Chapter 4 Energy on farms
4.1
Energy in agriculture is becoming an increasingly important issue on farms
for economic and environmental reasons. Savings in electricity and fuel costs are
another incentive to improve energy efficiency. Improving the efficiency of
energy use on farms can also help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated
with burning fossil fuels. The uptake of farming practices that already promote
resilience in the face of weather and climate variability, such as those in
Chapter 3, may also offer the additional benefits of reducing energy usage.
4.2
The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC),
guided by the National and Rural Research Priorities of the Australian
Government notes that:
Demand for alternative feedstocks for fuels, electricity,
chemicals and a range of commercial products has grown dramatically throughout
the world in the early years of the 21st century…
Australia faces a complex set of challenges and opportunities
with respect to future energy supplies, policy and technology. An unprecedented
interest in bioenergy in the international arena, as well as Federal and State
governments who are keen to promote new industries, and investors and engineers
keen to promote new biofuel and bioenergy technologies, means that bioenergy is
becoming a tangible option for the future. A move to bioenergy will have major
implications for farms and regions.
High oil prices are already having an impact on agriculture
as input costs increase, not just for fuel, but for other products reliant on
oil such as fertiliser. Farming systems have been partly buffered from
increasing oil prices due to changes in the way systems run (for example
legumes reducing dependence on nitrogen-based fertilisers, minimum tillage etc)
but are reaching limits and are increasingly 'energy exposed'. The challenge is
to become more energy efficient and self-sufficient at farm and regional level.[1]
Energy efficiency
4.3
Energy is a significant portion of the running costs incurred in modern
agriculture. If the cost of energy is to increase as predicted, savings in
electricity and fuel costs are one incentive to improve energy efficiency. Many
of the farming practices detailed in the Chapter 3 that promote the increase of
soil carbon, also make credible claims to reduce energy usage and greenhouse
gas emissions on-farm.
4.4
Controlled Traffic Farming (CTF) for example, uses less energy than
conventional farming. In its submission to the Committee, the TIAR points to
some of the broader environmental benefits of CTF:
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions due to:
n reduced on-farm
energy consumption due to less tillage, lighter draft loads and more efficient
use of tractor power, and
n reduced carbon losses
as a result of less tillage, reduced energy consumption in the manufacturing
and transport sectors due to lighter equipment and less fertiliser manufactured
and transported.[2]
4.5
In evidence to the Committee, Dr Jeff Tullberg of the ACTF Association demonstrated
the many advantages of CTF, pointing to some of the less obvious energy saving
benefits:
It is well known that, by reducing tillage, you reduce the
amount of fuel you use, so you reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that gets
produced as a result of burning diesel fuel…When you are no longer tilling the
soil, you are disturbing it very little, and most of your fuel is actually used
to carry this weight around the paddock. If you are going on permanent wheel
tracks which are hard you use a lot less fuel—about half the fuel. Those are
the emissions related to diesel fuel use—and, as I say, that is commonly known.
