RIGHT across Australia’s extensive northern pastoral zone, a revolution is taking place in stock water management.

Solar panels and pumping units have been installed in vast numbers over the past couple of years, replacing diesel or petrol motors teamed with Mono-type pumps, and in some locations, even last-century windmills.

One of thousands of solar water pumping installations in northern Australia over the past couple of years

So what’s driven the momentum in interest in solar pumping installations? Solar water pumping solutions have in fact been around for decades, so why now?

We sought responses from three of Australia’s largest cattle producers to these and other questions – Kidman/Hancock Pastoral, McDonald Holdings (MDH) and the Australian Agricultural Co.

Motivations varied somewhat between the three, but typically there was more than one contributing factor to the colossal investment being made in solar pumping installations across the northern half of the continent.

Consistently, all three said their reasons for moving into solar were not primarily about reducing carbon footprint or making carbon reduction claims, but more about productivity, reliability and reduced operating costs.

Australian Agricultural Co

The Australian Agricultural Co is now close to completing a major investment in its solar stockwater pumping project.

Managing director David Harris told Beef Central the project started three years ago, with all but a handful of bores on some holdings further south (where mains electricity is accessible, for example) now solar-equipped.

The number of recent installations by AA Co and other operators mentioned in this report is colossal. In AA Co’s case, more than 600 bores have been converted to solar, across the company’s widely dispersed Northern Territory and Queensland properties.

There are no remaining windmill-driven water pumping sites still in use on AA Co properties, meaning all of the conversions and upgrades (some including new tanks replacing turkey’s nests and other infrastructure, as well as the solar panels and submersible pumps) were from diesel-driven pumpjacks. All the new sites are telemetry equipped.

While there is considerable variance from site to site, many of the bores in AA Co’s water development project service from 500 to 1000 head of cattle.

Some sites have involved further development work, such as running poly pipe out to new, additional watering points. In a few cases, there has been consolidation of bore sites, with an old low-volume bore being closed-down and replaced with a nearby better-producing bore and poly pipe.

From the cost of diesel perspective, we think the payback will be very attractive

Mr Harris said there were a number of reasons for the investment, ranging from cost to operate to labour and sustainability.

“Certainly from the cost of diesel perspective, we think the payback will be very attractive,” he said. “It will pay back quite significantly within two or three years.”

“That’s a big part of it, but the sustainability side with using renewable energy rather than fossil fuels is also important.”

One assessment has suggested a saving of about six tonnes of CO2 emissions per year, per diesel pumping site. Multiply that across 600 bores in AA Co’s recent solar conversion program, and it represents an annual CO2 reduction of around 3600 tonnes.

At this point the company was not prepared to say there is a significant labour saving to be had from the conversions to solar.

“We will still have to do bore runs and check other things as normal,” Mr Harris said. “There may be some reduced maintenance, but being only a couple of years into the program, it is too early to tell.”

“Like all such investments, it’s about who you partner with and the quality of the equipment you put down the bore. We haven’t taken a shortcut on that, but improvements in performance and price in solar technology is definitely a part of the reason we have undertaken the work.”

Major service providers to the AA Co project have been Brisbane-based water project planners and managers ReAqua, and Lorentz solar pumps. While many of the installations were done by the contractors themselves, AA Co staff in some cases have fitted and commissioned the new equipment, which is now a relatively simple process.

“For the large number of solar pumping sites where storage is being converted from turkey’s nests to tanks, there is also obviously a considerable water saving involved, through less evaporation and seepage, plus a water quality advantage,” Mr Harris said.

“If we want more productivity from our cattle, they need a couple of things – good feed, and good water, and bore water stored in a tank is inevitably better than reserves held in an earth turkey’s nest.”

While AA Co’s solar water project is still young, Mr Harris told Beef Central the company was expecting a lifespan of 15-20 years out of the recent panel installations, provided they were well-protected from animals.

Back in 2013, AA Co undertook a pilot project worth $990,000 backed by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and NAB to install solar panels on 15 bore sites across its Queensland properties. At the time the company said the project was part of plans to “implement sustainable environmental management that protects and enhances the resources that support our production systems and help us secure our long-term future.”

