.

Irreplaceable people?

Late breaking news….. mother nature has designed us all to be replaceable!

That comes as a shock to some, yet it is such a fundamental fact of life.

diminishing returns?

food will become less valuable?

the land will produce less food?

the indigenous species will procreate less?

the unique species will become less valuable?

i fail to see your point or logic gus.

BC: “the northern gateway review was shown to be a bogus process of misinformation and disinformation.”

It’s funny how some see the JRP process as ‘flawed’ because it didn’t arrive at the same conclusion they did.

“the value of the food that can and will be produced in the future”

Nice to say, but no factual information is provided.

1. what is the value of the food produced in the last 10 years?

2. how does that compare to the value of the food produced in a similar acreage in the Fraser Valley used for urbanization?

3. what is the value of electricity produced from the expansion over a 10 year period following the activation of the expansion?

Too many people come out with unfounded opinions.

Palopu: “Lets reflect on all the dire consequences we would suffer if we got rid of the HST, and how Ontario would be kicking our butt, and we would be losing thousands of jobs”

You are truly an expert in BS, Palopu. The HST debate is over (for now). Time to let it go.

JB wrote: “It’s funny how some see the JRP process as ‘flawed’ because it didn’t arrive at the same conclusion they did.”

You forgot to add “based on considerably less information”.

HST? …. I think we have reverted to the GST and PST.

the gateway jrp was bogus, and this was widely reported on, because they hid the environmental data, specifically the impact on caribou and grizzly populations.

if the pro development side cannot be honest, i think that is a clear indication that the project should not go through.

maybe some people think it is fine that lies are presented as fact, but i believe the majority do not accept that way.

I think Palopu is right. If we have such a surplus of LNG that we’re going to end up practically giving it away in ‘global markets’ why not use it here AS NEEDED to generate electricity?

After all, just where is the price of natural gas going to be when EVERY area of the world that has a similar surplus dumps theirs’ into the same markets we’re hoping to stake out for ours?

And who really OWNS “our” natural gas anyways?

Look at all the other resources we were going to enrich ourselves selling into what were supposed to be unlimited global markets. Remember North-east Coal? And copper concentrates? Pulp and paper? Pulp chips themselves? Lumber? (And what happened there when we started to ‘capture’ too much of the US housing market?)

Lets look after our own needs first. Site C may indeed provide a lot of jobs and economic activity while it’s being built. But how much of that is going to be genuine ‘prosperity’ vs. just disguised ‘inflation’?

And when it’s all done, and the jobs end and business slows, will we have lower cost electricity? Or will it be still higher again than what we have now?

“Progress” is indeed a wonderful thing if we ALL get some REAL benefit from it. What REAL benefit can come from this, and does it outweigh the detriments?

a_britishcolumbian ….. a question or two answered with many more questions …. typical!!

THAT is my point! You present no information, just opinions backed with no substance.

1. An investment is finite resources is a poorer investment than in a comparably infinite resource due to diminishing returns on the finite resource.

2. I did not say food will become less valuable. I just ask for you to tell me how much the value of food is from the acreage which will be flooded, compare that to more productive land in the Fraser Valley or the Okanagan as well as to the value of the electric energy produced.

3. Why on earth would the indigenous species procreate less? Would that be the farmers or the rodents in the fields?

4. What unique species? Again, what is their value compared to the electricity.

With you logic, we should be removing the existing dams in this province and on this earth and reconstitute the land to what it was before the dams were built. We would become the richest province in Canada.

“If we have such a surplus of LNG that we’re going to end up practically giving it away in ‘global markets’ why not use it here AS NEEDED to generate electricity?”

Simple. Because there are cheaper ways to produce electricity.

We really have no one that ever does the present value calculation.

We have assets that diminish in quantity over time.

We have assets that will not diminish over the same time and longer.

We need to invest in each one to access those assets.

Which investment is the better?

Socredible and Palopu … how about coming up with the calculation?

The Niagara Falls power plant was opened January 12, 1987. The last I looked it is still in operation.

Will an investment in a natural gas fired electric energy plant still operate using natural gas in 125 years?