People often do not consider the energy that goes into
producing herbicides, which is one of the issues of zero tillage. In controlled
traffic, because you grow more crops and because you can get onto ground
quicker, you can deal with weeds when they are smaller, you can use less active
ingredients and you get reduced herbicide use. But the big one in terms of
energy going into modern cropping systems … is nitrogen fertiliser. These
figures are worked out on the basis of perhaps 50 kilograms of nitrogen per
hectare, which might be a reasonable Australian broadacre situation. There is
very little difference between conventional mulch tillage and zero till. This
is a significant improvement in controlled traffic again because of course you
do not put fertiliser on permanent wheel tracks and because you do not get the
inefficient fertiliser use associated with compacted soil.[3]
4.6
The Murray Irrigators Support Group gave evidence to the Committee about
the energy saving potential of Fast Watering technology used in conjunction
with Padman Stops[4]:
Gravity or surface irrigation, as we said, is 80 per cent of
our irrigation and has little or no energy cost. There has been a bit of
emphasis for irrigators to convert to a pressurised system, such as centre
pivot, drip or spray, but what will happen is that their energy costs will
increase, as will the amount of carbon they put out. One thing we are trying to
do is retain our gravity irrigation system and make it efficient. We know that
it can be just as efficient as the other systems, but the great thing is that
there is not much cost there. Most of it is already there and it is low carbon.[5]
That leaves us with the question of pumping water for
irrigation. Pumping water has significant implications for carbon pollution,
and I am sure that is of interest to this committee. The energy costs that come
from putting water into a pipe, be it centre pivot, sprinkler system or drip,
are significant. Work done by Guangnan Chen and Craig Baillie[6]
shows that a pressurised irrigation farm can use three times the energy overall
that a gravity fed farm might use. Currently a large amount of irrigation in Australia,
prior to Water for the Future, is under gravity fed systems or has a component
that is fed by gravity.[7]
4.7
The 2005 document, Landcare Australia: Meeting the Greenhouse
Challenge has some more general advice from farmers, to farmers, for
improving on-farm energy efficiency:
The type of fuel used in vehicles and machinery will influence
the amount of greenhouse gases they emit when operating. Purchasing a new
vehicle that uses an alternative fuel, such as liquid petroleum gas (LPG), or converting
existing vehicles to make them compatible with alternative fuels, can reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and reduce running costs.
Landcare Greenhouse Challenge participants identified the following
ways to increase energy efficiency on their farms:
n Select energy
efficient machinery, appliances and vehicles when making purchases, and replace
old, inefficient equipment.
n Conduct regular
maintenance on existing equipment to improve efficiency.
n Adopt minimum till
practices to reduce fuel consumption.
n Use alternative fuels
where possible (e.g. LPG).
n Install renewable or
alternative energy sources, such as solar panels, to supply electricity.[8]
4.8
There are also numerous smaller ways to reduce and conserve energy usage
on farms. A Canadian study, 'Energy and the Canadian Food System,'[9]
suggests that by taking a holistic approach, major savings in energy on farms
may be made. Many of the examples in the study have a corresponding practice
for which submissions were received by the Committee. For example:
n Tillage systems and
physical manipulation of the soil
n Irrigation and soil
moisture control
n Renewable energy
production
n Plant species
selection
Other practices in
the study may only be relevant in the context of Canadian agriculture or
climate but remain as examples of what might be achieved through a focus on
energy efficiency.
Energy efficiency in agricultural industries
4.9
A review prepared by the CSIRO in 2008 for Land & Water Australia
offered advice for government on the location of agricultural industries for
improved energy efficiency:
Clustering of compatible industries with intensive livestock
production, in order to tighten or close the resource loop, is another option.
Agricultural industrial parks that co-locate industries involved in waste
processing, energy generation, water capture and recycling, feedstock and
foodstuff manufacture etc with livestock production have the option to reduce
energy demand from fossil fuels and increase value in the value chain. The
siting of these agricultural industrial parks should be determined after
considering the potential for increased exposure of the site to climate change.[10]
4.10
The National Agriculture and Climate Change Action Plan 2006-2009 offers
a series of strategies to reduce energy demand in agriculture as well as along
the agricultural industry supply chain. While no real action is suggested, it
is evidence that the issue has been acknowledged.[11]
Alternative energy
4.11
It is clear from the evidence presented to the Committee that there is significant
interest in developing alternative energy sources for on-farm use and as a
supplementary income stream. Initiatives within the bioenergy industry offer
opportunities for creating energy from waste or by-products from agriculture
and forestry.
