Electrification has been a driver of increased productivity and quality of life since the passage of the Rural Electrification Act in 1936. (12) Despite spatial and technological barriers, rural electrification occurred at a fast pace. The widespread adoption of initial electrification, going from nearly 90% of farms lacking electricity in 1930 to 93% of farms having electricity just a few decades later, (13) provides insights for the next technological revolution in agriculture—the electrification and automation of equipment and processes. There are many benefits to producers who implement electrification and automation, including the stabilization of input costs, increased farm resilience, and a decreased physical and mental workload. (3)
“Non-energy benefits are one of the most important categories of electrification benefits to producers. Utilities use the term “non-energy benefits” to describe ancillary costs and benefits to energy efficiency, but the term can also be used to describe ancillary benefits for producers pursuing electrification. While electrification offers its own non-energy benefits, these compound when coupled with the pursuit of automation. In farming, a major non-energy benefit of both electrification and automation is decreasing the physical and mental health strain on farmers and laborers. For example, maintenance of diesel engines and motors can result in downtime and can seriously impact both business productivity and physical health. While electric motors may require occasional maintenance, reliability is higher compared to diesel and the motor’s fuel comes from the grid, not from liquid fuels that must be transported and ultimately distributed by labor. While GPS on tractors have already reduced the real-time human inputs associated with tractor operation, fully electric and automated tractors would further reduce the reliance on labor. With farm labor pools shrinking, electrification and automation offer a solution for these issues by removing that need.” (3)
“Electrification offers an increased resilience over fossil fuel-based systems not only through increased reliability when compared directly but also through the ability to run on any generation source. For example, once fully transitioned to electrification, it does not matter what source the electricity comes from, be it a natural gas utility or cooperative-owned generation plants, or utility- or farmer-owned wind, solar, and battery storage. With this transition, future changes in energy markets can be more easily remediated and a continuous, reliable source of electricity can be found, as opposed to using finite energy sources such as fossil fuels.“(3) Electricity generated by a small nuclear reactor on the farm can provide all the energy needs of the farm and still have some left over to sell back to the electric grid.
“Electrification also allows for the stabilization of input prices. Rather than being subject to fluctuating fuel price markets that impact margins and profitability in the traditional fossil fuel-based input model of agriculture, electrification offers an opportunity to stabilize prices. Farmers can better know their input costs by cultivating a direct relationship with the local utility, or by self-generating electricity. Electrification also allows for future opportunities to increase efficiency, providing even more opportunity for savings on inputs.”(3)
“Once fully electrified, farms can potentially participate in the grid as a distributed energy resource if they self-generate their power. For example, an 8,000-head swine operation in North Carolina installed a waste lagoon and biodigester that powers a 180 kW generator.(14) The farm has entered into a power purchase agreement with its local power provider and sells excess generated power back into the grid.”(3)
Field Crops
“The technologies most applicable to field crops include irrigation pumps and heavy machinery. While many technologies are still in the research and development (R&D) phase, there are opportunities for field crop producers to electrify immediately and save costs over the long run.”(3)
“The electrification of irrigation pumps is a widespread phenomenon that has occurred over the past three decades; there is an opportunity to completely electrify this input and save producers costs while reducing environmental impacts. For example, switching from an irrigation pump powered by diesel (with 40% efficiency) to a pump powered by electricity (with 95% efficiency) can dramatically reduce both input costs (diesel-driven motors can cost up to twice as much to run like an electric motor) and environmental impacts (emission reduction of 75.7% using traditionally generated electricity).”(3)
“The electrification of heavy machinery and tractors is a revolutionary transformation that is in its early stages. Currently, there are no commercially available options for fully electric tractors, but prototypes do exist, and multiple major manufacturers are researching and developing the technology. Tractors are the single largest opportunity for electrification in agriculture, with over 28,000 being estimated to be needed to fully electrify the tractor fleet in the U.S.“(4)
Grain dryers remove moisture and create safe, long-term crop storage but can be a very energy-intensive step. Energy use per bushel varies based on moisture content and type/model of grain dryer. However, one example estimates that for a gas-fired dryer, 0.02 gallons of liquid petroleum gas (LPG) is needed per bushel per percentage point of moisture removed.(5) Assuming LPG costs $2.00/gallon, drying corn from 21% to 16% moisture results in a fuel input cost of $0.20 per bushel. This cost can be directly compared to kilowatt-hour costs for an electrical option. Although the electrification of grain drying is a developing market under research, few commercial options exist. A no-heat and low-temperature dryer can be used in grain drying that only uses electricity, but at this point, electricity is a higher cost per amount of energy than propane or natural gas, so these types of dryers are more expensive to run.(6) However, the economics of electricity change if there is onsite renewable generation, [such as nuclear], so this option may be economical for some producers.”(3)
