Methane emissions from farms contribute to global warming but can be used as fuel for heavy off-highway vehicles which it would be impractical to electrify.
What is the problem to be solved?
Farmers and growers are being challenged by consumers, supermarkets and Government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from primary production. There are challenges for all agricultural sectors who rely on large tractors to carry out a range of tasks. These vary widely from heavy field cultivation requiring maximum draught at low speed to higher speed field tasks such as mowing implements that take power directly from the tractor. These tasks are very seasonal and must be completed when weather and ground conditions allow. Weather windows can be quite short, and the business case for large, capable machinery is based on the ability to get seasonally critical tasks accomplished before the weather closes in. Missing key planting dates can be very damaging to farm income.
Modern tractors deliver all this capability along with the ability to carry out on-highway transport tasks and it is easy to appreciate that the “mission profiles” for each of these tasks is massively varied in terms of speed, power, carrying capacity, draught loading and duty cycle. In consequence, fuel demand fluctuates significantly, and machines need to refuel in different locations, sometimes in remote field situations.
Electrification is one option for smaller tractors, but for larger tractors, this is impractical because of the weight of the battery that would be needed (you quickly end up with no carrying capacity left on the tractor) and the kind of grid connection that would be needed to recharge a very large battery in a reasonable time.
Electrification is one option for smaller tractors, but for larger tractors, this is impractical because of the weight of the battery that would be needed (you quickly end up with no carrying capacity left on the tractor) and the kind of grid connection that would be needed to recharge a very large battery in a reasonable time.
On the other hand, immediate sources of methane are plentiful on farms. Methane can be produced by anaerobic digestion of waste or agricultural crops, and fugitive methane (which would otherwise be emitted to atmosphere by production processes) can be captured and transformed into useful fuel (both displacing hydrocarbon fuels and removing pollution at source). This can result in carbon negative production systems, which is particularly interesting for the dairy sector, where slurry lagoons can be covered, and fugitive methane harvested.
The technical challenge is packaging that fuel in a sufficiently energy dense format that can fit within the envelope of an existing tractor (the industry is heavily invested in existing implements and infrastructure designed around existing vehicle concepts, so a full re-design is not practical).
In general, a tractor’s diesel tank is a roto-moulded plastic container, whose irregular shape is defined by the space available under the cab and around the transmission system. Because diesel is very energy dense and liquid at room temperature, containing enough fuel for a day’s work doesn’t present a challenge in fundamental physics. Containing enough methane for a day’s work in a similar volume is more challenging and requires that methane to be in liquid form to achieve sufficient energy density. This means that the tank needs to be insulated, pressurised and refrigerated to -165C. This is feasible using technology originally developed for the space industry, and the costs involved will reduce rapidly with sufficient research and development investment in more terrestrial applications.
If the tank temperature rises, the only way to manage the tank pressure is for it to vent to atmosphere. Failsafe systems exist to ensure this happens safely without any need for connectivity, but clearly venting is very undesirable and clearly effective communication helps prevent environmental harm by allowing remote monitoring and control.
For a farm to invest in a tractor powered by Liquid Fugitive Methane (LFM), they need to be confident in the fuel supply. The liquid fugitive methane needs to be transported in Mobile Storage Tanks (MSTs) from the point of production to the tractor. There is a significant opportunity for communications technology to build that confidence. Today’s diesel tractors are already equipped with telemetry systems that allow farm managers to track their location, fuel levels and consumption data, and a fugitive methane virtual pipeline management system would augment that existing telemetry architecture to deliver effective fuel supply chain management.
If the virtual pipeline understands the demand from the tractor, it can respond long before fuel levels on the tractor become critical. Equally the operator in the tractor can have the reassurance of knowing when and where the next re-fuelling opportunity will be. All this enhances efficiency, avoids downtime and importantly grows the confidence in the system that is vital for wider adoption. This is a similar challenge to the “range anxiety” that we see in electric cars. A key tool for addressing this has been the effective mapping of charging capacity on a real time basis, and there will be parallels with the kind of information needed for an effective liquid fugitive methane virtual pipeline.