4.12
In its submission to the Committee, the Grain Growers Association made a
case for alternative energy sources on-farm as a supplementary income stream,
and as an important contribution that farmers can make towards a low carbon
economy:
We should also look for other new revenue streams for farmers
and regional Australia such as the harvesting of solar and wind energy and the
production of renewable fuels. These new potential enterprises can be
implemented on Australian farms right now if the correct incentives are put in
place. New enterprise opportunities will assist to provide greater resilience
to rural and regional communities, improved employment and investment
opportunities and place Australia in a strong position for a changed climate
and a low carbon economy.[12]
4.13
In particular, the submission from the Grain Growers Association called
for:
n Continued development
of, and support for, renewable fuel sources such as biofuels as part of a wider
strategy of energy security. Australia should encourage the use of biofuels and
if necessary continue to mandate these into the fuel system. Farmers should be
encouraged to use biodiesel on farm, which can be locally produced as an
alternative to petrochemical diesel from the oil industry. The government
should reconsider its approach to fuel excise to facilitate such developments.
n Diffuse energy
generation opportunities across Australia, should be encouraged, particularly
on farms, including solar and wind power generation and small scale biofuels
production. That is, as well as large scale investments, that individuals be encouraged
to have household or small business generation sets to cover the immediate site
power requirements and may be able to contribute back into the power grid. Such
a strategy would relieve the need for new coal powered systems and make greater
use of the natural resources of wind and sun available to Australia. [13]
4.14
In evidence to the Committee, Mr Hansard of the National Association of
Forest Industries also identified alternative energy options as potential opportunity:
Another key market signal is the full recognition of wood
biomass for the generation of bioenergy. The current regulations under the
National Renewable Energy Target Scheme only partially recognise wood biomass
for the creation of renewable energy credits. The result is a significant lost
opportunity to rural and regional Australia, in terms of jobs and investment,
and a continued heavy reliance of Australia’s economy on fossil-based energy.[14]
4.15
Another approach to optimising alternative energy opportunities is the
conversion of diesel engines to run on alternative fuels. Bennett Clayton Pty
Ltd is an engine technology company that specialises in converting diesel
engines into alternative fuels including LPG, LNG and bio-alcohols (methanol
and ethanol). In its submission to the Committee, Bennett Clayton outlined a
current project and some of the benefits:
Bennett Clayton is currently working with farmers in the
Riverina to develop alternatives to diesel engines used by rice farmers to pump
water from deep bores. Bennett Clayton has invested significant R&D in
developing a conversion for a commonly used engine (John Deere 6068) from
diesel to LPG.
In the first instance LPG was chosen as a locally available
fuel, and the technology has been structured for easy local manufacture. The
converted engines are essentially ready to operate on renewable fuels (methanol
or ethanol) that could in future be produced locally from local farm products
(lignocellulose).[15]
The converted engines have been very successful, reducing the
cost of operating the pumps from $51 per megalitre of water pumped to $38 per
megalitre of water pumped (on current fuel prices). The engines have also shown
emissions reductions of up to 94% (particulates and NOx).[16]
These changes can have a very significant impact in the farm
irrigation sector, both by offering farmers greater efficiency, and by reducing
emissions. As the engines are essentially ready for renewable bio-alcohols,
farmers could transition to an on-farm produced bio-alcohol (e.g. methanol)
fuel as soon as production technology, currently in development, becomes
available…
These alternative fuel engines have demonstrated reliability,
having operated in the field for thousands of hours. They exhibit extremely low
emissions, and reduced CO2 production. They are more economical than
diesels, both in fuel cost, and in maintenance…
However, the take up of these engines in the market is
hampered by the distortion created by the Commonwealth diesel fuel rebate.
Farmers enjoy a Commonwealth Government rebate of about 38c per litre for
diesel fuel used on the farm.[17]
Bioenergy on farms
4.16
Bioenergy is renewable energy made available from materials derived from
biological sources. Bioenergy is also the term used to describe the many varied
ways of utilising biomass to create fuel for energy.
4.17
The bioenergy industry in Australia is starting to offer viable
alternatives for farmers to produce on-farm energy, sequester carbon, and
profit from selling biomass. In its submission to the Committee, CSIRO
categorise the different technological pathways for the production of
bioenergy:
There are many different technological pathways to producing
biofuels, bioelectricity and other bioproducts. The various production pathways
can be broadly grouped into:
n First generation
technology - which means that it is already used by commercial enterprises.
n Second generation
technology - this represents a step change in technology - it has been
physically demonstrated but is not yet commercial due to scale-up issues, or it
is not commercially viable due to very high conversion costs.
n Third generation
technology - this means that the process is at the conceptual planning stage,
'on drawing board' or at bench top demonstration stage, but has a long way to
go before it can be deployed.