Electric Tractors
“Electrification of tractors and combines can offer farmers savings on energy costs over traditional fuel sources, especially when coupled with onsite renewable energy generation. Rather than purchasing diesel fuel from suppliers and being dependent on market prices, electricity can either be self-generated or negotiated and purchased from a local utility or cooperative. Options for self-generation vary by location and may include wind, solar, geothermal, and biodigesters [and nuclear].”(3)
“A non-energy benefit of electric tractors is potential savings on labor due to reduced maintenance requirements as a result of higher reliability in electric motors compared to diesel. Additionally, the labor associated with refueling is saved when tractors are powered by electricity instead of fossil fuel.”(3)
“Another benefit of tractor electrification is future-proofing a field crop operation. The transition toward electrification is accelerating in all vehicle classes, and farm equipment is beginning that process. Transitioning away from fossil fuels provides more flexibility in an uncertain future with regards to the environment, regulation, and fuel availability. Electric tractors and combines could run on any generation source, whether it be traditional sources of utility electricity (e.g., coal, natural gas, nuclear) or renewables (e.g., wind, solar, biofuels).”(3)
“While the electrification of tractors offers a flexible and advantageous future for field crop farming, the major barrier for this progression is initial capital cost. Field crop farmers are increasingly leasing equipment rather than buying to keep up with current technology developments (e.g., GPS systems), so once fully electric tractors and combines are available, it is logical that leasing would be an entry point into the market and may ease the barrier of immediate obsolescence of current equipment if one lease is traded in for another. Another option for reducing or removing the capital cost barrier is for utilities/cooperatives or the government to work with manufacturers to incentivize the adoption of electric tractors.”(3)
“Another potential barrier to the adoption of electric tractors and combines is familiarity and tradition with incumbent equipment. Producers may feel that knowing how to deal with diesel engine issues outweighs the potential benefits and potential unknown issues with an electric motor. Initial reluctance to adopt is understandable, and as with any technological advancement, will need to be addressed through a strong coordinated educational approach, from organizations such as tractor manufacturers, NEMA, and Cooperative Extension.”(3)
“Infrastructure limitations represent a practical barrier to the adoption of electric tractors. Large electric motors require a large capacity to power tractors and ancillary equipment, and this capacity may not exist at the point which it would be needed. This assumes a plugged-in model of electric tractors with a selfmanaging cord system. The battery pack model of electric tractors would need to be charged and could need to be plugged in during off-peak times. The capacity of batteries would also need to increase so producers can use the tractor all day without recharging. If current battery-powered prototypes are commercialized, they may be a more realistic option for smaller or urban farming, where sizes of plots are not as limiting on battery range and recharging infrastructure. Producers will need to work closely with their local power provider to ensure the capacity exists within the existing infrastructure and to negotiate rates and be cognizant of time of use.”(3)
“Although there are prototype electric tractors by multiple manufacturers, widespread availability is not reality. The future adoption curve for electric tractors is unknown at this point. However, the transition from horses and mules to mechanical tractors in the past provides a good example.”(3)
“Initially, there was resistance to a modal change in farming operations from horses to tractors, but the eventual transition to tractors resulted in large productivity advances. The same pattern could occur with the electrification of tractors, but the widespread availability and accessibility of educational information may help advance the adoption curve of electric tractors at a faster rate than the transition from animal power to mechanical power.”(3)
Electric Irrigation Pumps
“The electrification of irrigation pumps may not be as innovative as it was three decades ago, but the opportunity exists to completely electrify this input. This would save farmers' costs while reducing environmental impacts. One USDA estimate states there are over 175,000 fossil fuel-powered irrigation pumps in the U.S. (7) While this represents a massive potential for electrification and a reduction in environmental impact, there is a financial opportunity on the individual farm level.”(3)
“For example, a 130-acre center-pivot irrigation field that pumps water from 150 feet at 50 PSI results in a potential savings of over $4,000 in energy costs.”(3)
“In addition to the savings based on energy costs, the electrification of irrigation pumps presents an opportunity to save on labor. The move away from fossil fuels removes the need to refuel as well as various other maintenance tasks and is a step toward automation. Electrified irrigation can take place outside of peak hours, potentially increasing energy savings if the farm is on a time-of-use contract with its energy provider.”(3)