The water is still flowing over the falls in 2013. Who can say that with a similar degree of certainty about natural gas?

unique species that would be rendered extinct are certainly ‘finite’, and thus even more so should be preserved. their value is infinite, priceless.

as i have previously stated, and has been reported, in the next 35 years ‘canada’ will become one of only a handful of nations that will produce more food than it consumes, thus the value of food will be very much higher in the future. china’s new ‘breed at will’ plan should be hint at the future value of food.

defining the ‘unique species’ is difficult, because as i have mentioned before, the pro development folks are hiding that info from us. the physical geography and well documented micro climate of the proposed flood area logically suggests that this would be home to unique varieties and species, and a refuge for others as well.

indigenous species will procreate less, and in fact not at all, if they are wiped out by the destruction of their unique habitat. there is no place for them to relocate to.

the okanagan and fraser valleys are great examples of diminishing production due to development.

Sorry … 1887 …. :-)

“unique species that would be rendered extinct are certainly ‘finite’, and thus even more so should be preserved. their value is infinite, priceless.”

Why? Would you have wanted to preserve dinosaurs?

“in the next 35 years ‘canada’ will become one of only a handful of nations that will produce more food than it consumes”

So we should encourage infinite population growth?

There’s better ways to produce electricity than permanently flooding good land.

“the okanagan and fraser valleys are great examples of diminishing production due to development”

LOL …..

Have you ever considered that the entire world is a great example of diminishing production due to development?

When one makes statements such as you make, one has to realize that such statements are relative to a standard.

So what are you measuring it against? The development up to 1613? 1713? 1813? 1913? 2013?

“There’s better ways to produce electricity than permanently flooding good land.”

Another statement without backup.

Please give me the calculation.

I have a rabbit skin and a stick. Would that do? ;-)

there has not been a taxonomic inventory of the proposed affected areas, and what work has been done to identify species at risk has been hidden.

the value of these species cannot be appraised in dollars. the value of medicinal science data that could potentially be gained from uniquely evolved species could be the key to any number of future breakthroughs in disease prevention, etc. the amazon is not natures only pharmacy or genetics lab.

on a different note, the tech that is being presented is as you mention, 100 years old, and in this case, that is not a good thing.

now in decade two of the graphene revolution, this product/material is not being applied/utilized in the current proposal. that should be a tip off of the nefarious nature of the pro development side.

it is easily conceivable that completely environmentally benign electricity generation systems could be built that harness the power of flowing water using graphene, and then all the dams of the world could be either properly used for flood prevention/mitigation as well as electricity generation, or dismantled completely.

fusion tech, which i have mentioned here before, is just hitting the stage. by the time this proposed project would be hypothetically completed, it will be a ‘dinosaur’.

If anyone should use Natural gas to produce electricity it would be any province that still uses coal to fire generators.

Lets cut the BS. Especially from Gus. Why would we be concerned about whether or not their would be sufficient natural gas available 100 or 200 years from now.

If the time came when Site C was actually required, then and only then should it be built. To build it now on a perceived (but unproven) shortage of power for BC is irresponsible. The mantra is that we need more power for industry/homes in BC is Horse S..t of the highest order. Not one person on this site can prove a need for additional power. All they can do is blindly repeat the information put out by Hydro, and the Government who have a vested interest in Site C.

The BC Government can obtain cheap natural gas from the oil companies for the next 100 years, and if they don’t wish to cooperate then we can develop our own Government owned gas wells, and plants. Don’t forget that it is the Government and the citizens of BC that own these resources, and if we chose to, we can dictate he price the Government will pay.

Lets all try and be something more than **yes** men for big business, and big Government.

JohnnyBelt. Those in favour of the HST naturally want to forget the issue. Who wouldn’t, the HST showed without a doubt just how full of s..t the supporters of this tax actually were.

Have a nice day.

Graphene …… it conducts electricity. It does not create electricity.

No doubt this is a revolutionary material. Its applications in solar cells is still being explored, as is much of everything else it can be used for.

There is no doubt that grapheme is an emerging material of great importance, the same as computer chips made from silica.