Each of these different technologies has close links to the
types of biomass that can be used to feed the process (known as biomass
feedstocks). In addition to the types of technologies and feedstocks, assessments
must be made in relation to the current production base for biomass (i.e. what
is already being produced in Australia) as well as future production base
(which may include new and novel plant species, or changes in land use to
produce energy crops or forests etc).[18]
4.18
The submission continued:
Different parts of the plant can be used with different
technologies. For example with a cereal crop, ethanol is currently produced
only from grain using first generation technology. By moving production to use
second generation technologies however, the fate of the stalks or stubble from
the grain could be diverted away from the current system of being retained in a
minimum tillage system (or in some areas being burnt), to being
n co-fired in the a
coal fired power station to produce bioelectricity
n converted into
ethanol via enzymatic technologies
n converted directly
into syndiesel using thermochemical processes
n converted by
pyrolysis into biochar and syngas (which could be used to produce syndiesel or
run a turbine for bioelectricity)
n in future, being fed
into a biorefinery to make a range of bioproducts (e.g. bioplastics, adhesives)
as well as energy or fuel as a co-product.[19]
Working bioenergy plants
4.19
There are plants producing bioenergy in operation in a number of
industries that use readily available biomass that would otherwise be a waste
product. The Australian Pork Limited submission to the Committee described an
early bioenergy project still in operation:
…Australia's first on farm anaerobic digester in 1989 at
Berrybank Piggery… is still generating heat and power for use on site and exporting
electricity back into the grid. (Unfortunately, biogas capture and use is yet
to be widely adopted across the industry due to the poor return on investment
faced by pig producers, which has been exacerbated by low cost of coal fired
electricity).[20]
4.20
Sugar mills in Australia have a readily available source of feedstock in
the form of bagasse, the fibrous residue remaining after sugarcane is crushed
to extract the juice:
Australia's sugar industry is now using a "waste"
by-product - bagasse - to co-generate over 1000 GWh of electricity per annum
plus a similar amount of heat. The heat is used to crystallise the sugar, while
most of the electricity is exported to the grid.[21]
4.21
The Committee is also aware of a macadamia nut factory in southern
Queensland that produces power from nut shells to run its operations (20%) and
feeds the rest back into the grid (80%).[22]
4.22
Extensive research and development has been carried out in Western
Australia, where Verve Energy operated a pilot Integrated Wood Processing (IWP)
plant for several years, using advanced pyrolysis technology developed by the
CSIRO to process oil mallee biomass:
Combined with eucalyptus oil extraction, the IWP offers the
potential to commercialise charcoaling, carbon activation technology and
renewable electricity generation. The technology was developed in Australia by
the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), which
Verve Energy adapted to electricity generation. Production from mallee tree
feedstock of three marketable products - activated carbon, renewable
electricity and eucalyptus oil - allows the mallee chain to be viable for
farmers and developers alike.[23]
4.23
Up to 10 potential sites around the state were identified for future IWP
plants to be built:
Basically, wherever there are substantial plantings, and
access to the Transmission System on to the grid, there is an opportunity to
build an IWP plant.[24]
4.24
The Western Australian energy minister Francis Logan issued a media
statement just prior to the end of plant operation discussing the improved commercial
attractiveness of the technology:
I have asked Verve Energy to seek expressions of interest
from within the private sector about the commercial application of this
technology. There is still a long way to go but I believe this technology
represents a terrific opportunity for investment, at the cutting-edge of
renewable energy production. With the right kind of investment, five to 10
mallee-tree generators could be built for the Wheatbelt and generate up to 50MW
of electricity. Not only will this improve electricity reliability issues in
the South-West, but also provide farmers with an additional income source,
particularly on land affected by salt.[25]
4.25
The plant received $20 million of funding from numerous government
agencies. Despite the cited commercial potential the plant closed down in 2006
at the end of its demonstration period.