McDonald Holdings (MDH)

Another large northern cattle operator to embrace solar-driven water installations is McDonald Holdings (MDH).

The McDonald family has installed about 120 systems across their properties in the Gulf region, Northwest and Central Queensland. MDH’s land aggregation is spread across 14 properties in Queensland, covering an area of 3.36 million hectares.

Holdings now equipped with solar arrays on bores include Brightlands, Devoncourt, Stradbroke, Chatsworth, Mt Windsor and Verdun Valley. On Rutland Plains, Dunbar and Iffley, MDH uses solar systems to pump water from dams into tanks and troughs, or where there is not quite enough pressure on flowing bores to move water around via poly.

The first few MDH installations happened as far back as 2010, with a deliberate slow start to see how the installations and technology worked. From 2017 investment began to grow and is still going, although now nearing the end. Across the four MDH properties south of Cloncurry there are still about 20 installations to go, with a handful left to do at Iffley station and Rutland Plains.

Most applications are replacing windmills, with the odd diesel pump. All diesel pumps for stock water are now gone in the MDH operations.

“The change in the technology has been significant. For example in the early days an electrician had to install them, and now it is done by station employees, as is the maintenance,” MDH’s Alistair McDonald said.

MDH’s primary reasons for embracing solar are around operational issues, ease of installation, management and servicing.

The industry wide problem of lack of experienced/skilled labour for the maintenance and servicing of mills and diesels engines/monos was a big consideration, as was the workplace health & safety considerations around mills, especially.

“Time and cost saving is significant,” Mr McDonald said.

“An average windmill would need servicing/pulling twice a year, representing three men for at least half a day, at an estimated cost in parts of up to $2000 per mill per year,” he said. “Bore casing was last costed at $500 per length, and let’s say you replace two lengths per mill each time you had to pull it, plus buckets etc. Multiply that across the 120 sites we have already done, we have saved up to $240,000 per annum. This is without considering labour, diesel cost and other factors.”

Mr McDonald said reduction in carbon footprint was also a future benefit to be captured in baselines, then progressive assessments.

“But MDH has not traditionally used many diesel pumps, so that is not as significant in terms of the carbon footprint in shifting from mills to solar. However it is an element of any on-property calculations,” he said.

The investment of $10,000 is paid back within the fourth year of installation

While cost can vary widely depending on the applications and the number of stock being serviced, MDH’s typical cost on a site servicing say, 300 head, has been around $10,000 per set up, with a typical pumping capacity of 45L/minute (2700L/hour), through an average eight-hours of pumping each day.

Return on investment

Asked for a comment on return in investment, Mr McDonald said in simple terms, he estimated the cost to service a windmill at about $4200 per year, taking into account three men for two days, plus parts.

“The labour and cost to service the solar setups is minimal, lets say one-third of the cost of a mill. The investment of $10,000 is paid back within the fourth year of installation, not taking into account inflation and major breakdowns for windmills that would reduce this payback period.

“This is net saving of more than $330,000 annually for the existing 120 solar replacements, moving up to $400,000 per year once the rollout is complete.”

Asked if there had been problems with low pumping volume during periods of cloudy weather, Mr McDonald said there had been few problems at all.

“If there has been, it has been due to a trough or tank letting-go = not the solar systems themselves – and we have supplemented to catch up. By and large, rainy and overcast days take the pressure off the waters,” he said.

Hancock Ag/S. Kidman & Co

Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Agriculture and S. Kidman & Co cattle businesses have been early adopters of solar water pumping installations, along with other innovations like shade provision in breeder paddocks.

Hancock Ag/Kidman chief executive Adam Giles said recent solar installations across company properties would be well over 100 in number, mostly replacing diesel pumpjacks, but in a few cases, old windmill-driven systems. New bores had also been sunk in the past year or two, as part of a broader water project.