Outfit all buildings in BC with LED lights and our electricity needs would reduce significantly ……

As they would if we go rid of all electricity operated tools we use in our lifestyle …….

Back to cooking over an open fire and reading by candlelight.

i see now i should have been more clear.

when i said ‘conceivable’, i meant conceivable to minds that hadn’t been abused by huffing gas.

i realize functional fixedness is an ailment of not only the addled, but regular folk too, so thinking graphene cannot generate electricity is not necessarily an indication of brain damage.

graphene is not just extremely strong, it is literally the strongest material we know of currently. as important, it is the most pliable/stretchable as well.

imagine say, and this is just my simple mind doing the imagining, a turbine that can be deployed that is not harmful to fish and other aquatic life, that is almost friction-less, and requires no water flow volume disruption or infrastructure save the anchor and transmission line.

imagine again a similarly designed and deployed flapping generator.

these are just a few simple ideas from my simple mind. i am quite sure that much more innovative applications of graphene will be along shortly if we choose, and likely even if we do not.

“Lets cut the BS. Especially from Gus.

Again, an opinion. You do not provide facts.

In your statement you:

1. get rid of the notion of trying to provide a more sustainable future.

2. get rid of the notion of making decisions based on best available information that compare costs – social, economic, environmental – of doing A versus doing B.

“Not one person on this site can prove a need for additional power”

What is the expected growth of this province? What is the desired growth for this province?

Of course, if we do not want to future generations to have access to as much power as we currently use, then we do not create greater capacity.

The issue here is not whether to provide more power, it is how to provide the power. At the moment the possibilities under discussion are hydro versus natural gas. Perhaps we need to bring in coal. After all, we are removing that offshore rather than using it ourselves. How about oil? Same thing. We have a glut of it and more to come. Let us use that. Then again, we have a ton of shit wood that can be used. Hydro burned up enough of it in 2012 to get rid of the timber taken down to push a transmission line through the HWY 37 corridor.

Or maybe we should go the other way towards emerging technologies rather than the 100+ year technologies that that bc guy is writing about. Solar, wind, methane from landfills, tidal, ….. oops, that would be hydro too. ;-)

Open your mind Palopu ….. try, you can do it and might have some new thoughts. It is never too late, you know.

a_britishcolumbian, imagine humans travelling at the speed of light.

One can imagine a lot of things.

My son is a researcher in the biochemical field. He imagines many things. The problem is, he has to prove the things he imagines, and then some others who are more applications oriented have to imagine how to apply the findings. That takes a few more days or lifetimes, depending on the things being imagined.

Imagination is what drives humans to aspire to things which do not yet exist.

Many imagine a perfect world. The problem is, we have not yet come to an agreement of what that would be.

Philosophers and science fiction writers try to give us their opinions about what is could be. Politicians give us their opinions about what it should be. Applied professionals assist us through managing the short term, while the rest of us go on with our lives by staying close to those we enjoy and cherish.

It has been the way of the world, is the way of the world, and shall likely continue to be the way of the world for many generations to come, graphene or no graphene.

“when i said ‘conceivable’, i meant conceivable to minds that hadn’t been abused by huffing gas”

I would have like to see that ad hominem attacks were beneath you. Too bad I that is not true.

Whats that racket I hear? Does anybody else hear it? It’s kind of like having a backup alarm screaming in ones ear!

Palopu: “JohnnyBelt. Those in favour of the HST naturally want to forget the issue. Who wouldn’t, the HST showed without a doubt just how full of s..t the supporters of this tax actually were. “

You’ve told people on many occasions to move on from the HST issue, yet you do not take your own advice. Can you explain why? Or do you just change your views to suit how you’re feeling at the time?

And as gus said, stop pretending like you are the sole supplier of facts. You are not. Not even close, actually.

gus: “JB wrote: “It’s funny how some see the JRP process as ‘flawed’ because it didn’t arrive at the same conclusion they did.”

You forgot to add “based on considerably less information”.

Exactly.