Biochar
4.26
Renewable energy is one of the by-products of biochar production (see
Chapter 2). The biofuel produced in the biochar process is often syngas, which
is a mixture of mainly hydrogen and carbon monoxide, with a little carbon
dioxide. The proportions of the three gases vary according to the processes
used to create the syngas. However, the important point is that syngas is
combustible and so can be used as a fuel source. Depending on the process, the
biofuel from the kiln could also be bio-oil, which can be used as a substitute
for diesel in some engines.[26]
4.27
As discussed in Chapter 3 the biochar itself may be used as a soil
conditioner. A 2009 CSIRO report explains the potential, and slightly
competing, outcomes of different biochar processes:
Biomass (‘feedstock’) for biochar production can comprise
most urban, agricultural and forestry biomass such as wood chips, saw dust,
tree bark, corn stover, rice or peanut hulls, paper mill sludge, animal manure
and biosolids. Under controlled conditions (i.e. in a pyrolysis plant), about
50% of the carbon in biomass is converted to biochar while the remainder is
used for the pyrolysis process and bioenergy (heat, stream, electricity)
production, the exact ratios depending on the type of production (e.g. fast vs.
slow pyrolysis), biomass source and set conditions of pyrolysis…
Sustainable production of biochar occurs as part of bioenergy
production from pyrolysis of sustainably-produced biomass, which may be in the
form of thermal energy, synthesis gas (‘syngas’; e.g. hydrogen, methane, carbon
monoxide) or bio-oil. Yields of biochar are reduced when yield of energy
obtained from the system is increased. However, as calculated by Gaunt and
Lehmann (2008), while the energy gain decreases if biochar is added to soil
instead of being burnt for further heat production and energy gain, the emission
reductions by adding biochar to soil are much greater than the fossil fuel
offsets when using the biochar as energy. In other words, if energy maximisation
is the key goal, then biochar should be used for further energy generation
(mainly heat); however, if emission reductions and climate change mitigation
through C sequestration is the aim, then biochar should be captured and added
to soil. Additional analysis is required to assess the relative merit (in terms
of CO2-e benefit) of these two pathways and will be largely driven
by the CO2-e intensity of electricity production (i.e. coal versus
green power production).[27]
4.28
In evidence to the Committee, Mr Dale Park of the Western Australian
Farmers Federation suggested that the utilisation of a pyrolysis plant could be
an alternative income stream for farmers and offer benefits to the local
communities:
Another avenue of agricultural income would be to produce
biomass to burn one way or the other. I would prefer to put it into pyrolysis,
and you generate energy with that as well. Giving farmers another option is
quite important. Things like bioenergy mean that we will keep people in those
rural areas, whereas forestry traditionally has taken people out of those areas
and reduced our populations. Maybe some of these new green industries can help
keep that population in those country areas.[28]
4.29
Mr David Thompson, of the Northern Inland Forestry Investment Group, in
evidence to the Committee, saw a potential source of savings and income for
farmers who had lots of trees on their farms. Forestry residues from thinning
trees can be used to produce syngas for electricity and subsequently feeding
into the grid:
[The syngas produced] can be used to generate electricity. My
understanding from the local expert on pyrolysis is that for that to fly the
feed-in tariff for the electricity coming from the pyrolysis plant needs to be
around 80 per cent of the current green energy retail price, which I think is
24c, so it needs to be around about 16c.[29]
4.30
Under the Climate Change Research Program, the federal government has
provided funding for a research project into biochar, which will target gaps in
our understanding of this emerging technology and address uncertainties about
its use:
This project will draw together leading researchers in
Australia in the areas of biochar, bioenergy, soil science, emissions
management and life-cycle assessment into a national effort, aimed to address
key aspects of biochar generation and application in Australian agriculture.[30]
Key activities under the project will include:
n a life cycle
assessment of biochar from feedstock source to production to sink, including
costs, risks, benefits and implications for farmers
n categorisation of
biochars according to their properties and suggested usage
n economic assessment
of biochar for both net greenhouse gas emissions and potential profitability to
land owners
n analysis of risk
factors in terms of rates of applications as well as the potential production
of toxic by-products during pyrolysis.[31]
Sources of biomass
4.31
Biomass is material derived from recently living organisms, which
includes plants, animals and their by-products. Biomass is the raw material, or
feedstock, that is processed to create bioenergy, biochar and other bio
products.