Cost has a big part to play in adoption too. The MSTs are capital items and clearly one way of delivering a more resilient virtual pipeline is to have an overabundance of MSTs in the system, but that comes at a cost. Effective and well-connected virtual pipelines can operate well with fewer MSTs delivering fuel efficiently on a just in time basis and also extend the benefits into other sectors on a commercial basis.
Without adoption, there will be no carbon saving. Effective virtual pipeline management is vital for developing trust in the technology, and this will rely on well-designed and well-connected user interfaces for both the tractor operator and the pipeline manager. All of this depends on effective mobile communication systems.
What is the solution to the problem?
In this use case, reliable service and the coverage of connectivity is much more important than outright speed and latency. Any disconnections in mobile communication are likely to result in a fall in pipeline operating efficiency, but does not compromise safety. Ultimately, down-time for the tractor has significant economic consequences. In farming it is not just the value of the operator’s time that is lost, it is the lost opportunity of achieving crop establishment, harvesting or some other time critical task before the weather closes in.
Whilst high reliability and ubiquitous coverage are preferred and should be maximised, there is not a need for resilience in the form of secondary / alternative routing for backhaul etc.
Latency, is also not an issue in this use case – slightly delayed data is not a significant issue.
However, the user interface for the tractor operator and the methane pipeline operator needs to be well designed and much of its attraction will be the real time nature of the information displayed.
Data would be transmitted via an augmented version of the existing vehicle 4G telemetry system. Key data includes:
For the tractor:
- geolocation
- fuel level
- fuel temperature
- estimated run time remaining
For the MST:
- geolocation
- fuel level
- fuel temperature
Distributed energy storage possibilities also exist.
Alongside the development of methane liquefaction and distribution, methane powered electrical generators are being developed that offer the opportunity for off-grid EV charging. Therefore, a virtual pipeline needs to manage the supply of methane not just potentially to multiple tractors, but also to methane powered generators, making priority judgements based on the criticality of an operation, the quantity of methane available and the virtual pipeline status (based on the location and fill status of MSTs). Once could see such a virtual pipeline factoring in electrical grid demand into a control algorithm.
Power requirements / energy consumption is not an issue for devices / network on-board the vehicle, although clearly a more efficient on-board network / edge / device / sensor would be preferred. Should local infrastructure (for example for the radio/cell of a private network) be required power and data backhaul to the site would need to be considered, obviously in remote areas of a farm, renewable energy sources and battery back-up may be more cost effective than connecting directly to the grid. Point to point, cellular or satellite data backhaul would be preferable. However, recognising land ownership, machinery and skills available to many farmers, a self-dig / hardwired option could still be viable.
In all of this, outright connectivity is a key issue, and it is easy to see how some remote fields on the farm may include some 4G black spots. In extreme cases, it may be sensible to consider the establishment of a private 4G/5G network to overcome this, or support via satellite backhaul solutions. Due to the wide area outdoor coverage required and constantly moving vehicles, it is not believed Wi-Fi would match cellular options. Whilst the data throughput is relatively low-bandwidth, a LPWAN or NB-IOT might be stretched to support the baseline requirements, plus, whilst not core to this use-case, periphery side-benefits that strengthen the use-case, would not be viable (see Benefits & Lessons Learnt).
Assuming there are black spots and there is a requirement for a private network, there are a number of potential network architectures that would be viable to support this use-case, however the first consideration is whether to opt for an ‘on-board’ complete network on wheels, backhauled, most likely via a satellite (some other blackspots may occur for the satellite) or opting for a terrestrial network that covers the blackspots the tractor is operating within, e.g. a radio site, that could then be backhauled in a variety of ways including public cellular, satellite, point to point or fibre.
The agricultural / food production sector overall should be viewed as ‘critical national infrastructure’, the security of the physical / network / application / data elements do not necessarily require ‘Advanced / Maximal Protection’, reasonable precautions should be taken and assessed on a case by case basis.
Commercial model (Business Case)
The big drivers of on-farm adoption of liquid fugitive methane (LFM) will be:
- Policy incentives (as part of the transition away from Area Payments to more environmentally sustainable technology).