Now there is another squawking sound coming from another direction. It’s kind of like being trapped in a room with a pile of crying children. When will it end lord, when will it end?

gus:-“Of course, if we do not want to future generations to have access to as much power as we currently use, then we do not create greater capacity.”
——————————————-

Never mind about future generations, we do not want PRESENT generations of British Columbians to have access to as much power as we PREVIOUSLY had available for US to use.

The government and BC Hydro go out of their way to prevent it. And have done, ever since way back when Dave Barrett was Premier.

When one of his first moves was to double hydro rates paid by BC industries. Giving up the ‘natural advantage’ our producers here had relative to their competitors elsewhere, and costing our own citizens more for all the products electricity was involved in producing here in BC.

So why then do we need to create a still greater capacity? To ‘export’ it? To where, and for what? You advise Palopu to “open his mind”, gus, but I think you had first better open your own. He’s far closer to the reality of this situation than you are.

As usual Gus you miss the whole point.

Natural Gas is already available in large quantities in BC and Alberta. The pipelines are in place and we can build more, or loop those we have. We can transmit the gas via pipeline to various areas of the Province, and build the gas/electric generating plants in the areas where the power will be used, thus eliminating the need for more transmission lines, and the huge loss of electricity from transmitting. Seven percent of the electricity generated at the WAC Bennet dam is lost in transmission.

If at a later date it was necessary to build Site C, then we could go forward with that project, however to do that now, especially when the same amount of power can be produced by natural gas at one third of the cost, and be available within three years is basically a crazy idea.

This idea would not fly a few years ago (2006) when we were predicting a shortage of LNG in BC, and North America, and were in fact looking at importing natural gas into Kitimat to supply the North American market. So, you can see how fast things can change.

Hydro was looking at Site C during the time when natural gas was in short supply. Now that it is a surplus commodity, with the Americans reducing imports, we need to find other ways to utilize this product. Generating electricity is the best way forward.

Hydro, and their management are caught in a time warp, and they need help from all of us, to bring them safely into the 21st century. They, much like Rip Van Winkle have been sleeping for the past 40 years, and don’t have a clue as to what’s going on around them.

Spending billions of dollars, flooding thousands of hectares of good farmland to generate electricity that may very well never be needed, should be your first hint, that Hydro is a basket case.

Wow gus, have you not heard of wind turbines or nuclear generation?

Saying site c can be built when ever we need it is false. An hydro electric plant needs about 15 years lead time. All the studies and design take time which we an see now. The equipment, generators, turbines, big power transformers, breakers are not just sitting on a self somewhere waiting for a buyer. These all have to be pre-ordered and then built. All requiring a lead time.

Natural gas generators fine and dandy but more expensive to operate and then you will have the nimby crowd to deal with.

Remember folks out rates have increased mainly to cover the very expensive IPP contracts Hydro was forced into by the government, 52 billion or so. These IPP’s also have environmental concerns of their own which tend to get ignored by the anti site c crowd. Site c needs to be built to backup the IPP’s which are not firm power.

Want to see a generation mess check out England, they are facing blackouts next winter. Germanys so called green power has turned into a financial disaster. Portugal and Spain are broke from chasing so called green renewable.

By the way food production world wide keeps increasing year by year.

Cheap power, just compare countries with cheap power with those with expensive or very little power.

As usual Palopu, you miss the whole point.

Hydro electricity is available in abundant quantities in BC from the coast to the rockies, and some prairie valleys in between.

Tidal on the coast, mountain valleys in the rockies, and deep river valleys on the plateau in between. Site C is just one that already has much infrastructure in place so it is kind of stupid to build others that will need new transmission corridors and frequently more flooded land, whether forests or wheat, or strawberries or cattle ranges.

Tie that in with the infamous graphene superconductor transmission process we will likely have in the not too distant future … say 20 to 30 years …. which we can buy from the countries developing the technology since we are too stupid, too lazy and too risk averse to do it, and we will have less total environmental damage and less cost than dotting the landscape with small gas fired turbine plants which will likely continue to pollute the air.

This is off topic but so funny, warmers stuck in summer ice!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/29/saving-the-antarctic-scientists-er-media-er-activists-er-tourists-trapped-by-sea-ice/#more-100034

“Wow gus, have you not heard of wind turbines or nuclear generation?”

Wow, findme, do you not read?

“gus on December 29 2013 11:38 AM wrote, among other things: “Or maybe we should go the other way towards emerging technologies rather than the 100+ year technologies that that bc guy is writing about. Solar, wind, methane from landfills, tidal, ….. oops, that would be hydro too. ;-)”

I have not only heard about nuclear plants, but lived just upwind of the Pickering Plant.

I have seen, walked very close to and taken many photos of wind turbine farms from California to PEI … let see …. the first over 40 years ago and the last say 10 to 20 years ago.

So, no ….. I know squat about that kind of presence in the landscape, their environmental, social and economic impacts.

In fact, thanks for reminding me that I need to put that on my bucket list of things to do next week.

So you’re just being obtuse for fun?

As it says on the linked site, seamutt (seamut) Antarctic ice melts almost completely during the summer.

It looks like it is a Russian ship. Perhaps they should have gotten some better navigators and meteorologists and oceanographers to guide them through what are still risky waters.

I am not going around in circles with you, findme, or anyone else for that matter.

I have written what I think and what I feel. You can keep on being obtuse if you wish.

I have just watched 7 episodes of John Adams. He seems to have been a man who was had some of the same hurdles to overcome in life. He lived to be 90. Just one of many anecdotal pieces of evidence to support that keeping one’s mind active leads to a longer and more fulfilled life.

Seamut(t) …. if you are an objective observer of ALL scientific theories rather than a debunker of all that is thrown at you from one side and a supporter of all that is thrown at you from another side, then you should read the linked site which explains why the AREA of the sea ice is expected to increase while the VOLUME of total ice for sea and land is decreasing.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/antarctic-ice-melt

Actually Antarctica total ice volume is increasing, and it was predicted arctic summer ice was to be gone by last summer. Not even close. What would one prefer, warmer or cooler. Seems cooler is the trend. Ah yes it is early summer there and 100 years ago an expedition with an 19th century ship was able to make it to shore not get stuck 100 miles out. Oh also there are two icebreakers having a very difficult time reaching the stranded ship.

So ironic. Oh for information a record low was recorded two winters ago at the south pole.

So you are saying ice=CAGW or no ice = CAGW.

Hydro power is the cleanest power continuous power exploited on the planet, so far. A dam stores water power and provides the ability to adjust output to meet varying demands, like between night and day consumption, for example. Every country which has hydro generating opportunities is building dams. That includes Canada and its other provinces.

Exporting electricity can be a very profitable enterprise. Every country exports what it has a surplus of either by natural endowment or by intentional industrial production in excess of what the domestic market can absorb.

We produce fertilizer far in excess of what we need to export to the world and many other resources, such as oil, minerals and metals and wood.

Anybody who thinks that the world population has reached its limit ( seven billon – yes, 7! ) is dreaming in Technicolor.

It will need more and more fertilizer to produce food and more and more power to keep the computers and smart phones going, for instance.

If we don`t build the dam now some other government will make it happen within just a few more additional years.

Palopu, we are a net importer of hydro today, have been for 20 years or more, we should have built the dam in the 1990’s. From 2003 to 2012 BC Hydro spent 2.6 billion dollars on energy imports from other provinces/states (not IPPs).

BC Hydro is required to be self sufficient by 2016 – that is why they are pushing the dam now instead of just buying power. The estimate for 2014 is 656 gWh in power purchases on the open market. Plus in 2016 Burrard Thermal will no longer be producing power and will just act as a transmission station, it is cheaper to buy power than to run the 50 year old plant.

Just like your opinion on the airport runway (failing to take into consideration that an Antonov-124 could not take off from the old 7,400 foot runway loaded with any cargo) you miss crucial elements for your arguments

Slinky. Firstly the Antonov 124 landed at the Prince George Airport a number of years ago delivering a huge generator, and took off without any problems.

The 124 only needs 3000 ft of runway to land.