4.32
One source of biomass for energy producers and one that could
potentially provide supplementary farm income is mallee eucalypts. Oil mallees
are already used in integrated cropping and grazing systems, and to assist in
salinity control in some areas.[32] The submission to the Committee
from Future Farm Industries CRC (FFI CRC) points to current research and future
developments for the use of oil mallee as biomass:
… FFI CRC is developing short rotation woody crops (starting
with oil mallees) that will diversify farm income into bioenergy and
bio-sequestration enterprises, and add to the resilience of mixed
crop-livestock farming and wheatbelt communities.[33]
Specialist cropping, livestock or mixed farmers will have an
additional, new enterprise based on woody crops located in harmony with the
still dominant crop or grazing enterprises. The current constraint to a viable
oil mallee industry - a cost efficient biomass harvester, is now being tackled
by FFI CRC. With its commercialisation in 2010-11, farmers will be able to
choose between harvesting biomass for energy related products and
bio-sequestration of carbon, according to price and farm priorities.[34]
4.33
In evidence to the Committee Mr Hansard, of the National Association of
Forest Industries, suggested the forestry industry as a reliable source of
biomass:
I would like the committee to note a complementary activity
to the use of wood biomass for energy—that is, the use of wood biomass for the
production of biochar. The forest industries welcome the recognition by both
sides of parliament about the potential benefits of biochar in storing carbon
and improving the productivity of our agricultural soils... The forest industry
is the largest source of biomass for the potential production of biochar. The
win-win in this is that, while producing biochar, you can also generate heat
for energy generation. But, as previously mentioned, we need the correct market
signals.[35]
4.34
The National Association of Forest Industries submission to the Committee
made a more detailed case for the use of forest industry by-products for
biomass:
Wood waste for renewable energy - There is enough wood waste
available from existing forest industry activities in Australia to produce 3
million megawatt hours of electricity per annum. The net benefit of using this
wood waste would be a permanent reduction in Australia's greenhouse gas
emissions of up to 3 million tonnes of CO2e per year. Renewable
energy from wood waste reduces CO2e emissions by 95-99% for each MWh
of electricity generated when compared to coal-fired electricity generation.[36]
Potential negative impacts associated with bioenergy
4.35
A number of submissions brought to the attention of the Committee some of
the potentially negative impacts of collection and transportation of biomass
required to produce bioenergy. Evidence was also received by the Committee expressing
concern about the potential pressures on food production in favour of fuel
production.
4.36
The CSIRO submission to the Committee notes that one of the challenging
issues with the use of biomass to create biochar or bioenergy is the sourcing
of material, and costs of collection and transportation of the biomass to the
processing plant:
Climate change will present a new and developing opportunity
for biofuels in Australia. The use of biofuels is one mitigation strategy that
can reduce greenhouse gases. However, the production of biofuels may be affected
by the impacts of climate change and careful thought needs to go into the
location of feedstocks for biofuel production and its relationship with land
used for food production. As biofuels is an emerging industry and is not yet
locked in to particular locations, it is in a position to take advantage of
early planning and to address climate change adaptation issues associated with
its supply chain. For example, there is likely to be less reliance on moving
production facilities if crop locations could be anticipated in advance…
Production of biofuels is dependent on the quantity and
geographic location of the biomass. As such, the production of biofuels will be
affected by the adaptation undertaken by the suppliers of these crops to maintain
crop quality and quantity.[37]
4.37
One Queensland firm has overcome collection and transportation issues of
biomass by offering on-site biomass charcoal production with a fully mobile
pyrolysis plant. Claims are also made that some of the off-gases from the
processor are used to run the mobile plant.[38]
4.38
A number of submissions also concern expressed about the potential to
divert grain or sugar away from human food and animal feed value chains for the
production of energy. This concern was shared by Australian Pork Limited. In
its submission to the Committee, one of the key recommendations for government
to maintain a sustainable pork industry was the removal of government
assistance for biofuels:
Mandating ethanol content in fuel and encouraging grain-based
biofuel production diverts grain from human food production, creates a food
versus fuel relationship and eventually increases food prices for consumers.
