DOCSLIB.ORG

Best Practices in Underground Coal Gasification

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Best Practices in Underground Coal Gasification DRAFT BestBest Practices Practices in in Best Practices in Underground Coal Underground Coal Gasification Gasification Elizabeth Burton Julio Friedmann Ravi Upadhye Elizabeth Burton Julio Friedmann Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Ravi Upadhye This workLawrence was performed under the Livermore auspices of the U.S. Department National of Energy by theLaboratory University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48. Figure 1-1 Underground Coal Gasification This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48. DRAFT 2 Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 11 2 Introduction............................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Underground Coal Gasification Process Description ....................................... 13 2.2 Why Consider Underground Coal Gasification? .............................................. 14 2.3 Timeliness of Underground Coal Gasification R&D Investment..................... 15 2.4 Potential Limitations and Concerns for UCG................................................... 16 2.5 Potential Use in Developing Countries............................................................. 17 2.5.1 India .......................................................................................................... 17 2.5.2 China......................................................................................................... 18 3 Historical Overview.................................................................................................. 20 3.1 Experience from 1960 through 1999 ................................................................ 21 3.1.1 U.S. Trials................................................................................................. 31 3.1.2 European UCG Trials (1982-1999) .......................................................... 37 3.1.3 People’s Republic of China (1980s to present)......................................... 38 3.1.4 Australia (1990s to present)...................................................................... 39 3.1.5 Japan ......................................................................................................... 41 3.1.6 Former Soviet Union (FSU)...................................................................... 42 3.1.7 Other Countries......................................................................................... 47 4 Ignition and Gasification........................................................................................... 49 4.1.1 Well Characteristics and Flow Path Enhancement ................................... 49 4.1.2 Injection Process (CRIP, εUCG) .............................................................. 50 4.1.3 Other Processing Considerations .............................................................. 52 4.1.4 Surface Facilities....................................................................................... 54 4.2 UCG Economics ............................................................................................... 55 5 Environmental Management..................................................................................... 57 5.1 U.S. Regulatory Framework ............................................................................. 57 5.2 The Risk-Based Decision-Making (RBDM) Process ....................................... 59 5.3 Geologic Assessment of UCG Sites ................................................................. 60 5.3.1 Stratigraphic Framework ......................................................................... 61 5.3.2 Structural Framework ............................................................................... 65 5.3.3 Hydrological and Geomechanical Framework ......................................... 66 5.3.4 Geochemical Framework.......................................................................... 66 DRAFT 3 5.4 Induced Subsidence.......................................................................................... 72 5.4.1 Simulation and Prediction......................................................................... 72 5.5 Integrating Factors to Assess Risk.................................................................... 74 5.5.1 Rock Springs Uplift .................................................................................. 76 5.5.2 The Ferron Sandstone Coal Succession.................................................... 76 5.5.3 The Blackhawk Formation Coal Succession ............................................ 77 5.6 Experience from UCG pilots ............................................................................ 78 5.6.1 Hoe Creek, WY......................................................................................... 78 5.6.2 Carbon County, WY ................................................................................. 80 5.6.3 Chinchilla Project, Australia..................................................................... 80 6 Carbon Management................................................................................................. 82 6.1 Carbon Capture................................................................................................. 82 6.2 UCG and Conventional Carbon Storage........................................................... 85 6.3 UCG and Carbon Storage in the Reactor Zone................................................. 85 6.3.1 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages to RZCS .................................. 86 6.3.2 Description of Key Scientific Concerns ................................................... 87 6.3.3 Outline of Scientific Program to Address RZCS Hazards and Risks ....... 88 7 Best Practices and Lessons Learned ......................................................................... 90 7.1 Siting and Operation ......................................................................................... 90 7.2 Initiation of UCG Burns.................................................................................... 91 7.3 Surface Facility Planning and Operation .......................................................... 91 7.4 Extended Operation.......................................................................................... 91 7.5 Environmental Management............................................................................. 92 7.5.1 Well Design and Construction.................................................................. 92 7.5.2 Well Operation.......................................................................................... 92 7.5.3 Burn Front Monitoring and Control.......................................................... 92 7.5.4 Closure and Abandonment........................................................................ 92 7.5.5 Groundwater Protection............................................................................ 93 7.5.6 Subsidence Management .......................................................................... 93 7.5.7 Monitoring ................................................................................................ 94 7.6 Carbon Management......................................................................................... 95 7.6.1 Site Selection............................................................................................ 95 7.6.2 CO2 Capture and Separation ..................................................................... 95 DRAFT 4 7.6.3 CO2 Storage .............................................................................................. 95 8 Technology Gaps and Recommendations................................................................. 97 8.1 R&D Gaps......................................................................................................... 97 8.2 Technology Gaps.............................................................................................. 98 8.2.1 Improved Combustion/Gasification Models............................................. 98 8.2.2 Improved Monitoring................................................................................ 99 8.2.3 Improved Environmental Simulation...................................................... 102 8.2.4 UCG + CCS (Carbon Capture and Sequestration).................................. 104 8.2.5 Laboratory Experiments.......................................................................... 106 8.2.6 Integrated Process and Subsurface Modeling......................................... 106 9 References............................................................................................................... 107 Cover illustration and watermark: Adapted from Creedy and Garner (2004). DRAFT 5 List of Tables Table 3-1: International UCG pilots, excluding U.S. and FSU ........................................ 23 Table 3-2: Recent UCG Operations in the Former Soviet Union (FSU).......................... 24 Table 3-3: UCG pilots in the United States. ..................................................................... 26 Table 3-4: Production data for Angren station 1962-1976 (Olness, 1982)....................... 42 Table 3-5: Characteristics of Soviet UCG projects 1933-1965 (Gregg, et al., 1976; Olness and Gregg, 1977) .....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Coal and Oil: the Dark Monarchs of Global Energy – Understanding Supply and Extraction Patterns and Their Importance for Futur
    nam et ipsa scientia potestas est List of Papers This thesis is based on the following papers, which are referred to in the text by their Roman numerals. I Höök, M., Aleklett, K. (2008) A decline rate study of Norwe- gian oil production. Energy Policy, 36(11):4262–4271 II Höök, M., Söderbergh, B., Jakobsson, K., Aleklett, K. (2009) The evolution of giant oil field production behaviour. Natural Resources Research, 18(1):39–56 III Höök, M., Hirsch, R., Aleklett, K. (2009) Giant oil field decline rates and their influence on world oil production. Energy Pol- icy, 37(6):2262–2272 IV Jakobsson, K., Söderbergh, B., Höök, M., Aleklett, K. (2009) How reasonable are oil production scenarios from public agen- cies? Energy Policy, 37(11):4809–4818 V Höök M, Söderbergh, B., Aleklett, K. (2009) Future Danish oil and gas export. Energy, 34(11):1826–1834 VI Aleklett K., Höök, M., Jakobsson, K., Lardelli, M., Snowden, S., Söderbergh, B. (2010) The Peak of the Oil Age - analyzing the world oil production Reference Scenario in World Energy Outlook 2008. Energy Policy, 38(3):1398–1414 VII Höök M, Tang, X., Pang, X., Aleklett K. (2010) Development journey and outlook for the Chinese giant oilfields. Petroleum Development and Exploration, 37(2):237–249 VIII Höök, M., Aleklett, K. (2009) Historical trends in American coal production and a possible future outlook. International Journal of Coal Geology, 78(3):201–216 IX Höök, M., Aleklett, K. (2010) Trends in U.S. recoverable coal supply estimates and future production outlooks. Natural Re- sources Research, 19(3):189–208 X Höök, M., Zittel, W., Schindler, J., Aleklett, K.
    [Show full text]
  • New Carbon Emissions Allowance Allocation Method Based on Equilibrium Strategy for Carbon Emission Mitigation in the Coal-Fired Power Industry
    sustainability Article New Carbon Emissions Allowance Allocation Method Based on Equilibrium Strategy for Carbon Emission Mitigation in the Coal-Fired Power Industry Qing Feng 1, Qian Huang 1, Qingyan Zheng 2 and Li Lu 1,2,* 1 Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, China; [email protected] (Q.F.); [email protected] (Q.H.) 2 Tourism School, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, China; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-028-85996613 Received: 18 July 2018; Accepted: 17 August 2018; Published: 17 August 2018 Abstract: The carbon emissions from coal-fired power have become an increasing concern to governments around the world. In this paper, a carbon emissions allowances allocation based on the equilibrium strategy is proposed to mitigate coal-fired power generation carbon emissions, in which the authority is the lead decision maker and the coal-fired power plants are the follower decision makers, and an interactive solution approach is designed to achieve equilibrium. A real-world case study is then given to demonstrate the practicality and efficiency of this methodology. Sensitivity analyses under different constraint violation risk levels are also conducted to give authorities some insights into equilibrium strategies for different stakeholders and to identify the necessary tradeoffs between economic development and carbon emissions mitigation. It was found that the proposed method was able to mitigate coal-fired power generation carbon emissions significantly and encourage coal-fired power plants to improve their emissions performance. Keywords: carbon emission allowance allocation; emission mitigation; coal-fired power generation; cap and tax mechanism 1. Introduction Because of their major contribution to global climate change, there has been increased research to determine the best ways to reduce carbon emissions, which have been exponentially increasing due to the increased demand for energy [1–3].
    [Show full text]
  • Blending Hydrogen Into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: a Review of Key Issues
    Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: A Review of Key Issues M. W. Melaina, O. Antonia, and M. Penev NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Technical Report NREL/TP-5600-51995 March 2013 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: A Review of Key Issues M. W. Melaina, O. Antonia, and M. Penev Prepared under Task No. HT12.2010 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report 15013 Denver West Parkway NREL/TP-5600-51995 Golden, Colorado 80401 March 2013 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • LLNL Underground Coal Gasification: an Overview of Groundwater
    David W. Camp Joshua A. White Underground Coal Gasification: An Overview of Groundwater Contamination Hazards and Mitigation Strategies March 2015 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNL-TR-668633 Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore Na- tional Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or useful- ness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. v Acknowledgements This work was funded by a 2012 Applied Science Grant from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE- AC52-07NA27344. The authors wish to thank Duane Matt and other members of the OSM Underground Coal Gasification Working Group for their support and recommendations. We also thank the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) for earlier funding that allowed LLNL to begin investi- gating groundwater contamination issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Storing Syngas Lowers the Carbon Price for Profitable Coal Gasification
    Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center Working Paper CEIC-07-10 www.cmu.edu/electricity Storing syngas lowers the carbon price for profitable coal gasification ADAM NEWCOMER AND JAY APT Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, Tepper School of Business, and Department of Engineering and Public Policy, 254 Posner Hall, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) electric power generation systems with carbon capture and sequestration have desirable environmental qualities, but are not profitable when the carbon dioxide price is less than approximately $50 per metric ton. We examine whether an IGCC facility that operates its gasifier continuously but stores the syngas and produces electricity only when daily prices are high may be profitable at significantly lower CO2 prices. Using a probabilistic analysis, we have calculated the plant-level return on investment (ROI) and the value of syngas storage for IGCC facilities located in the US Midwest using a range of storage configurations. Adding a second turbine to use the stored syngas to generate electricity at peak hours and implementing 12 hours of above ground high pressure syngas storage significantly increases the ROI and net present value. Storage lowers the carbon price at which IGCC enters the US generation mix by approximately 25%. 1 Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center Working Paper CEIC-07-10 www.cmu.edu/electricity Introduction Producing electricity from coal-derived synthesis gas (syngas) in an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facility can improve criteria pollutant performance over other coal-fueled technologies such as pulverized coal (PC) facilities [1-5] and can be implemented with carbon capture and sequestration.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Contaminants Associated with Coal Bed Methane
    Contaminant Report Number: R6/721C/05 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE REGION 6 CONTAMINANTS PROGRAM Assessment of Contaminants Associated with Coal Bed Methane-Produced Water and Its Suitability for Wetland Creation or Enhancement Projects USFWS - Region 6 - EC Report - R6/721C/05 ABSTRACT Extraction of methane gas from coal seams has become a significant energy source in the Powder River Basin of northeastern Wyoming. In Wyoming, coalbed methane (CBM) gas is extracted by drilling wells into coal seams and removing water to release the gas. Each CBM well produces an average of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) of water and a maximum of 100 gpm. Disposal of