It needs 8270 ft of runway to take off fully loaded. That is with a payload of 254 tons. or 508000lbs.

These 7 helicopters loaded at PG Airport would at best weigh 10tons in total. They wanted to ship these helicopters in the Antonov because of the length not because of the weight.

So the take off weight was approx. 488000lbs or 240 tons under capacity.

So it did not need the 11,400ft of runway at PG Airport and could have easily taken off on the old runway.

There is no crucial missing elements in my argument. The problem is that a lot of people (including you) tend to post first and think later.

Have a nice day.

“The Panel’s principal concern is that it receives the best possible information available to help it fulfill its mandate, within the time allotted for the hearing and consistent with fairness to all participants.” That is why the Panel has accepted some information after the November 25th deadline had passed.”

Dollars to donuts the party submitting this ‘new” information was the project proponent and not a special interest group or member of the public!

If the party proposing the project has some extra late information… no problem getting it considered, but if it comes from any party opposed to the project, forget about it!!!

Harper and his cronies have turned the JRP process into a complete sham!

Harper and his cronies have turned the JRP process into a complete sham!

I would like to see your facts.

Ask and you shall receive seamut;

http://nwcoastenergynews.com/2013/11/20/5296/jrp-refuses-latest-dfo-findings-humpback-whales/

Slinky. We have been a net importer of electricity for only 5 of the last 20 years. So re check you figures.

In addition. We import and export electricity because it generates revenue, not because we do not have sufficient power.

As an example we export power to Alberta during the day, when their consumption is high, and then we import power from them a night when their consumption is lower. Importing power from them at night is cheaper than producing it ourselves. A similar situation takes place with the USA. We export power to them during the summer when they use huge amount for air conditioning etc;, and then we import it from them in the winter when their needs are less, and we need the power because of winter. Again importing US surplus power is cheaper than our producing it.

Soooo. We have sufficient power producing facilities to keep up with our needs until at least 2028.

One needs to take anything that Hydro states with a grain of salt. Its more about generating money, than it is about generating electricity.

Late submission and does not seem to be an increased risk.

“Late submission and does not seem to be an increased risk.” You say this like you are qualified to do so seamut… just shows the rest of us what a dog and pony show the JRP process is these days. Every Tom, Dick, and seamut can sit on a JRP and reach uninformed and idiotic conclusions!

Just the response I expected, vacant. I suggest you read your link carefully and all of it.

Posted by: Palopu on December 29 2013 4:51 PM
“Slinky. Firstly the Antonov 124 landed at the Prince George Airport a number of years ago delivering a huge generator, and took off without any problems.
The 124 only needs 3000 ft of runway to land.
It needs 8270 ft of runway to take off fully loaded. That is with a payload of 254 tons. or 508000lbs.”

You still miss crucial info, make sure you are looking at info for the right plane – From the Antonov website itself at ideal conditions: Max payload for an Antonov 124-100 is 120 tons. At maximum weight including fuel it requires a minimum of 2,800 meters (9,186 feet) and a maximum of 3,000 meters (9,850 feet). Useful load includes fuel, all planes need that; max takeoff weight is 392 tons, dry weight is 184 tons.

http://www.pgairport.ca/Airport_Info/media_releases/20120713.php
blog/view/25052/1/big+bird+lands+at+yxs?id=140&st=4279
I guess everyone is wrong

Posted by: Palopu on December 29 2013 6:50 PM
“Slinky. We have been a net importer of electricity for only 5 of the last 20 years. So re check you figures.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/research-blows-bc-hydros-energy-predictions-out-of-the-water/article584327/
Dang, guess the Globe and Mail was wrong in 2011, they should hire Palopu to research their articles, maybe not…
Here is a tidbit from the Vancouver Sun 2009: “Hydro’s import-export numbers, showing the crown corp. in a net import position for seven of the last eight years, are derived from its annual report, which is audited. Stats Can numbers include B.C.’s other power utility, Fortis, as well as exports by Teck Cominco and Alcan.”

The presentation of facts and truths is always appreciated, thanks slinky. The links you provided, particularly the globe and mail article on BC Hydro, were most informative.