Modeling identifies pathways for reduced emissions and costs in electrified irrigation, suggesting economic opportunities.
Irrigated agriculture enhances crop yields and climate resilience but also contributes to CO₂ emissions through energy use. Here, we apply energy system modeling to evaluate cost-emission trade-offs in electrified irrigation across the United States, integrating hourly energy production and historical water demand. We find that current practices are highly inefficient, leading to 23% (0.89 billion US dollar) higher costs and 39% (3.8 million metric tons of CO2) more CO2 emissions compared to the cost-optimal scenario, primarily due to reliance on diesel water pumps and limited solar photovoltaic adoption. Under cost-optimal conditions, 6.6 gigawatt of solar photovoltaic is deployed, and electric water pump installation capacity increase by 14% (11.3 106 m3h-1) relative to current levels. Emission reductions of 85% are achievable at marginal additional cost (+0.7%), whereas reaching net-zero roughly doubles system costs relative to business-as-usual. Renewable-powered electrified irrigation can thus deliver substantial, low-cost emission reductions but requires operational adaptation to solar-based systems. Irrigated agriculture is vital for food security but relies on energy- and carbon-intensive pumping. This study shows that switching to renewable-powered irrigation is not only environmentally compelling but also an economic opportunity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jspaete et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: