The Feasibility and Development of Alternative Energy Sources for Cotton.’ National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture, Publication 1004527/1, USQ, Toowoomba
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Feasibility and Development of Alternative Energy Sources for Cotton NEC1201 Final Report “How to save energy, save money and reduce your carbon footprint.” Gary Sandell, Joshua Hopf, Guangnan Chen, Talal Yusaf, Craig Baillie National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture 1004527/1 Disclaimer While the National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture and the authors have prepared this document in good faith, consulting widely, exercising all due care and attention, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy, completeness or fitness of the document in respect of any user's circumstances. Suppliers, companies and their products mentioned in this document do not infer endorsement by the NCEA. Users of the report should undertake their own quality controls, standards, safety procedures and seek appropriate expert advice where necessary in relation to their particular situation or equipment. Any representation, statement, opinion or advice, expressed or implied in this publication is made in good faith and on the basis that the National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture, its agents and employees, and North East Farming Futures, NEFF (the commissioning Agency) are not liable (whether by reason of negligence, lack of care or otherwise) to any person for any damage or loss whatsoever which has occurred or may occur in relation to that person taking or not taking (as the case may be) action in respect of any representation, statement or advice referred to above. Published in September 2014 by the National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture, Toowoomba. Material from this publication may not be used unless prior written approval has been obtained from the National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture and the CRDC. This document should be cited as follows: Sandell G.R., Hopf J., Chen G., Yusaf T., (2014). ‘The Feasibility and Development of Alternative Energy Sources for Cotton.’ National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture, Publication 1004527/1, USQ, Toowoomba. National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture 1004527/1 Page i Preface This report, commissioned by the Cotton Research and Development Corporation, is the outcome of an exploratory research designed to shed light on possible solutions or new ideas in the alternative energy space as applied to the Australian cotton industry. The report splits the discussion of energy and alternative energy into three main types of energy sources: liquid, electrical and solid sources for the following reason. Simply, they are different forms of energy. They have different performance characteristics, are taxed differently and have different applicability. Therefore it is sensible to discuss the various sources in these groups. For example, all cotton farms have a heavy reliance on liquid fuels for transport and field work. Most cotton farms also use liquid fuels for pumping. Accordingly significant investigation made into liquid fuels, such as biofuels and biofuel blends. Electrical energy, while important in cotton production has different applicability and completely different tariff structures. Finally, solid fuels offer potential, are generally less well developed as an energy source for cotton production and have different constraints relative to other fuels. National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture 1004527/1 Page iii Acknowledgements The National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture (NCEA) would like to acknowledge the support of the Cotton Research and Development Corporation in funding this project. The NCEA recognises the significant contribution made by Australian cotton growers in paying levies and the Federal Government in matching these levies, which in turn, fund research to better the industry. In addition to the researchers who authored this work, the NCEA would like to acknowledge the work of the following people: Kim and Andrew Bremner, Dalby, for their generous support in conducting field testing. Dr Ihsan Hamawand, Dr Bernadette McCabe and Dr Les Bowtell for their contribution to the discussion on cotton gin trash utilisation. Students Soma Rasul and Adnan Khalid for their contribution to the PTO and field testing carried out at USQ. Dr Paul Baker and Dr Sadam Al-lwayzy for their contribution to the testing and performance of fuels. Dr Joseph Foley and Mr Phillip Szabo for their advice on water pumping. National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture 1004527/1 Page iv Executive Summary This report, commissioned by the Cotton Research and Development Corporation, is exploratory research designed to shed light on possible solutions or new ideas in the alternative energy space as applied to the Australian cotton industry. The broad aim of this project is to develop farmer-friendly resources to assist the Australian cotton industry evaluate alternate energy sources that can be integrated into normal farming operations to save energy, save money and reduce cotton’s carbon footprint. Principal findings • A survey of 165 growers show that price, availability and ease of use are the most import decision factors when choosing an alternative energy source. Environmental concerns are of important, but to a lesser degree (figure 120, pp. 85). • Diesel, LPG injection (for electronic engines) and electricity are similar in cost when expressed per GJ of energy output at the flywheel. Of these, LPG injection has the lowest emissions, followed by diesel. Electricity has the highest emissions of any energy source. Each of these options could be viable given different values for engine efficiency, electrical tariff and so on. Growers will need to evaluate their own specific circumstances in light of these results. • Conversely, B100 biofuels (100% biofuel) have negligible contribution to global warming, however their costs are much higher than traditional alternatives. Straight biofuels are hampered by the fact that there is no fuel rebate available. • B20 blends from waste feedstock, such as tallow, are close to being economic because fuel blends up to 20% still attract the full fuel rebate. These blends may be economical at different times depending on the relative pricing of B20 and diesel. Growers need to be aware that due to differences in calorific value and viscosity, biofuels have a slightly lower combustion efficiency than diesel. These fuels would need to be around 2% cheaper than diesel for price parity. • It is recommended that options for utilising the significant cotton gin trash (CGT) biomass resource be investigated and quantified. While there are several options to utilise this resource to generate electrical and/or thermal energy, such as those listed in section 6.3, there is little evidence as to the relative merit of each system. In particular, major parameters such as CGT production, CGT calorific value, process efficiencies and capital and operating costs need to be identified for each system. A brief scoping review into the viability of collecting in-field plant residue should be conducted in conjunction with such an investigation. Utilisation of cotton biomass presents a large potential energy source that is essentially carbon neutral. • Coal Seam Gas (CSG) had the highest level of resistance to adoption. There is no current use and only 2% of respondents plan to use CSG. It was rated as ‘Not an option’ by 57% of respondents to this question with a further 4% selecting Potential but would not use it. This is consistent with the environmental concerns over CSG. • Solar PV is an option to offset workshop and domestic electricity and is less feasible for pumping water. • The reliability of wind in cotton growing areas is too low, and the generation costs too high, for wind power to be viable. • Similarly, the reliability of water makes the economics of hydroelectric energy generation less attractive. National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture 1004527/1 Page v The specific objectives of this work include: • Review commercially available alternative (renewable) energy and fuel options. • Assess the feasibility of commercially available alternative (renewable) energy and fuel options. • Examine performance / characteristics of non-commercial alternative fuel sources and mixtures. • Reduce operating costs and emissions of non-commercial alternative fuel sources and mixtures. • Inform the cotton industry on opportunities, costs and greenhouse gas implications of alternative (renewable) energy and fuels. Background Energy use and efficiency has become increasing important globally due to the increasing cost and scarcity of energy sources (particularly crude oil) and the associated production of greenhouse gasses causing global warming. The rising costs of energy and associated energy-intensive products such as fertilizers and chemicals are now one of the major challenges facing modern mechanised agriculture. This problem is particularly acute in Australian cotton farming systems which are often expansive and require high inputs of all of these commodities. Continuously increasing energy prices and the needs for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions make the improvement of farming energy efficiency essential. Exploration of new alternative and renewable energy sources is also vital. Energy Costs The rising cost of energy is driven by two main factors: decreasing supply and increasing demand. Individual oil fields universally see a production peak followed by persistent decline. This phenomena is known as ‘peak oil’. Analysis of the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 63rd Edn., June 2014 shows that,