“Differences in rural and urban agricultural practices may be seen with the adoption of electric irrigation pumps. Electricity is more accessible in an urban farming context and may be the only option given local zoning laws against noise and pollution. Urban farming may take place as a hydroponic or aquaculture operation, which would require reliability and consistency that can be offered by electricity-powered irrigation.”(3)
“Infrastructure is a barrier to the electrification of agricultural irrigation systems in both in a capacity sense and a physical sense. Regarding capacity, estimates that if all fossil fuel-powered irrigation pumps were electrified, around 7,600 GWh would be needed to provide power, assuming an annual runtime of 940 hours and an average motor size of 87 horsepower. (8) An overnight shift requiring this amount of additional electricity would not be feasible but could be managed if a coordinated effort is made.”(3)
“For physical infrastructure barriers, electrification of irrigation pumps traditionally would require threephase power to be installed, typically at great capital expense. One estimate puts the cost per mile for a three-phase line from $50,000 to $150,000. (9) A potential solution is using a variable frequency drive so that single-phase power can be used for heavy machinery, such as an irrigation pump.”(3)
“Initial capital cost is another potential barrier to the electrification of irrigation pumps. One way to address this barrier is to pursue grants or other programs that may be offering incentives for fossil-fuel-to-electric transitions. An example of an existing program is Delaware Electric Cooperative’s (DEC) variable frequency drive (VFD) incentive program for irrigation pumps. (10) DEC provides grants to producers of up to $15,000 for electric motors over 40 horsepower but also assists in extending power lines to reach the irrigation pumps. A national example of overcoming capital expense barriers is the previously described Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which provides energy audits, after which eligible farmers may apply for funding assistance.”(11)
ATC is planning to manufacture turbine engines for its equipment. The Turbine Power Unit (TPU) is a multi-fueled turbine engine connected to an electric generator. The TPU replaces the diesel engine and transmission in the tractor. The turbine engine is designed to last many times longer than a diesel powered system. The turbine can run longer and on many different fuels, from propane, petroleum and biofuels to ammonia. The generator powered by a turbine engine lasts a long time. It can be changed out in a few hours.
There are further items for farm electrification that are beyond the scope of this article because they represent opportunities for automation rather then electrification. Examples are drones, irrigation, grain dryers, smart greenhouses, electric space heating, maple sap evaporation, robotic dairy, robotic feeding, automated irrigation, robot weeding, smart greenhouses, refrigeration, and water heating.
In conclusion, there are many opportunities for the electrification of small farms and their machinery in the U.S, including tractors and nuclear reactors on the farm. Harnessing these opportunities will take coordination between farmers and government and some financial investment, but the payoff will be nothing less than resolving the small crisis in the U.S. ATC is planning to provide the necessary equipment.
(2) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040619022000021
(4) Clark, K., Farm Beneficial Electrification: Opportunities and Strategies for Rural Electric Cooperatives, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, 2018, https://www.cooperative.com/programs-services/bts/documents/techsurveillance/surveillancearticle-farm-beneficial-electrification-october-2018.pdf.
(5) Wilcke, W., Energy Costs for Corn Drying and Cooling, 2018, https://extension.umn.edu/corn-harvest/energy-costs-corn-dryingand-cooling.
(6) Dyck, J., Reducing Energy Use in Grain Dryers, 2017, http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/17-001.htm.
(7) Clark, K., Farm Beneficial Electrification: Opportunities and Strategies for Rural Electric Cooperatives, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, 2018, https://www.cooperative.com/programs-services/bts/documents/techsurveillance/surveillancearticle-farm-beneficial-electrification-october-2018.pdf.
(8) Clark, K., Farm Beneficial Electrification: Opportunities and Strategies for Rural Electric Cooperatives, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, 2018, https://www.cooperative.com/programs-services/bts/documents/techsurveillance/surveillancearticle-farm-beneficial-electrification-october-2018.pdf.
(9) Clamp, A., Farm Irrigation Systems, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, 2017, https://www.cooperative.com/programs-services/bts/Documents/TechSurveillance/tsbecasestudyirrigationsystemsdec2017.pdf.
(10) Clamp, Farm Irrigation Systems.
(11) Clark, Farm Beneficial Electrification.
(12) Kline, Ronald R., "Resisting Development, Reinventing Modernity: Rural Electrification in the United States before World War II." Environmental Values 11, no. 3, (2002): 327-344, http://environmentandsociety.org/node/5860.
(13) Reinventing Modernity: Rural Electrification in the United States before World War II." Environmental Values 11, no. 3, (2002): 327-344, http://environmentandsociety.org/node/5860
(14) Larson, A., Distributed Energy Award Goes to Unique Hog Farm Microgrid, 2019, https://www.powermag.com/distributed-energyaward-goes-to-unique-hog-farm-microgrid/?pagenum=2.