- The farm business making a demonstrable environmental commitment (useful for gaining/maintaining supply contracts). The system will need to interface with existing carbon credit tools on the market to ensure this is auditable.
- Reduced fuel costs (diesel is a significant cost to farms and is subject to market volatility).
- Energy self-sufficiency (the ability to control one’s own cost of energy production). On average, a dairy farm with 50 cows is generating enough accessible fugitive methane to power one tractor.
- Potential to sell surplus methane to other farms or use it to generate electricity (stackable use case with grid demand planning and EV charging maps).
- Confidence in a virtual pipeline being able to supply fuel on a just in time basis with no unscheduled down-time.
Improved communications infrastructure has a big part to play in all of these, both in limiting venting (so directly reducing environmental harm) and ensuring efficient fuel delivery. Ultimately any lack of connectivity is likely to be a barrier to adoption. The availability of 4G and GPS systems on offer on most tractors is a positive starting point. The Business Case can be strengthened, through the consideration of other measurements that can be taken and that have benefits to other stakeholders. As an example, recording ‘transmission oil pressure/temperature’ can support a manufacturers understanding of vehicle performance; this data might also be used to support ‘pro-active maintenance’ of the vehicle.
Equally, other challenges in the agricultural sector and on-board tractors exist, addressing these adds further strength to the business case. By expanding the business case, to consider such stackable use-cases and wider benefits, the likelihood of adoption increases.
Benefits
The benefits of such a system are clear. Firstly, the significant reduction in CO2 emissions, with the prospect of carbon negativity for some dairy farms because methane is removed at source (methane is much worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas). Supplier relationships are strengthened, because brands are all concerned to improve their environmental credentials. Carbon reductions need to be auditable, and systems need to integrate with existing carbon credit tools (which will also require mobile connectivity).
Demand planning is a critical function of an effective virtual pipeline, and this will be dependent on good connectivity. Undetected spikes in workload could create unexpected downtime if a tractor runs out of fuel sooner than expected. Any tractor down time is likely to have a much larger cost that simply the operator’s time. All of these benefits depend on reliable telecoms.
From having a connected tractor, as per the requirements recommended in Section 2, for the purpose of this use case, other side-benefits / use-cases could arise including, but not limited to:
- Addressing Social / mental health / loneliness issues – These are very topical issues in the sector, having a space for push-to-talk (over data) solution would help support farmers and allow them to communicate when needed.
- Health and Safety – immediate emergency response, lone working with heavy machinery can be a dangerous environment, again a way to communicate an emergency situation would have great value. Beyond this with greater connectivity may also include undertaking dangerous tasks remotely (e.g. drone, robot, remote operated vehicle).
- Using the tractor as a connectivity beacon – With a small investment in CPE, the vehicle could be strategically parked to provide higher band-width connectivity to remote parts of the estate or to an important site e.g. lambing shed at a particular time.
- Remote Engineering/veterinary support – With such a variety of machinery or animal welfare issues, often an expert to ‘fix’ the issue could be hours away, by supporting a ‘See what I See’ device (ideally hands free) farmers could contact the expert, provide them with ‘eye’s on’ video and be guided through the task at hand if required. This reduces risk of downtime / reduces impact on livestock.
- Security – Farms often experience theft of high value equipment, should a farm not have fixed broadband connectivity, with investment in sensors / camera a connected vehicle could support a CCTV, alarm system.
Lessons Learnt
Do:
- Consider who the right connectivity partner is for the local communication solution.
- Undertake a connectivity coverage assessment for all parts of the farm.
- Refine demand forecasting to drive pipeline efficiency.
- Learn from previous challenges: understand previous unexpected demand events.
- Focus on system resilience in case of network issues.
Don’t:
- Think about the solution in isolation - consider who the beneficiaries are (and therefore who pays for the connectivity), and what other data could be collected at the same time.
- Forget the training requirements for support technicians to support this effectively in the field.
- Forget costs of network licensing/upgrades/repair.
If you’re ready to embark on a connectivity project, we can point you to the suppliers with expertise in your sector.