CBM produced water is accomplished by direct discharge to surface drainages, and also by a variety of other treatment and disposal methods. Untreated CBM produced water discharged to surface drainages is the primary method of disposal provided that the CBM produced water meets Wyoming water quality standards. Water failing to meet water quality standards cannot legally be discharged into surface drainages and is alternately discharged into closed containment ponds for soil-ground water infiltration and evaporation. In 2000 and 2001, we collected and analyzed water from CBM discharges and receiving waters and sediment and biota from CBM produced water impoundments. In 2002, we collected and analyzed water from CBM closed containment impoundments. All the samples were analyzed for trace elements. The biota included pondweed (Potamogeton vaginatus), aquatic invertebrates, fish, and tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum). One CBM produced water discharge exceeded the chronic criterion for iron and several CBM produced water discharges exceeded the acute criterion for copper.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐Up
    Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program DRAFT INTERIM PROJECT REPORT DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐up Prepared for: California Energy Commission Prepared by: California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis OCTOBER 2014 CEC‐500‐11‐020, TASK 8 Prepared by: Primary Author(s): Matthew D. Ong Robert B. Williams Stephen R. Kaffka California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis 1 Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Contract Number: 500-11-020, Task 8 Prepared for: California Energy Commission Michael Sokol Contract Manager Aleecia Gutierrez Office Manager Energy Generation Research Office Laurie ten Hope Deputy Director Energy Research and Development Robert Oglesby Executive Director DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express his gratitude and appreciation to the following individuals for their various contributions to the development of this report: California Biomass Collaborative Robert Williams, Project Supervisor Dr. Stephen Kaffka, Project Manager Dr. Bryan Jenkins, Contract Manager American Biogas Council Bioenergy Association of California.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrocarbon Processing®
    HYDROCARBON PROCESSING® 2012 Gas Processes Handbook HOME PROCESSES INDEX COMPANY INDEX Sponsors: SRTTA HYDROCARBON PROCESSING® 2012 Gas Processes Handbook HOME PROCESSES INDEX COMPANY INDEX Sponsors: Hydrocarbon Processing’s Gas Processes 2012 handbook showcases recent advances in licensed technologies for gas processing, particularly in the area of liquefied natural gas (LNG). The LNG industry is poised to expand worldwide as new natural gas discoveries and production technologies compliment increasing demand for gas as a low-emissions fuel. With the discovery of new reserves come new challenges, such as how to treat gas produced from shale rock—a topic of particular interest for the growing shale gas industry in the US. The Gas Processes 2012 handbook addresses this technology topic and updates many others. The handbook includes new technologies for shale gas treating, synthesis gas production and treating, LNG and NGL production, hydrogen generation, and others. Additional technology topics covered include drying, gas treating, liquid treating, effluent cleanup and sulfur removal. To maintain as complete a listing as possible, the Gas Processes 2012 handbook is available on CD-ROM and at our website for paid subscribers. Additional copies may be ordered from our website. Photo: Lurgi’s synthesis gas complex in Malaysia. Photo courtesy of Air Liquide Global E&C Solutions. Please read the TERMS AND CONDITIONS carefully before using this interactive CD-ROM. Using the CD-ROM or the enclosed files indicates your acceptance of the terms and conditions. www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com HYDROCARBON PROCESSING® 2012 Gas Processes Handbook HOME PROCESSES INDEX COMPANY INDEX Sponsors: Terms and Conditions Gulf Publishing Company provides this program and licenses its use throughout the Some states do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties, so the above exclu- world.
