are run. Changes to pivot use would hence achieve optimum pump/motor efficiencies (NSW OEH 2017). Whilst the pump efficiency pilot was able to illustrate that
energy efficiency upgrades were beneficial and could reduce overall electricity costs
for agricultural producers, they were also difficult to implement due to various
regulatory, operational and cost constraints (mainly in water regulation). Further,
the pump efficiency pilot also showed that there is rarely a ‘one size fits all’ solution
but required tailored solutions that suited the individual irrigation businesses.
Despite the cost savings achieved through the pump efficiency pilot, it became
apparent that this initiative was not enough to mitigate rising electricity network
costs. Consequentially, the agricultural industry has commissioned further work to
assist food and fibre producers to address the electricity cost pressures and find more
sustainable long-term energy solutions for the industry.
7.8.2 Basin Plan Implementation in QLD and the Nexus
The Commonwealth Government is permitted to buy-back a maximum of 118 GL in
QLD. Under this maximum level or cap, the Australian Government also prioritised
water infrastructure programmes to assist in the delivery of the water recovery
targets. This was done through the ‘Healthy Headwater’ program in QLD, which
provided farm subsidies to upgrade irrigation infrastructure, with irrigators contributing at least 10% of the cost as well as at least 50% of the water savings
(by permanent transfer of water allocation) to the Australian Government for
environmental use. To date, more than 80 QLD projects are being progressed,
representing a water saving of over 46 GL and government funding of more than
AUD$110 million to irrigators. An opportunity for improving water use efficiency of
irrigation is to replace gravity-fed irrigation systems, such as furrow or border strip,
with more efficient pressurised systems (Jackson et al. 2010). The Healthy Headwater program was established to increase water efficiency of on-farm irrigation
through the substitution of gravity-fed systems to pressurised irrigation methods. It is
now recognised that many of the high-pressure, water-efficient irrigation equipment
uses much more electricity than the former, often flood-irrigation methods. However, the associated impact from these 80 projects on energy use (electricity) on farm
is not considered as it falls outside the scope of the program. Optimising one aspect
of the irrigation process, without due consideration of all other inputs and productivity factors, has resulted in unintended resource and environmental outcomes.
Utilising less water on-farm may also not equate to water savings across the Basin
(Perry et al. 2009; Molden et al. 2010).
Irrigation is the largest consumer of energy (electricity and diesel) on QLD’s
farms (QLD Farmers’ Federation 2017; Davis and Chamberlin 2016). The energy
required for pumping (water) depends on crop requirements (which rise during
periods of dry, hot weather), pump type, size and efficiency; and for groundwater,
on the total dynamic head (height that a fluid is to be pumped, taking into account
friction losses in the pipe) and distance to in-field application.
106
S. Schulte et al.
energy efficiency upgrades were beneficial and could reduce overall electricity costs
for agricultural producers, they were also difficult to implement due to various
regulatory, operational and cost constraints (mainly in water regulation). Further,
the pump efficiency pilot also showed that there is rarely a ‘one size fits all’ solution
but required tailored solutions that suited the individual irrigation businesses.
Despite the cost savings achieved through the pump efficiency pilot, it became
apparent that this initiative was not enough to mitigate rising electricity network
costs. Consequentially, the agricultural industry has commissioned further work to
assist food and fibre producers to address the electricity cost pressures and find more
sustainable long-term energy solutions for the industry.
7.8.2 Basin Plan Implementation in QLD and the Nexus
The Commonwealth Government is permitted to buy-back a maximum of 118 GL in
QLD. Under this maximum level or cap, the Australian Government also prioritised
water infrastructure programmes to assist in the delivery of the water recovery
targets. This was done through the ‘Healthy Headwater’ program in QLD, which
provided farm subsidies to upgrade irrigation infrastructure, with irrigators contributing at least 10% of the cost as well as at least 50% of the water savings
(by permanent transfer of water allocation) to the Australian Government for
environmental use. To date, more than 80 QLD projects are being progressed,
representing a water saving of over 46 GL and government funding of more than
AUD$110 million to irrigators. An opportunity for improving water use efficiency of
irrigation is to replace gravity-fed irrigation systems, such as furrow or border strip,
with more efficient pressurised systems (Jackson et al. 2010). The Healthy Headwater program was established to increase water efficiency of on-farm irrigation
through the substitution of gravity-fed systems to pressurised irrigation methods. It is
now recognised that many of the high-pressure, water-efficient irrigation equipment
uses much more electricity than the former, often flood-irrigation methods. However, the associated impact from these 80 projects on energy use (electricity) on farm
is not considered as it falls outside the scope of the program. Optimising one aspect
of the irrigation process, without due consideration of all other inputs and productivity factors, has resulted in unintended resource and environmental outcomes.
Utilising less water on-farm may also not equate to water savings across the Basin
(Perry et al. 2009; Molden et al. 2010).
Irrigation is the largest consumer of energy (electricity and diesel) on QLD’s
farms (QLD Farmers’ Federation 2017; Davis and Chamberlin 2016). The energy
required for pumping (water) depends on crop requirements (which rise during
periods of dry, hot weather), pump type, size and efficiency; and for groundwater,
on the total dynamic head (height that a fluid is to be pumped, taking into account
friction losses in the pipe) and distance to in-field application.
106
S. Schulte et al.