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.

The broad aim of the project was to assist the Australian cotton industry evaluate alternate energy sources that can be integrated into cotton farming systems to save energy, costs and reduce the carbon footprint of growing cotton.

The specific objectives were to:

- 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.

The purpose of this report is to introduce the basics of energy and renewable energy. The uses of

traditional energy and alternative energy in agriculture, and their impacts on agricultural production

and environment are evaluated. Specific applicability of alternate energy sources in cotton production

is explored. Future research and development in the alternate energy sources is also identified and

discussed.

The key findings from the work were:

- Price, availability and ease of use are the most important factors when choosing an alternative energy source; environmental concerns were important, but to a lesser degree

- 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 etc., so growers will need to evaluate them based on their own specific circumstances

- 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. Due to differences in calorific value and viscosity, biofuels have slightly lower combustion efficiency than diesel. These fuels would need to be around 2% cheaper than diesel for price parity.

- 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.

The fuels tested for performance and emissions were: diesel, cotton seed biodiesel, tallow biodiesel, low purity ethanol, algae biodiesel and LPG in combination with diesel and biodiesel. While the industry could be ‘self-sufficient’ by using cottonseed oil, it was the most expensive energy option due to low oil extraction rates.