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Characteristics
    CCTR Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research COAL CHARACTERISTICS CCTR Basic Facts File # 8 Brian H. Bowen, Marty W. Irwin The Energy Center at Discovery Park Purdue University CCTR, Potter Center, 500 Central Drive West Lafayette, IN 47907-2022 http://www.purdue.edu/dp/energy/CCTR/ Email: [email protected] October 2008 1 Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research CCTR COAL FORMATION As geological processes apply pressure to peat over time, it is transformed successively into different types of coal Source: Kentucky Geological Survey http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/images/peatcoal.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coalform.htm&h=354&w=579&sz= 20&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=NavOy9_5HD07pM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=134&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcoal%2Bphotos%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX 2 Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research CCTR COAL ANALYSIS Elemental analysis of coal gives empirical formulas such as: C137H97O9NS for Bituminous Coal C240H90O4NS for high-grade Anthracite Coal is divided into 4 ranks: (1) Anthracite (2) Bituminous (3) Sub-bituminous (4) Lignite Source: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=4929705428518&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&FORM=CVRE8 3 Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research CCTR BITUMINOUS COAL Bituminous Coal: Great pressure results in the creation of bituminous, or “soft” coal. This is the type most commonly used for electric power generation in the U.S. It has a higher heating value than either lignite or sub-bituminous, but less than that of anthracite. Bituminous coal
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Gas Origins and Exploration Strategies ©
    COAL GAS ORIGINS AND EXPLORATION STRATEGIES © Andrew R. Scott Altuda Energy Corporation San Antonio, Texas USA [email protected] A LTUDA Mid-Continent Coalbed Methane Symposium Tulsa, Oklahoma November 7-9, 2004 © 2004 A.R. Scott EARTH AT NIGHT Page1of1 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 Year Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census; ftuture growth estimates from U.S. Census Bureau publication NP-T1, February 2000; website www.mnforsustain.org/united_states_population.htm World view problems 1. Energy 2. Water 3. Food 4. Environment 5. Poverty 6. Terrorism & War 7. Disease 2. Education 9. Democracy 10. Population Tinker (2004) after Smalley (2003) U.S. ENERGY COMPARISON To Produce 20% of US Energy Demand (20 Quads per year) 1 million kg biomass/km2* 16,000 BTU/kg = .02 Q/4,000km2 after loss 20 ac/turbine 175,000 Kwh/yr/turbine 33 million turbines Solar Wind Biomass According to Pimentel et al. (BioScience Sept. 1994), Tinker RMS AAPG Keynote (2004) A LTUDA NATURAL GAS DEPLETION RATES 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rocky Texas Oklahoma Offshore Lower 48 Mountain GOM Kenderdine (2002) 1990 1999 A LTUDA COALBED METHANE PRODUCTION IN U.S. 2,000 1,800 1614 1600 1,600 1562 1379 1,400 1252 1194 1,200 1090 1003 956 1,000 851 800 752 600 539 400 348 196 200 91 10 17 24 40 0 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003 Energy Information Year Administration (1992, 1995,1999, 2002, 2004) A LTUDA COALBED METHANE EXPLORATION MODEL Permeability Gas content Hydrodynamics CoalbedCoalbed MethaneMethane ProducibilityProducibility Coal rank and Depositional gas generation systems and coal distribution Tectonic and structural setting A LTUDA A LTUDA EVALUATION OF GAS CHEMISTRY • Gas chromatographic analyses provides information about gas chemistry; percentages of hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes
    Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes Final report NNFCC project 09/008 A project funded by DECC, project managed by NNFCC and conducted by E4Tech June 2009 Review of technology for the gasification of biomass and wastes E4tech, June 2009 Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Approach ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Introduction to gasification and fuel production ...................................................................... 1 1.4 Introduction to gasifier types .................................................................................................... 3 2 Syngas conversion to liquid fuels .................................................................................... 6 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Fischer-Tropsch synthesis ......................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Methanol synthesis ................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Mixed alcohols synthesis .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CLIMATE ACTION PLAN Websites
    CLIMATE ACTION PLAN Websites Climate action cuts across all sectors of our economy and is being addressed in multiple ways. Information on government actions related to climate action are also found in the following: h LiveSmart BC http://www.livesmartbc.ca/ h The BC Energy Plan: A Vision for Clean Energy Leadership http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca/ h The BC Bioenergy Strategy http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca/bioenergy/ h The Agriculture Plan: Growing a Healthy Future for BC Farmers http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/Agriculture_Plan/ h The Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/ h Living Water Smart: British Columbia's Water Plan http://www.livingwatersmart.ca./ h The BC Air Action Plan http://www.bcairsmart.ca/ h The BC Transit Plan http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/Transit_Plan/index.html h Energy Efficient Building Strategy http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca/efficiency/ h BC Green Building Code http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/building/green/ h Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions http://www.pics.uvic.ca/ h Towns for Tomorrow http://www.townsfortomorrow.gov.bc.ca/ h Climate Action Secretariat http://www.climateactionsecretariat.gov.bc.ca/ BRITISH COLUMBIA’S Contents Message from the B.C. Government 1 Highlights 2 The Challenge 6 The Opportunity 10 The B.C. Climate Action Plan – Phase One 12 Section One: Setting the Course 13 Section Two: Acting in Every Sector 25 Acting in Every Sector: Transportation 26 Acting in Every Sector: Buildings 36 Acting in Every Sector: Waste 41 Acting in Every Sector: Agriculture 43 Acting
    [Show full text]