Incentives must be redirected into second-generation biofuels that are
economically viable.[39]
[F]rom an intensive livestock industry perspective,
additional demand for grain distorts local markets and artificially inflates
feed grain prices. Coupled with this is the increasing demand for food and
international policy support for biofuels, causing world grain prices to trend
upward. [There] is a significant threat for the viability of highly grain
dependant intensive livestock industries such as the Australian pork industry.[40]
4.39
The submission to the Committee from the Victorian Government also
expressed concern about the impacts of grain production diverted away from food
to fuel:
Other policies may affect Victorian farming businesses through
impacts on market prices and market access. For example, the decision of the US
Government to promote biofuels is an example of a policy risk for Australian
farm businesses originating in another country. The policy diverted grain
production away from food to fuel leading to upward pressure on grain prices.
This benefited Australian wheat growers, but adversely affected dairy farm
businesses, feed lotters and piggeries that purchase grains to finish cattle
for market.[41]
4.40
In its submission to the Committee the Australian Academy of Science pointed
to a global trend of increasing pressure on food agriculture to supply biomass:
A further pressure is now emerging with the world's attention
turning to renewable sources of energy. Most countries are converting, to a
greater or lesser extent, to ethanol and biodiesel to deliver part of their
energy needs. It is a sobering thought that Australia does not have enough arable
land to satisfy its current fuel needs as biofuels, even if no food crops were
grown. In the US for example, already there are concerns about impact on food
supply as the total corn crop in some States has been redirected to the
biofuels industry which is likely to consume up to 80% of the total US corn
crop in the next few years. It is now clear that whilst arable land resources
are static there will be competition for that land between the food industry
and the biofuels industry. The demand for agricultural produce is likely to
intensify.[42]
Research and development
4.41
Several submissions to the Committee called for increased government
support for alternative energy options as well as research and development
opportunities.
4.42
While significant research has already been undertaken by government
bodies, industry, and individuals to improve and develop energy on farms, there
is still much work to be done.
4.43
In evidence to the Committee, Mr Hansard, of the National Association of
Forest Industries, stressed the emerging nature of bioenergy in Australia:
…these opportunities for our industry and for agriculture are
just evolving now. We do not have all the answers as to the commercial side of
this, and this is where we really need help from the government in order to put
some good research into this sort of thing and look at the economic viability
of these sorts of systems. We know that it can be done, because it is done
overseas. In relation to the recognition and use of wood biomass, we are behind
a lot of the other Western countries. We know it can be done; what we need is
some good research into how it fits in to Australia and how we can actually do
it so that it is commercially viable.[43]
4.44
Ms Narelle Martin, in her submission to the Committee, raised the
question of how prepared Australian farming may be for very high oil prices. She
advocated accelerating the pace of research to assist farmers exploit the
potential opportunities in bioenergy:
Not only is equipment used by farmers run on diesel fuel, but
many fertilisers and pesticides are derived from oil based products. Climate
change and the increasing costs of fuel pose a major challenge for farming and
rural communities. A useful question to ask is what happens with farming when
oil hits a price of US$300 a barrel? How will price rises in these farm inputs,
an outcome of a confluence of costs that will arise from climate change and
issues associated with Peak Oil, be managed and mitigated?