The work had taken place on holdings all the way from Kimberley properties like Liveringa and Fossil Downs, to holdings across the Northern Territory, Queensland, and even into NSW. The overall project was now 90 percent complete, but another ten or twelve installations were taking place at the back end of this year on places like Helen Springs on the Barkly in the NT.

First and foremost for our business, its been about an animal welfare response

“In the early stages, some of it was about safety,” Mr Giles said. “The workplace safety factor with windmills meant they were some of the first to go.”

“Our investments into animal welfare and staff safety have been led by our executive chair, Mrs Gina Rinehart, who passionately advocates for improvements to provide the best living conditions for our animals – because as we all know, healthy cattle are happy cattle.”

“In the investments we make we always try to lead a technologically based solution that seeks to provide measurable improvements in safety and animal welfare metrics but also economically.”

In Hancock/Kidman’s case, the stock water development investments were not just about replacing diesel-driven pumps and mills with solar, but in many cases also replacing turkey’s nests adjacent to the pumping sites with stock water tanks, with capacity from 50-100,000 litres and upwards.

Adam Giles

This reduced the amount of bore water extraction, through big savings on seepage and evaporation, Mr Giles said.

Cooler, cleaner water

A cleaner water source through tank storage also promoted animal production.

“First and foremost for our business, its been about an animal welfare response,” he said.

“It’s well established that cattle will perform better, given a reliable source of good quality water. And bringing water temperature down by tank storage has an additional effect.”

For similar reasons, Hancock/Kidman had also spent a lot of money recently on providing shade over stock water troughs to moderate drinking water temperature, and is trialling adding pumps circulating air through trough water to mitigate algae growth and to cool water.

Kidman/Hancock had not yet considered emissions impact from solar water installations, Mr Giles said.

“For us, it’s all about animal welfare, reliability and production advantages,” he said.

“We’ve linked Farmbot (remote water monitoring systems) to the new water installations as well, allowing us to monitor our water program. Quite a lot of our stock water sites now have remote monitoring systems attached.”

Kidman/Hancock had also installed some Direct Injection Technologies water medicators on some properties, and saw some potential in delivering not only nutrients, but potentially, water based methane inhibitors.

“Couple all those technologies into those watering points, and it’s pretty exciting,” Mr Giles said.

He acknowledged that there was some labour and time savings with solar installations, but said this was not his company’s highest priority.

“But having said that, not having to top-up diesel tanks is an advantage. The frequency of physical visits necessary to each individual watering site is certainly less, especially with the use of the Farmbots.”

“And maintenance is relatively quick and easy, when working on bore pumps. You don’t need a whole lot of specialised gear to go and pull a bore.

But we’ve needed to think strategically in placement, when investing in the Farmbot water monitoring units. It’s no good installing a monitoring system on one watering point in the middle of a large paddock, if you’re having to drive straight past it to check on other waters further out.”

Some of the larger Kidman installations are servicing up to 2000 cattle, including remote watering points serviced by poly.

One of the frequently-asked questions around solar water installations is around possible water shortages during overcast conditions when panels are not as effective.

“We have never had any problems with that, but some of it is to do with how each site is specced-out. Having adequate storage reserve is obviously important,” Mr Giles said.

“But if a user was getting behind, they could set up a little generator to run the submersible as a top-up, if it became necessary. I don’t think there is any risk of getting into trouble, if there were a few cloudy days, if the systems are set up properly.”

Asked whether the company felt it was getting a productivity advantage through the provision of better quality, cooler water, Mr Giles said it had not been analysed, and might be difficult to do so without a lot of ‘noise’ but he felt ‘it had to be.’

While most of the Hancock/Kidman solar installations were still relatively new, the company was hopeful of getting ‘every bit of 10-15 years’ out of the panels, he said.

“Corellas can be a problem. Putting wires behinds steel conduit is a solution we’re using.”

His final message to anybody considering investment in solar water projects?

“Make sure you do your homework on which equipment to use, before committing.”

“It’s often best not to cut corners and just take the cheapest option – there’s variation in performance and reliability in products in this space,” he said.