There is an urgent need for research to be undertaken and
accelerated on alternative fuel stocks, and adapting current technologies so
that they can more easily use other fuel stocks. At the moment, we transform
petroleum based energy into food and fibre, a situation that is unsustainable.
There are also significant opportunities for farmers and
farming communities to take advantage of climate change. Traditionally, farmers
and farm lobby groups identify themselves as providing food and fibre for the
world. There should be two more planks for the farming mantra: as generators of
power, and harvesters of carbon. In both cases, there are significant potential
opportunities for farmers to be able to increase the range of income streams…
There is considerable potential for rural research and
development to assist farmers to identify and adapt to such innovation.
Identifying policy roadblocks and regulations that act as constraints on the
development of innovative power generation is one area. Assisting in developing
models so that ideas and applications can be trialled on a small pilot scale
would be of considerable assistance.[44]
4.45
Australian Pork Limited (APL) funds research into on-site bioenergy and greenhouse
gas mitigation. Pork production is heavily energy and fuel dependant and APL
funds a number of projects for alternative energy production with pig waste and
other initiatives that aim to save energy. The covered anaerobic pond and the
anaerobic digester are two waste management systems that can be successfully
used to collect methane for generating electricity. The submission to the Committee
from Australian Pork Ltd., identified some of the research needs for bioenergy
in the Australian pork industry:
… key information gaps remain around bioenergy including
performance of lagoons as well as production systems in differing climates and
the lack of experience among technology providers to build, commission and operate
biogas capture systems.
Significant progress has been made towards commercialisation
of on-farm methane capture and use via the Federal Government's Methane to
Markets in Agriculture Program, to which APL is the largest financial
co-contributor. However, further R & D work is required to make these
technologies truly commercial, for example: a wider demonstration of the
technology, particularly of the proposed sludge management techniques,
developing lower cost digesters for smaller sites, and technologies better able
to digest deep-litter bedding. Additionally, a critical mass needs to be
developed to reduce construction and operating costs. Equally important is the
extension work to make information available to pork producers, their
consultants and technology providers.[45]
4.46
Some of the current APL funded projects related to alternative fuels include:
n Using piggery waste
to generate electricity
n Anaerobic digestion
of livestock wastes
n Assessing the
performance of lagoons and covered anaerobic lagoon digesters
n Since 2007 APL and
pork industry partners have been the leading financial co-contributors to DAFF's
Methane to Market (M2M) in Agriculture program, which has led to the
following projects being jointly funded:
§
Retro-fitting floating covers with biogas flaring at a 700 sow
piggeries
§
Use of biogas for shed heating.[46]
Committee conclusions
4.47
The Committee is of the view that promoting energy efficiency on farm
and promoting the use of alternative fuel sources are an integral part of
adaptation to climate variability and climate change. This is a complex issue, involving
concerns about commercial viability and competing demands for resources. Finding
practical alternatives to current energy sources, and practical alternative
uses for agricultural waste have clear benefits.
4.48
The Committee is encouraged by the range of practices already available for
farmers that have the multiple benefits of reducing energy usage and increasing
enterprise resilience. It is also encouraging to note that the potential
impacts of increased energy costs on agricultural industries are being
acknowledged. The Committee supports existing research into energy efficiency
for agricultural industries.
4.49
The Committee believes that increased incentives for use of alternative
energy on farms are needed. The potential benefits, both economic and
environmental, mean that some priority should be given to such research as part
of the overall research strategy for agriculture and climate change. The Committee
concludes that there needs to be continued investment in research into
bioenergy and its applications for agriculture and its associated industries. It
is the Committee’s view that the funding and support for research and
development into alternative energy sources be continued and increased.
Recommendation 6 |
|
4.50
|
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, as
part of its overall response to issues affecting agriculture and climate
change, increase its investment and support for research into energy
efficiency in the agriculture sector and the development of alternative
energy and alternative fuels on-farm, particularly in regard to:
n Biofuels;
n Biomass
from agricultural waste; and
n Biochar.
|